Complex patterns of differentiation and gene flow underly the divergence of aposematic phenotypes in <i>Oophaga</i> poison frogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization and introgression can have complex consequences for both species evolution and conservation. Here, we investigated the origin and characteristics of a putative hybrid zone between two South American poison dart frog species, Oophaga anchicayensis and the critically endangered Oophaga lehmanni, which are heavily sought after on the illegal pet market. Using a combination of phenotypic (49 traits) and genomic (ddRADseq) data, we found that the putative hybrids are morphologically distinct from their parental species and confirmed genomic signatures of admixture in these populations. Several lines of evidence (hybrid indices, interspecific hybrid heterozygosity, genomic clines, comparisons with simulated hybrids and demographic modelling) support the conclusion that these populations are not comprised of early-generation hybrids and thus, they probably did not arise as a result of illegal translocations associated with wildlife trafficking. Instead, they probably represent an independent lineage which has persisted through isolation and has only relatively recently re-established gene flow with both parental species. Furthermore, we detected signals of differential introgression from parental species into these hybrid populations which suggest relaxed stabilizing selection on these aposematic colour morphs, potentially via context-dependent female choice. These populations thus provide a fascinating window into the role of hybridization, isolation and female choice in the diversification of South American poison dart frogs. In addition, our results underline the importance of landscape conservation measures to protect, not only known localities of nominal species, but also the phenotypic and genomic variation harbored by admixed lineages which represent crucial repositories for the impressive diversity in this system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".