ADAPTATION TO DESICCATION FAILS TO GENERATE PRE- AND POSTMATING ISOLATION IN REPLICATE<i>DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER</i>LABORATORY POPULATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many laboratory speciation experiments have raised allopatric populations in different environments to determine whether reproductive isolation evolves as a byproduct of adaptation (a form of ecological speciation). Few, however, have addressed the evolution of both pre- and postmating isolation or investigated the conditions affecting the process. We present results of an evolution experiment in which 12 lines of Drosophila melanogaster were derived from a common population and then independently evolved for more than 57 generations under alternative selection treatments. Six "desiccation" populations had access to food and water removed during a period of their adult lives generating strong desiccation selection, and six "starvation" populations had access to food but not water removed for the same period, generating a mild starvation stress. Substantial divergence of cuticular hydrocarbons occurred between the desiccation and starvation populations, key traits that have been implicated in sexual isolation in Drosophila. Despite this divergence, there was no detectable premating isolation between desiccation and starvation populations and postmating isolation was asymmetrical: the fitness of F1 hybrids was reduced in the desiccation but not the starvation environment. This asymmetry was likely caused by the absence of divergent selection: adaptation to desiccation appears to have come at no cost to performance in the starvation environment. Novel environments are thought to promote the evolution of reproductive isolation. Understanding the conditions that favor or hamper this remains a key challenge for speciation research.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".