MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916670244 · doi:10.1093/conphys/coz006

An experimental test of energy and electrolyte supplementation as a mitigation strategy for white-nose syndrome

2019· article· en· W2916670244 on OpenAlexafffund
Liam P. McGuire, Heather W. Mayberry, Quinn E. Fletcher, Craig K. R. Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Physiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUniversity of Winnipeg
KeywordsMyotis lucifugusBiologyWildlifeElectrolytePhysiologyAnimal scienceEcologyToxicologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fungi are increasingly recognised as harmful pathogens of wildlife. White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a fungal disease that has killed millions of hibernating bats in North America. High mortality has driven research to identify management strategies for the disease. Increased energy expenditure and fat depletion, as well as fluid loss, hypotonic dehydration and electrolyte depletion appear to be key aspects of WNS pathophysiology. Bats with WNS spend energy too quickly and also lose fluids containing water and electrolytes from lesions on exposed skin surfaces. During periodic arousals, bats often drink water but, in most of the WNS-affected area, food is not available during winter and, therefore, they cannot maintain energy balance or replace lost electrolytes. Therefore, providing a liquid caloric/electrolyte/nutrient supplement could be useful for treating WNS. We studied captive, hibernating little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) to test whether providing supplemental energy and electrolytes (a 1:1 dilution of unflavoured Pedialyte) to hibernating bats could reduce severity of WNS symptoms and increase survival. Infected bats in the Pedialyte-supplemented group generally avoided the Pedialyte and preferentially drank plain water. We did not observe any differences in survival, arousal frequency or blood chemistry, but bats in the Pedialyte-supplemented group had higher fungal load and more UV fluorescence than the control group that was only provided with water. Supplemental electrolytes would be an attractive management strategy because of their low cost and logistic feasibility but our results suggest this approach would be ineffective. However, it could be useful to conduct preference experiments with multiple dilutions and/or flavours of electrolyte solution. Although they did not prefer Pedialyte in our experiment, bats in the hand readily drink it and electrolyte supplementation remains an important tool for rehabilitation of captive bats recovering from WNS and other causes of dehydration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation PhysiologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207