Can alternative mating tactics facilitate introgression across a hybrid zone by circumventing female choice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive barriers and divergence in species' mate recognition systems underlie major models of speciation. However, hybridization between divergent species is common, and classic mechanisms to explain permeable reproductive barriers rarely consider how an individual may attain reproductive success. Alternative mating tactics (AMTs) exist in various forms across animal taxa. Such tactics may allow poorer quality individuals to gain mating opportunities and facilitate introgression either through asymmetrical positive selection or by circumventing female choice altogether in areas of secondary contact. One such tactic is satellite behaviour in frogs, where silent males perch near advertisers in an attempt to intercept females. To test whether such satellite male tactics are context-dependent and favoured by hybrids, we genotyped and quantified the morphology of 80 male spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) individuals involved in caller-satellite associations from a secondary contact zone between two intraspecific mitochondrial lineages. Irrespective of population, satellite behaviour was best predicted by size but not body condition. Within the contact zone, pure individuals showed a significantly greater probability of being active callers, whereas hybrids of one lineage were more likely to adopt the satellite tactic. We suggest that satellite behaviour in P. crucifer promotes introgression, breaks down reproductive isolating barriers and contributes to asymmetrical introgression in this secondary contact zone. AMTs may thus be an underexplored but important alternative to oft-discussed causes of genetic discordance found in hybrid zones.
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".