The presence of other fish species affects speciation in threespine sticklebacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competition for shared resources is typically invoked as the most important ecological inter-action promoting diversification and speciation, whereas the roles of abiotic variables and natural enemies have been largely neglected. To improve our understanding of the ecological factors involved in the evolution of sympatric stickleback species pairs (Gasterosteus aculeatus), I examined whether lakes in the same region with only a solitary population of sticklebacks had unique features not shared with lakes containing stickleback species pairs. Sixteen lakes with a solitary population of sticklebacks were identified as potential candidates for two invasions of marine ancestors. Several physical and chemical characteristics of these candidate lakes were found to be not significantly different from those of lakes with sympatric species pairs. How-ever, when the community of other fish species was considered, a striking pattern emerged: all but one of the 16 candidate lakes contained other fish species in addition to cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), whereas sympatric species pairs were found only in lakes with cutthroat trout and no other fish species. The two other fish species most often encountered, prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), are potential competitors and predators of threespine sticklebacks. The results of this survey suggest that our understanding of the role of ecology in diversification and speciation will be furthered by a consideration of interactions other than interspecific competition between focal populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".