MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291954908 · doi:10.1111/aec.13229

The impact of fire severity from the 2019 to 2020 mega‐fires on roosting ecology of a rainforest‐dependent bat (<i>Phoniscus papuensis</i>)

2022· article· en· W4291954908 on OpenAlex
Bradley Law, George Madani, Leroy Gonsalves, Traecey Brassil, Lachlan Hall, Adrian Sujaraj, Anna Lloyd, Christopher Turbill

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustral Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainforestEcologyTropical rainforestFire regimeGeographyHabitatBiologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 2019–2020 megafires in southeastern Australia extensively burnt forests including fire‐sensitive rainforests. Assessments of species' responses typically consider differences in occupancy or density between burnt and unburnt forest, but here we focus on how these fires influenced roost selection by a rainforest‐dependent bat. We radio‐tracked golden‐tipped bats Phoniscus papuensis in fire grounds to investigate whether roost location or type was influenced by fire severity one‐year post‐fire. Overall, we tracked 19 bats for a total of 117 roost‐days. Bats roosted (including maternity colonies) in the suspended nests of yellow‐throated scrub‐wrens and brown gerygone, typically in gully rainforest. No bats were captured, or roosts located, where fire severity was high. In the burnt portion of the northern study area, P. papuensis displayed a significant preference for roosting in unburnt rainforest compared to its availability along adjacent gullies. Patches of rainforest burnt by low–moderate severity fire were ranked as second preference. In the burnt portion of the southern study area, most roosts were in rainforest mapped as burnt by low–moderate fire severity, however, no selection was evident relative to availability of rainforest and mapped fire severity. Actual roost locations in the southern study area revealed that 62% were in small pockets of unburnt rainforest, with burnt areas nearby. We recorded early breeding and signs of a second litter in late summer, suggesting a post‐fire resource pulse in their prey (spiders). A higher than usual reproductive output may assist in recovery, along with the bat's mobility to aid finding remaining pockets of unburnt or low severity burnt rainforest with suitable bird nests for roosting. However, recolonization of rainforest burnt by high severity fire will first require recovery of structural complexity, microclimate and the recolonization of host bird‐built nests. We recommend ongoing monitoring to assess the recovery of this specialist bat.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it