Data from: Trophic niche flexibility in Glossophaga soricina: how a nectar seeker sneaks an insect snack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omnivory enables animals to fill more than one trophic niche, providing access to a wider variety of food resources with potentially higher nutrient value, particularly when resources become scarce. Animals can achieve omnivory using different strategies, for example opportunistic foraging, or switching between multiple trophic niches. The Neotropical bat Glossophaga soricina (Pallas, 1766) is a common and widespread species known for nectar-feeding, but it also eats fruit and insects. Approaching stationary objects (flowers and fruits) or moving objects (insects) pose different sensory tasks and should require different echolocation behaviours. Here we tested the contrasting hypothesis that G. soricina can approach both stationary and moving objects using the same echolocation behaviour, thus feeding at different trophic levels by a single sensory mechanism. Using DNA barcoding, we demonstrate that G. soricina eats beetles (Coleoptera), flies (Diptera), and noctuid moths with bat-detecting ears. Lab observations show that G. soricina actively hunts for prey so insect consumption does not appear to be opportunistic. After capture, individuals consumed prey while perched and manipulated them with jaw, thumb, wrist and wing movements, but food handling was longer and chewing rate slower than in obligate insectivores. In contrast to most insectivorous bats, the echolocation calls of G. soricina are of high frequency and low intensity, and G. soricina did not produce feeding buzzes when approaching insects. An acoustic model of detection distances shows that its low intensity calls fail to trigger the auditory neurons of eared moths, allowing G. soricina to overcome auditory prey defences. Individuals achieved niche flexibility using a unique but generalist behavioural approach rather than employing two different specialist methods. Our findings provide a novel insight into the functional mechanisms of insect capture in G. soricina and highlight the importance of considering niche flexibility in classifying trophic links in ecological communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".