Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microcrustacean Daphnia is arguably one of the most studied zooplankton species, having a well understood ecology, life history, and a relatively well studied evolutionary history. Despite this wealth of knowledge, species boundaries within this genus often remain elusive and the major evolutionary forces driving the diversity of daphniids remain controversial. This genus contains more than 300 species with multiple cryptic species complexes, with many closely related species able to hybridize. Here we review speciation research in Daphnia within the framework of current speciation theory. We evaluate the role of geography, ecology, and biology in restricting gene flow and promoting diversification. Of the 253 speciation studies on Daphnia , the majority of studies examine geographic barriers (55%). While evidence shows that geographic barriers play a role in species divergence, ecological barriers are also likely prominent in Daphnia speciation. We assess the contribution of ecological and non-ecological reproductive isolating barriers between closely related species of Daphnia and found that none of the reproductive isolating barriers are capable of restricting gene flow completely. Research on reproductive isolating barriers has been disproportionally focused on two species complexes, Daphnia pulex and Daphnia longispina . Lastly, we identify areas of research that remain relatively unexplored and discuss future research directions that build our understanding of speciation in daphniids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".