DOES GENE FLOW CONSTRAIN ADAPTIVE DIVERGENCE OR VICE VERSA? A TEST USING ECOMORPHOLOGY AND SEXUAL ISOLATION IN TIMEMA CRISTINAE WALKING-STICKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population differentiation often reflects a balance between divergent natural selection and the opportunity for homogenizing gene flow to erode the effects of selection. However, during ecological speciation, trait divergence results in reproductive isolation and becomes a cause, rather than a consequence, of reductions in gene flow. To assess both the causes and the reproductive consequences of morphological differentiation, we examined morphological divergence and sexual isolation among 17 populations of Timema cristinae walking-sticks. Individuals from populations adapted to using Adenostoma as a host plant tended to exhibit smaller overall body size, wide heads, and short legs relative to individuals using Ceonothus as a host. However, there was also significant variation in morphology among populations within host-plant species. Mean trait values for each single population could be reliably predicted based upon host-plant used and the potential for homogenizing gene flow, inferred from the size of the neighboring population using the alternate host and mitochondrial DNA estimates of gene flow. Morphology did not influence the probability of copulation in between-population mating trials. Thus, morphological divergence is facilitated by reductions in gene flow, but does not cause reductions in gene flow via the evolution of sexual isolation. Combined with rearing data indicating that size and shape have a partial genetic basis, evidence for parallel origins of the host-associated forms, and inferences from functional morphology, these results indicate that morphological divergence in T. cristinae reflects a balance between the effects of host-specific natural selection and gene flow. Our findings illustrate how data on mating preferences can help determine the causal associations between trait divergence and levels of gene flow.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".