Sympatric coexistence with gene flow before speciation has completed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incipient species often coexist in sympatry before complete reproductive isolation has evolved between them. How do they persist in the face of gene flow? The challenge is more extreme than ordinary coexistence not only because gene flow erodes and recombines genetic differences, but also because selection against hybrids can destabilize population sizes. We estimated gene flow and selection against hybrid genotypes between sympatric limnetic and benthic species of threespine stickleback in two British Columbia lakes. First-generation hybrids are present at a rate of about 2%. To estimate selection, we compared the frequency distribution of ancestry proportions between juvenile and adult samples. We also used genomic simulation with assortative mating in an ecological model to determine how much selection is required to reproduce observed genotype frequencies. Results from the two approaches were comparable and yielded estimated selection coefficients S against the least fit ancestry proportion between 0.5 – 0.6. Surprisingly, selection was found to be only slightly weaker than that leading readily to collapse and fusion in our simulations, suggesting that sympatric stickleback species are close to a coexistence boundary. Moderately strong selection appears to be required for coexistence with even low levels of gene flow. We suggest that ecological differences between species play an enhanced role in coexistence when gene flow occurs, which may help to explain why we have so many cases of young sympatric species with large ecological and phenotypic differences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".