Data from: Mating environments mediate the evolution of behavioral isolation during ecological speciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of behavioral isolation is often the first step towards speciation. While past studies show that behavioral isolation will sometimes evolve as a by-product of divergent ecological selection, we lack a more nuanced understanding of factors that may promote or hamper its evolution. The environment in which mating occurs may be important in mediating whether behavioral isolation evolves for two reasons. Ecological speciation could occur as a direct outcome of different sexual interactions being favored in different mating environments. Alternatively, mating environments may vary in the constraint they impose on traits underlying mating interactions, such that populations evolving in a ‘constraining’ mating environment would be less likely to evolve behavioral isolation than populations evolving in a less constraining mating environment. In the latter, mating environment is not the direct cause of behavioral isolation but rather permits its evolution only if other drivers are present. We test these ideas with a set of 28 experimental fly populations, each of which evolved under one of two mating environments and one of two larval environments. Counter to the prediction of ecological speciation by mating environment, behavioral isolation was not maximal between populations evolved in different mating environments. Nonetheless, mating environment was an important factor as behavioral isolation evolved among populations from one mating environment but not among populations from the other. Though one mating environment was conducive to the evolution of behavioral isolation, it was not sufficient: assortative mating only evolved between populations adapting to different larval environments within that mating environment, indicating a role for ecological speciation. Intriguingly, the mating environment that promoted behavioral isolation is characterized by less sexual conflict compared to the other mating environment. Our results suggest that mating environments plays a key role in mediating ecological speciation via other axes of divergent 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.023 |
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".