Postmating–prezygotic isolation between two allopatric populations of <i>Drosophila montana</i>: fertilisation success differs under sperm competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postmating but prezygotic (PMPZ) interactions are increasingly recognized as a potentially important early-stage barrier in the evolution of reproductive isolation. A recent study described a potential example between populations of the same species: single matings between Drosophila montana populations resulted in differential fertilisation success because of the inability of sperm from one population (Vancouver) to penetrate the eggs of the other population (Colorado). As the natural mating system of D. montana is polyandrous (females remate rapidly), we set up double matings of all possible crosses between the same populations to test whether competitive effects between ejaculates influence this PMPZ isolation. We measured premating isolation in no-choice tests, female fecundity, fertility and egg-to-adult viability after single and double matings as well as second-male paternity success (P2). Surprisingly, we found no PMPZ reproductive isolation between the two populations under a competitive setting, indicating no difficulty of sperm from Vancouver males to fertilize Colorado eggs after double matings. While there were subtle differences in how P2 changed over time, suggesting that Vancouver males' sperm are somewhat less competitive in a first-male role within Colorado females, these effects did not translate into differences in overall P2. Fertilisation success can thus differ dramatically between competitive and noncompetitive conditions, perhaps because the males that mate second produce higher quality ejaculates in response to sperm competition. We suggest that unlike in more divergent species comparisons, where sperm competition typically increases reproductive isolation, ejaculate tailoring can reduce the potential for PMPZ isolation when recently diverged populations interbreed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".