Mechanisms of reinforcement in natural and simulated polymorphic populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement speciation is the process whereby selection against hybrids drives the evolution of enhanced pre-mating reproductive isolation. Work has focused on divergent mating preferences (assortative mating) but pre-mating isolation can also arise via various migration modification behaviours, such as divergent habitat preferences. The relative importance of these two different mechanisms of reinforcement remains unclear. A recent theoretical model (Yukilevich–True model) found that relative fixation probabilities between these mechanisms can vary. Additionally, natural populations of Timema cristinae walking-sticks exhibit variation (polymorphism) in both mechanisms, generating questions about the patterns expected for allele frequencies prior to fixation, during the early stages of the speciation process. In the present study, we report: (1) new analyses examining the correlation between fixation probabilities for assortative mating and migration modification in the Yukilevich–True model; (2) novel simulations examining allele frequencies in polymorphic populations; and (3) empirical patterns of reinforcement in T. cristinae in the context of theoretical predictions. Simulations of both types yielded congruent results, revealing that the outcome of reinforcement was dependent on the strength of selection. Under weak selection, reinforcement by either mechanism is unlikely. Under intermediate selection, the conditions favoring the rise and fixation of one mechanism favored the rise and fixation of the other. However, assortative mating evolved somewhat more readily than migration modification. Populations of T. cristinae, which experience such intermediate selection, supported these predictions. Under strong selection, the evolution of migration modification generally interfered with the evolution of assortative mating by decreasing migration between populations, thereby reducing selection for assortative mating. Congruence of the results for allele frequencies versus fixation probabilities suggests that similar patterns of reinforcement are expected during different stages of the speciation process.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".