Variable assortative mating in replicate mating trials using <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> populations derived from contrasting opposing slopes of ‘Evolution Canyon’, Israel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant assortative mating in laboratory studies has been previously shown between two populations of Drosophila melanogaster collected from micro-climactically contrasting and opposing slopes of 'Evolution Canyon' (Lower Nahal Oren, Israel; Korol et al., 2000). Coupled with evidence that the two populations are adapted to their respective environments, this has been suggested as a rare example of ongoing behaviourally mediated speciation occurring in the face of gene flow. Reproductive isolation between these populations, however, has never been confirmed by replicate experiments in an independent laboratory. For this reason, we tested recent collections of these populations for premating isolation in both the original (Haifa) and a new (Burnaby) laboratory under a variety of experimental protocols. Although non-random mating was found in the majority of trials conducted in Haifa, we were unable to replicate these strong results in Burnaby. Most notably, we failed to detect assortative mating in four separate double choice experiments. Significant non-random mating was detected, however, in three of six single choice experiments in Burnaby, suggesting that the populations are behaviourally differentiated in some manner. Why nonrandom mating was weaker in Burnaby than Haifa is not understood, but suggests that assortative mating may be sensitive to unknown environmental factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".