Range Extent and Stand Selection for Roosting and Foraging in Forest-Dwelling Northern Long-Eared Bats and Little Brown Bats in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand bat biology and appreciate their dependence on and role within forested ecosystems, the biological resolution at which studies are directed must elucidate species and gender patterns. We studied species- and gender-specific aspects of summer range extent and stand selection in northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) and little brown bats (M. lucifugus) in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick, Canada, using trapping, radiotelemetry, and ultrasonic monitoring. Our results suggested that this 2-species system is comprised of 4 ecologically distinct groups with respect to site selection and range extent for roosting and foraging. All bats exhibited an affinity to specific roosting areas. Myotis septentrionalis roosted and foraged in the forest interior. The roosting and foraging areas for females were 6.1 times and 3.4 times larger, respectively, than for males. Both genders foraged in site types in proportion to their availability. Myotis lucifugus females roosted in buildings outside the core study area, and those captured in the forested landscape were transients. Compared to male and female M. septentrionalis, male M. lucifugus had intermediate-sized roosting areas but the largest foraging areas. Water sites were selected during foraging more than expected. Bat foraging activity, measured acoustically at 8 site types, was greatest at lakes and least above the forest canopy. Male M. lucifugus activity levels were positively associated with temperature and the amount of mature coniferous forest and water within 1 km of the sampling site, and they were negatively associated with the amount of mature deciduous forest within 1 km of the site. Our results suggested that understanding gender effects is crucial for accurate characterization of forest bat habitats. Studies of bats that combine data for genders, species, or guilds may produce spurious results and may be of minimal value for, or actually hinder, bat conservation and management programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".