Ecological outcomes of hybridization vary extensively in <i>Catostomus</i> fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybridization has been studied extensively to learn about speciation and mechanisms of reproductive isolation, but increasingly we recognize that hybridization outcomes vary geo-graphically and can depend on the environment. At the same time, hybridization can reshape biotic interactions in an ecosystem, leading to ecological shifts where hybridization occurs. Identifying how hybrid individuals function ecologically would link evolutionary outcomes of hybridization to ecological consequences, but relatively few studies have focused on ecological traits of hybrids. We described the feeding ecology of several Catostomus fish species and their hybrids by using stable isotopes ( δ 13 C and δ 15 N) as a proxy for diet and habitat use, and compared two native species, an introduced species, and three interspecific hybrid crosses. We replicated this comparison spatially, including hybrids and parental species from seven rivers in the Upper Colorado River basin where parental species co-occur and the opportunity for hybridization exists. Although relationships between native species in isotopic space varied, individual native species did not fully overlap in isotopic space in any river sampled, suggesting little overlap of resource use between these historically sympatric species. The introduced species overlapped with one or both native species in every river, suggesting similar resource use and potential for competition. Hybrids occupied intermediate, matching, or more extreme (transgressive) isotopic space relative to parental species, and were isotopically variable within and among rivers. We suggest that ecological outcomes of hybridization, like genomic outcomes of hybridization, are likely to vary across locations where a pair of species hybridizes. This variation implies that hybridization might have large unpredictable, idiosyncratic ecological effects on fish assemblages where hybrids occur. Although we found little evidence that hybrids are at a disadvantage ecologically—there were no significant declines in body condition relative to parental species—it is nevertheless possible that abiotic or biotic attributes of a river might constrain the range of interspecific hybrids that are successful, thus contributing to variation in hybridization outcomes across rivers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".