Experimental evidence that competition between stickleback species favours adaptive character divergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ecological character displacement hypothesis assumes that the effects of interspecific resource competition cause divergent selection to favour phenotypes that exploit non‐shared resources. This model predicts that interspecific competition declines with increased divergence. Direct tests of this decline are rare despite much comparative evidence for character displacement. We tested this prediction using a pair of divergent brook sticklebacks. Brook sticklebacks sympatric with ninespine sticklebacks have diverged from local allopatric brook populations, and so the two types of brook sticklebacks potentially represent pre‐ and post‐displacement forms. We used enclosures placed in a lake to compare short‐term fitness (growth) of sympatric (post‐displacement) and allopatric (pre‐displacement) brook forms in the presence and absence of ninespine sticklebacks. Brook sticklebacks grew less in the presence vs. absence of ninespine sticklebacks, indicating that interspecific competition occurred. As expected, allopatric brook forms had lower growth than sympatric forms when ninespine sticklebacks were present. This result suggests that ecological character displacement has occurred.
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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".