Status of the Western Small-footed Bat (Myotis ciliolabrum) in Alberta /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every five years, the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development reviews the general status of wildlife species in Alberta.These overviews, which have been conducted in 1991 ( The Status of Alberta Wildlife ), 1996 ( The Status of Alberta Wildlife ), 2000 ( The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000), and 2005 ( The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005) assign individual species "ranks" that reflect the perceived level of risk to populations that occur in the province.Such designations are determined from extensive consultations with professional and amateur biologists, and from a variety of readily available sources of population data.A key objective of these reviews is to identify species that may be considered for more detailed status determinations.The Alberta Wildlife Status Report Series is an extension of the general status exercise, and provides comprehensive current summaries of the biological status of selected wildlife species in Alberta.Priority is given to species that are At Risk or May Be At Risk in the province, that are of uncertain status ( Undetermined ), or that are considered to be at risk at a national level by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).Reports in this series are published and distributed by the Alberta Conservation Association and the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.They are intended to provide detailed and up-to-date information that will be useful to resource professionals for managing populations of species and their habitats in the province.The reports are also designed to provide current information that will assist Alberta's Endangered Species Conservation Committee in identifying species that may be formally designated as Endangered or Threatened under Alberta's Wildlife Act.To achieve these goals, the reports have been authored and/or reviewed by individuals with unique local expertise in the biology and management of each species.iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Western small-footed bats (Myotis ciliolabrum ) are widely distributed and locally common in western North America.They are at the northern limit of their distribution in Alberta, where they are confined to prairie river valleys where badlands or clay cutbanks provide suitable roosting habitat, and adjacent riparian woodlands provide foraging habitat.Their limited distribution has resulted in a conservation ranking of Sensitive in Alberta.Western small-footed bats are highly saxicolous (residing in rock crevices), having greater roost specificity than other residential prairie bat species, which are more often found in buildings.In Alberta, during the reproductive period, western small-footed bats roost in cavities in badland clay banks and rock crevices, selecting maternity roosts based on thermal properties.Winter acoustic records have demonstrated overwintering in Dinosaur Provincial Park, at the Atlas Coal Mine area near East Coulee, and in Dry Island Buffalo Jump Provincial Park.The bats presumably hibernate in deep crevices.Gene flow is diminished across long stretches of unsuitable habitat.Genetic analyses show that there is a regional Alberta population distinct from that further south in Montana.Distinct subpopulations, with restricted gene flow, occur within and between rivers in the province.Males and females both show philopatry to their natal area and males do not disperse further than females.During the summer, individuals cluster in family units.Loss of prairie riparian cottonwood stands, used by bats as foraging habitat, may negatively affect population numbers of this species in the province.This species' dependency on riparian trees needs further investigation.Habitat loss for this species could also occur by direct flooding caused by dams on the lower reaches of the rivers in southern Alberta.Reproductive rates of western small-footed bats are significantly lower than for big brown and little brown bats, which are two sympatric but more widespread species.Potential population isolation, limited area of distribution, and low reproductive rate make local subpopulations vulnerable to local extirpation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".