Coevolutionary Interactions between Sexual and Habitat Isolation during Reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speciation often involves the evolution of multiple genetic-based barriers to gene flow (i.e., "coupling").However, barriers may exhibit a diversity of evolutionary interactions during speciation.These dynamics are important in reinforcement, where selection may favor different prezygotic isolating barriers to avoid maladaptive hybridization.Here we study the interaction between evolution of sexual and habitat isolation.We first review the empirical literature where both barriers were explicitly considered, and then develop a population genetic model of reinforcement.Most studies of both sexual and habitat isolation were found in phytophagous insect systems.In 76% of these studies, both barriers coevolved; the remaining cases either showed only habitat isolation (21%) or only sexual isolation (3%).Our two-allele genetic mechanism model of each barrier also found that these often coevolved, but habitat isolation was generally more effective during reinforcement.Depending on the fitness of hybrids (e.g., Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities) and initial migration rate, these barriers could either facilitate, curtail, or have no effect on each other.This indicates that basic parameters will alter the underlying evolutionary dynamics, and thus the nature of "speciation coupling" will be highly variable in natural systems.Finally, we studied initially asymmetrical migration rates and found that populations with higher initial emigration evolved stronger habitat isolation, while populations that initially received more immigrants exhibited stronger sexual isolation.These results are in line with observations in some empirical studies, but more data is needed to test their generality.T he process of speciation often involves the evolution of multiple genetic barriers to gene flow.Historically, this idea was captured by "co-adapted gene complexes" that emphasized how multiple loci may interact to generate incompatibilities between lineages (Dobzhansky 1937;Mayr 1963).More recently, Butlin and Smadja (2018) emphasized the term "coupling" as any process that generates coincidence of genetic barrier effects, resulting in a stronger overall barrier to gene flow than any barrier by itself.This may occur, for instance, when the evolution of postzygotic isolation barriers facilitates the evolution of prezygotic isolation barriers, a process known as "reinforcement" (Servedio and Noor 2003;Coyne and Orr 2004).Here, selection
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".