COURTSHIP BEHAVIOUR OF MALE THREESPINE STICKLEBACKS (GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS) FROM OLD AND NEW HYBRID ZONES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compared courtship behaviour of male threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) from an 'old' hybrid zone (OldHZ) and 'new' hybrid zones (NewHZ) in southwest British Columbia. High frequencies of phenotypically-intermediate forms occurred in each HZ, between the low-plated freshwater (FW) and high-plated marine (MAR) forms. The OldHZ was formed early in the present post-glacial period and probably has existed for thousands of years. The 'new' HZ (NewHZ) is a system of drainage ditches built in the late nineteenth century. In the laboratory, we quantified and compared courtship behaviour (zigzags, bites, creeping through, fanning) of males from each HZ. We compared these results with those from a previous study that quantified courtship of FW and MAR males. In general, courtship of male from the NewHZ was intermediate between the FW and MAR forms, but zigzag courtship of males from the OldHZ was the significantly less vigorous. In general, other courtship behaviour (biting, fanning, gluing, crawling through and the first response) of hybrid zones males was intermediate between FW and MAR males. Within each HZ, courtship differences were not related to phenotype (lateral plates) or size of males or females. The reduced zigzag courtship of OldHZ males is consistent with the hypothesis that change in courtship behaviour of hybrid phenotypes is evidence of the development of premating isolating mechanisms between the FW and MAR forms. There is no evidence, however, of any form of hybrid inviability although we did suspect that we had less success getting OldHZ males to build nests in our laboratory tanks. Without firm evidence of some form of hybrid inviability, the conclusion that male courtship could serve as an isolating mechanism remains speculative.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".