Evolution of reproductive isolation in a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila melanogaster: 30 years of divergent life history selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We ask if three decades and over 1,500 generations of divergent life history selection on age at reproduction has resulted in the evolution of reproductive isolation (RI) between laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster. We tested for premating, postmating-prezygotic and postzygotic reproductive isolation between 3 replicate population pairs. Large evolved differences in body size between selection treatments suggested the potential for prezygotic barriers driven by sexual selection or physical incompatibilities between the sexes. Although a simple prediction would be preference for larger size, creating directional isolation, our results from individual mate choice trials indicate that populations from both selection treatments show a marked bias towards homotypic mate choice; indicative of prezygotic RI driven by sexual selection or sexual conflict. Hybridization between the focal populations resulted in the production of viable adult flies with intermediate size and developmental traits. We observed a suggestive but statistically non-significant trend of fitness decline in the F2 generation of hybrids, but no significant evidence suggesting the evolution of postmating-prezygotic or postzygotic RI. Our findings are in accord with extant literature that posits that premating RI evolves before postmating forms of RI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".