Bats relocate maternity colony after the natural loss of roost trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Understanding the ephemerality of trees used as roosts by wildlife, and the number of roost trees needed to sustain their populations, is important for forest management and wildlife conservation. Several studies indicate that roosts are limiting to bats, but few studies have monitored longevity of roost trees used by bats over several years. From 2004–2007 in Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park, Saskatchewan, Canada, several big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) from a maternity group roosted in cavities in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) trees approximately 7 km southeast away from their original known roosting area (RA1). Using a long‐term data set of the roost trees used by bats in this area from 2000–2007, we evaluated whether the movement of bats to the new roosting area (RA4) corresponded with annual and cumulative losses of roost trees. We also determined whether longevity of the roosts from the time we discovered bats first using them differed between the 2 roosting areas based on Kaplan‐Meier estimates. Bats began using RA4 in addition to RA1 in 2004, when the cumulative loss of roost trees in RA1 over 3 consecutive years reached 18%. Most bats exclusively roosted in RA4 in 2007, when the cumulative loss of roost trees over 6 consecutive years had reached 46% in RA1. Annual survival for roost trees, from when we first discovered bats using them, was generally lower in RA1 than in RA4. Our results suggest that the movement of bats to the new roosting area corresponded with high losses of roost trees in RA1. This provides additional evidence that to maintain high densities of suitable roost trees for bats in northern temperature forests over several decades, management plans need to recruit live and dead trees in multiple age classes and stages of decay that will be suitable for the formation of new cavities. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".