Author response: Cyclic bouts of extreme bradycardia counteract the high metabolism of frugivorous bats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To survive, all animals have to balance how much energy they take in and how much they use. They must find enough food to fuel the chemical processes that keep them alive – known as their metabolism – and store leftover fuel to use when food is not available. Bats, for example, have a fast metabolism and powerful flight muscles, which require a lot of energy. Some bat species, such as the tent-making bats, survive on fruit juice, and their food sources are often far apart and difficult to find. These bats are likely to starve if they go without food for more than 24 hours, and therefore need to conserve energy while they are resting. To deal with potential food shortages, bats and other animals can enter a low-energy resting state called torpor. In this state, animals lower their body temperature and slow down their heart rate and metabolism so that they need less energy to stay alive. However, many animals that live in tropical regions, including tent-making bats, cannot enter a state of torpor, as it is too hot to sufficiently lower their body temperature. Until now, scientists did not fully understand how these bats control how much energy they use. Now, O’Mara et al. studied tent-making bats in the wild by attaching small heart rate transmitters to four wild bats, and measured their heartbeats over several days. Since each heartbeat delivers oxygen and fuel to the rest of the body, measuring the bats’ heart rate indicates how much energy they are using. The experiments revealed for the first time that tent-making bats periodically lower their heart rates while resting (to around 200 beats per minute). This reduces the amount of energy they use each day by up to 10%, and helps counteract heart rates that can reach 900 beats per minute when the bats are flying. Overall, these findings show that animals have evolved in various ways to control their use of energy. Future research should use similar technology to continue uncovering how wild animals have adapted to survive in different conditions. This knowledge will help us to understand how life has become so diverse in the tropics and the strategies that animals may use as climates change.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.192 | 0.060 |
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".