The cost of digestion in the fish-eating myotis (<i>Myotis vivesi</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flying vertebrates, such as bats, face special challenges with regards to the throughput and digestion of food. On the one hand, as potentially energy-limited organisms, bats must ingest and assimilate energy efficiently in order to satisfy high resting and active metabolic demands. On the other hand, the assimilation of nutrients must be accomplished using a digestive tract that is, compared with that of similarly sized non-flying vertebrates, significantly shorter. Despite these competing demands, and the relative breadth of dietary diversity among bats, little work has been done describing the cost of digestion, termed 'specific dynamic action' (SDA). Here, we provide the first systematic assessment of the SDA response in a bat, the fish-eating myotis (Myotis vivesi). Given the shorter digestive tract and the relatively higher resting and active metabolic rates of bats in general, and based on anecdotal published evidence, we hypothesized that the SDA response in fish-eating myotis would be dependent on meal size and both significantly more brief and intense than in small, non-flying mammals. In agreement with our hypothesis, we found that the peak metabolic rate during digestion, relative to rest, was significantly higher in these bats compared with any other mammals or vertebrates, except for some infrequently eating reptiles and amphibians. Additionally, we found that the magnitude and duration of the SDA response were related to meal size. However, we found that the duration of the SDA response, while generally similar to reported gut transit times in other small bats, was not substantially shorter than in similarly sized non-flying mammals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".