Terrestrial Locomotion of Bats: Associations of Gait Characteristics with Body Size and Roosting Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some bat species exhibit morphologies and behaviours that are specialized for terrestrial locomotion. Many species’ terrestrial abilities have not been evaluated, despite the importance of locomotion in bats’ survival when grounded or when using terrestrial resources. I conducted treadmill-facilitated kinematics trials to quantify and compare the terrestrial gait patterns of eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii), little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), and tricolored bats (Perimyotis subflavus); four species with differing roosting preferences. Species’ gait patterns reflected their terrestrial resource use, with the two ground-roosting Myotis species exhibiting higher stride frequencies and velocities than species that prefer raised roosts, and similar gait patterns and normalized velocities as walking common vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus) and New Zealand short-tailed bats (Mystacina tuberculata). My comparative approach expands our understanding of variation in the terrestrial locomotive behaviours of bats and demonstrates the utility of standardized quantitative analyses for interspecies comparisons.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".