Coexistence in Sympatry 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 hybridization and gene flow? The challenge is more acute than ordinary ecological coexistence not only because gene flow erodes and recombines genetic differences, but also because selection against hybrids can destabilise 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 (within backcross range) between 0.5 and 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 larger niche differences are required to stabilise coexistence with gene flow than without gene flow. This helps to explain why successful sympatric species that hybridise often show conspicuous 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".