REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT OF MALE STICKLEBACK MATE PREFERENCE: REINFORCEMENT OR DIRECT SELECTION?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive isolation can evolve between species as a byproduct of adaptation to different niches, through reinforcement, and by direct selection on mating preferences. We investigated the potential role of direct selection in the reproductive isolation between sympatric species of threespine sticklebacks. Each sympatric pair consists of a small-bodied limnetic species and large-bodied benthic species. We compared the mate preferences and courtship behavior of males from one sympatric limnetic population and two allopatric populations. We used limnetic-like allopatric populations to control for the effects of ecological character displacement and adaptation to different niches on mate preferences. The sympatric limnetic males preferred the small limnetic females, whereas the allopatric limnetic-like males preferred the large benthic females, suggesting that adaptation to the limnetic niche does not automatically confer a preference for small limnetic females. This reproductive character displacement of male preference is consistent with the predictions of both reinforcement and direct selection on mate preferences. To test for direct selection, we assessed a prediction of one proposed mechanism: predation by benthic females on eggs guarded by limnetic males. The allopatric males come from populations in which there is no egg predation. Sympatric limnetic males were more aggressive toward benthic females than toward limnetic females, whereas the allopatric limnetic-like males did not treat the two types of females differently. The contrast in male behavior suggests that egg predation has shaped male preferences. Direct selection is potentially more effective than indirect selection via reinforcement, and it is likely that it has been important in building up reproductive isolation between limnetic and benthic sticklebacks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".