ASSORTATIVE MATING AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN HYBRID ZONES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial genetic composition of hybrid zones exhibits a range of possible patterns, with many characterized by patchy distributions. While several hypothetical explanations exist for the maintenance of these "mosaic" hybrid zones, they remain virtually unexplored theoretically. Using computer simulations we investigate the roles of dispersal and assortative mating in the formation and persistence of hybrid zone structure. To quantify mosaic structure we develop a likelihood method, which we apply to simulation and empirical data. We find that long distance dispersal can lead to a patchy distribution that assortative mating can then reinforce, ultimately producing a mosaic capable of persisting over evolutionarily significant periods of time. By reducing the mating success of rare males, assortative mating creates a positive within-patch frequency-dependent selective pressure. Selection against heterozygotes can similarly create a rare-type disadvantage and we show that it can also preserve structure. We find that mosaic structure is maintained across a range of assumptions regarding the form and strength of assortative mating. Interestingly, we find that higher levels of mosaic structure are sometimes observed for intermediate assortment strengths. The high incidence of assortment documented in hybrid zones suggests that it may play a key role in stabilizing their form and structure.
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".