Foraging strategies, craniodental traits, and interaction in the bite force of Neotropical frugivorous bats (Phyllostomidae: Stenodermatinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bats in the family Phyllostomidae exhibit great diversity in skull size and morphology that reflects the degree of resource division and ecological overlap in the group. In particular, the subfamily Stenodermatinae has high morphological diversification associated with cranial and mandibular traits that are associated with the ability to consume the full range of available fruits (soft and hard). We analyzed craniodental traits and their relationship to the bite force in 343 specimens distributed in seven species of stenodermatine bats with two foraging strategies: nomadic and sedentary frugivory. We evaluated 19 traits related to feeding and bite force in live animals by correcting bite force with body size. We used a generalized linear model (GLM) and post hoc tests to determine possible relationships and differences between cranial traits, species, and sex. We also used Blomberg's K to measure the phylogenetic signal and phylogenetic generalized least‐squares (PGLS) to ensure the phylogenetic independence of the traits. We found that smaller nomadic species, A. anderseni and A. phaeotis , have a similar bite force to the large species A. planirostris and A. lituratus; furthermore, P. helleri registered a bite force similar to that of the sedentary bat, S. giannae. Our study determined that all the features of the mandible and most of the traits of the skull have a low phylogenetic signal. Through the PGLS, we found that the diet and several cranial features (mandibular toothrow length, dentary length, braincase breadth, mastoid breadth, greatest length of skull, condylo‐incisive length, and condylo‐canine length) determined bite force performance among Stenodermatiane. Our results reinforce that skull size is a determining factor in the bite force, but also emphasize the importance of its relationships with morphology, ecology, and phylogeny of the species, which gives us a better understanding of the evolutionary adaptions of this highly diverse Neotropical bat group.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".