A BIOGEOGRAPHIC GENETIC APPROACH FOR TESTING THE ROLE OF REINFORCEMENT: THE CASE OF DROSOPHILA PSEUDOOBSCURA AND D. PERSIMILIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of reinforcement in speciation can be explained by two distinct models. In model I, two diverged populations hybridize and produce fertile hybrids that successfully backcross (hybridization with gene flow). In model II, two populations hybridize but succeeding backcrosses are unproductive (hybridization without gene flow). Using Drosophila persimilis and D. pseudoobscura, we have tested model I by comparing the extent of heterospecific introgression in sympatric versus allopatric populations. We show that certain expectations of this particular model of reinforcement, which is based on hybridization and gene flow between divergent populations after secondary contact, are not realized in these two species. The evidence consists of the similarity of genetic distances as well as proportions of unique/rare alleles between sympatric and allopatric heterospecific populations and a negative correlation between genetic distance and geographical distance between heterospecific populations, which suggests ecological differentiation. This approach in quantifying differential gene flow has important consequences to studies that compare sympatric and allopatric isolation using genetic distance. Following model I, one would expect a pattern of higher prezygotic isolation in sympatric species compared to allopatric species of the same genetic distance simply as a result of an underestimation of genetic distance due to introgression between sympatric populations. We suggest more parsimonious explanations such as reinforcement without genetic exchange (model II) and ecological differentiation, which require high levels of preexisting reproductive isolation between populations.Corresponding Editor: E. Zouros
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".