Free-ranging bats alter thermoregulatory behavior in response to reproductive stage, roost type, and weather
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Heterotherms vary their use of torpor and choice of refugia to deal with energetic stresses such as reproductive activity and extreme weather. We hypothesized that a temperate-region bat would vary its use of heterothermy in response to air temperature but use of torpor would also be influenced by reproductive stage and roost choice. To test this hypothesis, we collected data on skin temperatures of female Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) carrying temperature-sensitive radiotransmitters during the summers of 2013–2015. We also measured internal temperatures and external characteristics of roosts used by these bats. We analyzed the influence of daytime air temperature, roost canopy closure, roost type, and bat reproductive stage, on daily heterothermy index and torpor characteristics of 17 bats during 103 full roost days (data collected consistently from when a bat entered its roost in the morning to when it emerged at night). Our data showed that Indiana bat heterothermy was influenced by reproductive stage, roost choice, and weather. Although they used torpor, pregnant bats were the least heterothermic (daily heterothermy index = 3.3 ± 0.6°C SE), followed by juvenile bats (5.6 ± 0.5°C), lactating bats (5.7 ± 0.5°C), and one postlactating bat (13.2 ± 1.6°C). Air temperature also influenced heterothermy of pregnant bats less than bats of other reproductive stages. Thermoregulatory strategies varied on a continuum from use of normothermia in warm roosts to use of long and deep bouts of torpor in cool roosts. The thermoregulatory strategy used seemed to be determined by potential reproductive costs of torpor and energetic consequences of weather. Because Indiana bats used different degrees of heterothermy throughout the summer maternity season, managers should offer maternity colonies an array of refugia to facilitate varying behaviors in response to weather and energetic demands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".