Parasitism of Bat Flies (Nycteribiidae and Streblidae) on Bats in Urban Environments: Lower Prevalence, Infracommunities, and Specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies involving parasitism between ectoparasitic flies and bats are scarce for urban environments, which makes it difficult to find association patterns in these altered environments. Herein, we describe the bat flies community, and estimate the prevalence, mean intensity of infestation, infracommunities, and specificity of bat fliesassociations in urban remnants of Cerrado. We collected 371 bat flies of 14 species and 944 bats of 17 species. The most abundant species of bats were Artibeus planirostris (n = 312), Artibeus lituratus (n = 197), Carollia perspicillata (n = 124) and Platyrrhinus lineatus (n = 110). Regarding bat flies, Megistopoda aranea (n = 148) and Trichobius joblingi (n = 118) were the most abundant. The prevalence of bat flies ranged from 0.3 to 43.5% and the mean infestation intensity from 1 to 12 (mean general of 2.04). We found 16 bat flies infracommunities on the most representative hosts (n > 30). Concerning specificity, 71% of bat flies were associated with a single host species (monoxenic). Our results indicate that bats were most parasitized by a single bat flies species, and prevalence and specificity between bat flies and bats were lower in these urban environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".