Integrating ecological and molecular data to investigate species maintenance and interspecific hybridization between the redbreast sunfish (<i>Lepomis auritus</i>) and the pumpkinseed sunfish (<i>Lepomis gibbosus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
True sunfishes (genus Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819) of North America are renowned for hybridization, although hybrids often comprise only a fraction of the sunfish population in natural systems. Species boundaries may be maintained through premating mechanisms (e.g., ethological and habitat isolation), which may be facilitated by the promiscuous sunfish mating system; primarily, singular males guard nests that multiple females visit. Natural hybridization occurs between redbreast ( Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus, 1758)) and pumpkinseed ( Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758)) sunfishes, but there is no published research on its extent and causes. In this study, we assessed the relationship between ecological variables and the prevalence of hybridization in a sunfish population in a freshwater lake. Nests of both species were evaluated for differences in substrate, date, water depth, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Sequencing of one fragment of nuclear DNA (calmodulin intron 4) and one fragment of mitochondrial DNA (12S) was employed on adult males and eight offspring from each nest to determine genetic identity and hybridization direction. Nonparametric tests found a significant difference in substrate between species’ nests ( p < 0.01), warranting further investigation into nest substrate as a mechanism for species maintenance. Furthermore, we observed asymmetrical hybridization with the less abundant species (redbreast sunfish) disproportionately affected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".