Untangling the ecological signal in the dental morphology in the bat superfamily Noctilionoidea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diet has been linked to the diversification of the bat superfamily Noctilionoidea, a group that underwent an impressive ecological adaptive radiation within Mammalia. For decades, studies have explored morphological adaptations and diversity of noctilionoid bats to reveal traits associated with their ecological diversity. Surprisingly, despite such interest and recent application of novel techniques, ecomorphological studies have failed to fully resolve the link between diet and a critical component of the feeding apparatus: dental morphology. Using multivariate dental topographic analysis and phylogenetic comparative methods, we examined the phylogenetic, biological and ecological signal in the dental morphology of noctilionoid bats. Analysing the lower first molars of 110 species, we explored relationships between diet and dental morphology, accounting for three different dimensions of diet (guild, composition and breadth). Phylogenetic and size-dependent structuring of the dental topography data shows it does not correlate only to diet, highlighting the need to account for multiple sources of variation. Frugivorous noctilionoids have sharper molars than other previously reported frugivorous mammals. Nectarivorous noctilionoids showed reduced lower molar crown height and steepness, whereas animalivorous species had larger molars. Dietary composition suggested that the intensity of exploitation of a resource is also linked to different dimensions of dental morphology. Increasing carnivory positively correlated with MA, explaining the highest proportion of its variation, and increasing frugivory explained the highest proportion of variation in all other variables. Dietary breadth showed generalist species have sharper, more topographically-complex molars, whereas specialist herbivores and specialist animalivores fell at opposite ends in the range of tooth steepness and crown height. Together, the results suggest that adaptations affecting different attributes of dental morphology likely facilitated the dietary diversity and specialisation found in Noctilionoidea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".