Data from: A test of hybrid growth disadvantage in wild, free-ranging species pairs of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and its implications for ecological speciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation as a direct or indirect consequence of divergent natural selection. Reduced performance of hybrids in nature is thought to be an important process by which natural selection can favour the evolution of assortative mating and drive speciation. Benthic and limnetic sympatric species of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) are adapted to alternative trophic niches (bottom browsing versus open water planktivory, respectively) and reduced feeding performance of hybrids is thought to have contributed to the evolution of reproductive isolation. We tested this “hybrid-disadvantage hypothesis” by inferring growth rates from otoliths sampled from wild, free-ranging benthic, limnetic, and hybrid sticklebacks from two lakes. There were significant differences in growth rate between lakes, life-history stages, and among years (maximum P = 0.02), as well as interactions between most factors, but not between hybrid and parental species sticklebacks in most comparisons. Our results provide little evidence of a growth disadvantage in hybrid sticklebacks when free-ranging in nature. While trophic ecology per se may contribute less to ecological speciation than envisioned, it may act in concert with other aspects of stickleback biology, such as interactions with parasites, predators, competitors and/or sexual selection, to present strong multifarious selection against hybrids.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
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".