Hybridization dynamics between sympatric species of trout: loss of reproductive isolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although reinforcement should enhance reproductive barriers in sympatric species, sympatric trout species do hybridize. Using mitochondrial and nuclear species markers, we investigated hybridization directionality, hybrid mating biases, and selection against hybrids in 13 sympatric cut-throat and rainbow trout populations on Vancouver Island, Canada. Approximately 50% of the genotyped fish were hybrid (F1 or higher-order) and populations ranged from very recent (all F1 hybrids) to extremely advanced higher-order hybridization. Overall, interbreeding was reciprocal, although some populations showed directional hybridization. Pronounced cytonuclear disequilibrium in post-F1 hybrids indicated a remarkable mating bias not previously reported, which is most likely because of behavioural reproductive preferences. Selection against hybrids was observed in only two populations, indicative of extrinsic selection. Two populations were 'hybrid swarms', with a complete loss of reproductive isolation. The complex hybridization dynamics in this system represent a valuable natural experiment of the genetic and evolutionary implications of recent and on-going interspecific hybridization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".