ArticlePloS one2012
Time in a bottle: the evolutionary fate of species discrimination in sibling Drosophila species.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Private QTLs and the genetic architecture of hierarchical size traits: from body size to sex-specific plasticity.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Review
- Response of fruit fly (Physiological entomology · 2024Article
- "A comparison of thermal stress response between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura reveals differences between species and sexes".Journal of insect physiology · 2024Article
- The importance of intrinsic postzygotic barriers throughout the speciation process.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
- Individual Cryptic Scaling Relationships and the Evolution of Animal Form.Integrative and comparative biology · 2019Review
- Conspecific sperm precedence is reinforced, but postcopulatory sexual selection weakened, in sympatric populations of Drosophila.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Size-assortative choice and mate availability influences hybridization between red wolves (Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Multifaceted, cross-generational costs of hybridization in sibling Drosophila species.PloS one · 2013Article
- The genetic basis of female mate preference and species isolation in Drosophila.International journal of evolutionary biology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disadvantageous hybridization favors the evolution of prezygotic isolating behaviors, generating a geographic pattern of interspecific mate discrimination where members of different species drawn from sympatric populations exhibit stronger preference for members of their own species than do individuals drawn from allopatric populations. Geographic shifts in species' boundaries can relax local selection against hybridization; under such scenarios the fate of enhanced species preference is unknown. Lineages established from populations in the region of sympatry that have been maintained as single-species laboratory cultures represent cases where allopatry has been produced experimentally. Using such cultures dating from the 1950s, we assess how Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis mate preferences respond to relaxed natural selection against hybridization. We found that the propensity to hybridize generally declines with increasing time in experimental allopatry, suggesting that maintaining enhanced preference for conspecifics may be costly. However, our data also suggest a strong role for drift in determining mating preferences once secondary allopatry has been established. Finally, we discuss the interplay between populations in establishing the presence or absence of patterns consistent with reinforcement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.