Are migratory behaviours of bats socially transmitted?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To migrate, animals rely on endogenous, genetically inherited programmes, or socially transmitted information about routes and behaviours, or a combination of the two. In long-lived animals with extended parental care, as in bats, migration tends to be socially transmitted rather than endogenous. For a young bat to learn migration via social transmission, they would need to follow an experienced individual, most likely one roosting nearby. Therefore, we predicted that bats travelling together originate from the same place. It is also likely that young bats would follow their mothers or other kin, so we predicted that bats travelling together are more closely related to each other than bats not travelling together. To test our predictions, we used microsatellite genotypes and stable isotope values of δ (13)C, δ (15)N and δ (2)H to analyse the relatedness and geographical origins of migrating hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus/Aeorestes cinereus (Baird et al. 2015 J. Mammal. 96, 1255-1274 (doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyv135)); n = 133) and silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans; n = 87) killed at wind turbines over two consecutive autumn migrations. Contrary to our predictions, there was no evidence that related dyads of hoary bats or silver-haired bats were killed on the same night more frequently than expected by chance, or that the number of days between the fatalities of dyad members was influenced by relatedness or latitude of origin. Our data suggest that these bats do not socially transmit migration routes and behaviours among close kin.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".