White-nose syndrome in bats: U.S. Geological Survey updates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a devastating disease that has killed millions of hibernating bats since it first appeared in New York in 2007 and has spread at an alarming rate from the northeastern to the central United States and Canada. The disease is named for the white fungus Geomyces destructans that infects the skin of the muzzle, ears, and wings of hibernating bats. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), the USGS Fort Collins Science Center, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other partners continue to play a primary role in WNS research. Studies conducted at the NWHC led to the discovery (Blehert and others, 2009), characterization, and naming (Gargas and others, 2009) of the cold-loving fungus G. destructans and to the development of standardized criteria for diagnosing the disease (Meteyer and others, 2009). Additionally, scientists at the NWHC have pioneered laboratory techniques for studying the effects of the fungus on hibernating bats (Lorch and others, 2011). To determine if bats are affected by white-nose syndrome, scientists look for a characteristic microscopic pattern of skin erosion caused by G. destructans (Meteyer and others, 2009). Field signs of WNS can include visible white fungal growth on the bat's muzzle, wings, or both, but these signs alone are not a reliable disease indicator - laboratory examination and testing are required for disease confirmation. Infected bats also arouse from hibernation more frequently than uninfected bats (Warnecke and others, 2012) and often display abnormal behaviors in their hibernation sites, such as congregating at or near cave openings and daytime flights during winter. These abnormal behaviors may contribute to the bat's accelerated consumption of stored fat reserves, causing emaciation, a characteristic documented in some of the bats that die with WNS. During hibernation, bats likely have lowered immunity (Bouma and others, 2010), which may facilitate the ability of G. destructans to colonize and damage large areas of wing membrane (fig. 2). A current hypothesis suggests that erosion or ulceration of wing membrane caused by the fungus has the potential to alter the physiology of hibernating bats, resulting in fatal disruption of hydration, electrolyte balance, circulation, and thermoregulation (Cryan and others, 2010). Current estimates of bat population declines in the northeastern United States since the emergence of WNS are over 80 percent (Turner and others, 2011). This sudden and widespread mortality associated with WNS is unprecedented in hibernating bats, among which large-scale disease outbreaks have not been previously documented. It is unlikely that species of bats affected by WNS will recover quickly because most are long-lived and have only a single pup per year. Consequently, repopulation after widespread mortality of breeding adults will be a slow process. Worldwide, bats play essential roles as pollinators, seed dispersers, and as primary consumers of insects. The true ecological consequences of the recent large-scale reductions in populations of hibernating bats are not yet known. However, farmers might feel the impact. A recent economic analysis indicated that insect control services (ecosystem services) provided by bats to U.S. agriculture is valued between 4 to 50 billion dollars nationwide per year (Boyles and others, 2011). The number of North American bats estimated to have died from WNS thus far had the capacity to consume up to 8,000 tons of insects per year (Boyles and others, 2011). The area of North America affected by WNS continues to expand. Within the last 2 years, the disease has been confirmed in several Central States, including Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Missouri. High mortality of bats has not yet been reported at these locations, and it remains to be seen if WNS will develop and manifest in other States with the same severity as that in the Northeast.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".