Bats and their vital ecosystem services: a global review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bats play crucial ecosystem services as seed dispersers, pollinators, controllers of insects, and nutrient recyclers. However, there has not been a thorough global review evaluating these roles in bats across all biogeographical regions of the world. We reviewed the literature published during the last two decades and identified 283 relevant studies: 78 dealt with the control of potential insect pests by bats, 80 related to the suppression of other arthropods, 60 on the dispersal of native or endemic seeds, 11 dealt with the dispersal of seeds of introduced plants, 29 on the pollination of native or endemic plants, 1 study on pollination of introduced plants, and 24 on the use of guano as fertilizer. Our literature search showed that queries combining the terms "seed dispersal," "insectivorous bats," "nectarivorous bats," "use of guano," and "ecosystem services" returned 577 studies, but half were experimental in nature. We found that the evaluation of ecosystem services by bats has been mostly conducted in the Neotropical and Palearctic regions. To detect differences across relevant studies, and to explain trends in the study of ecosystem services provided by bats, we performed generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) fitted with a Poisson distribution to analyze potential differences among sampling methods. We identified 409 bat species that provide ecosystem services, 752 insect species consumed by bats and 549 plant species either dispersed or pollinated by bats. Our review summarizes the importance of conserving bat populations and the ecological services they provide, which is especially important during the current pandemic.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".