Skull Morphology, Bite Force, and Diet in Insectivorous Bats from Tropical Dry Forests in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Neotropical bats, studies on bite force have focused mainly on differences in trophic ecology, and little is known about whether factors other than body size generate interspecific differences in bite force amongst insectivorous bats and, consequently, in their diets. We tested if bite force is related to skull morphology and also to diet in an assemblage of Neotropical insectivorous bats from tropical dry forests in the inter-Andean central valley in Colombia. It is predicted that the preference of prey types among insectivorous species is based on bite force and cranial characteristics. We also evaluated whether skull morphology varies depending on the species and sex. Cranial measurements and correlations between morphological variation and bite force were examined for 10 insectivorous bat species. We calculated the size-independent mechanical advantage for the mandibular (jaw) lever system. In all species, bite force increased with length of the skull and the jaw more than other cranial measurements. Obligate insectivorous species were morphologically different from the omnivorous Noctilio albiventris, which feeds primarily on insects, but also consumes fish and fruits. Our results show that bite force and skull morphology are closely linked to diets in Neotropical insectivorous bats and, consequently, these traits are key to the interactions within the assemblage and with their prey.
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 | 0.001 | 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".