A GENETIC INTERPRETATION OF ECOLOGICALLY DEPENDENT ISOLATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrids may suffer a reduced fitness both because they fall between ecological niches (ecologically dependent isolation) and as a result of intrinsic genetic incompatibilities between the parental genomes (ecologically independent isolation). Whereas genetic incompatibilities are common to all theories of speciation, ecologically dependent isolation is a unique prediction of the ecological model of speciation. This prediction can be tested using reciprocal transplants in which the fitness of various genotypes is evaluated in both parental habitats. Here we expand a quantitative genetic model of Lynch (1991) to include two parental environments. We ask whether a sufficient experimental design exists for detecting ecologically dependent isolation. Analysis of the model reveals that by using both backcrosses in both parental environments, environment-specific additive genetic effects can be estimated while correcting for any intrinsic genetic isolation. Environment-specific dominance effects can also be estimated by including the F1 and F2 in the reciprocal transplant. In contrast, a reciprocal transplant comparing only F1s or F2s to the parental species cannot separate ecologically dependent from intrinsic genetic isolation. Thus, a reduced fitness of F1 or F2 hybrids relative to the parental species is not sufficient to demonstrate ecological speciation. The model highlights the importance of determining the contribution of genetic and ecological mechanisms to hybrid fitness if inferences concerning speciation mechanisms are to be made.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".