Foods of Bats (Family Vespertilionidae) at Five Locations in New Hampshire and Massachusetts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diet and feeding relations of six species of bats at five locations in New Hampshire and Massachusetts were studied to improve understanding of foraging niche differentiation. Fecal samples were collected from 100 Big Brown Bats (Eptesicus fuscus), 154 Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), 49 Northern Myotis (M. septentrionalis), 54 Eastern Small-footed Myotis (M. leibii), 9 Eastern Red Bats (Lasiurus borealis), and 1 Hoary Bat (L. cinereus) netted during non-hibernation periods from 2004 to 2008 at four locations in southern New Hampshire and one in north-central Massachusetts. Beetles (Order Coleoptera) were the major food of E. fuscus (mean percentage volume = 81.6%, 97% occurrence) followed by moths (Order Lepidoptera), with scarabaeid and carabid beetles the most abundant consumed families by volume and frequency. Moths were the most important item by volume and frequency preyed on by the remaining species (M. lucifugus, mean percentage volume 30.7%, 82% occurrence; M. septentrionalis, mean percentage volume 42.7%, 82% occurrence; M. leibii, mean percentage volume 49.4%, 81% occurrence; L. borealis, mean percentage volume 62.8%, 100% occurrence; L. cinereus, mean percentage volume 82%, 100% occurrence). Little Brown Myotis consumed the largest variety of prey (40); Northern Myotis consumed the highest volume of spiders (8.1%). Community similarity index values indicated diets of the three species of Myotis were more similar to each other (similarity = 0.71) than to those of non-Myotis. The diet of E. fuscus was more similar to that of the Myotis cluster (0.58) than to either species of Lasiurus. Results suggest that, despite faunal differences between the U.S. Northeast and other parts of North America, foraging relationships among guild members follows a similar pattern.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".