Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27087841›Full record

ReviewEvolutionary applications2016

Geography, assortative mating, and the effects of sexual selection on speciation with gene flow.

Maria R Servedio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evolutionary applications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Species recognition limits mating between hybridizing ant species.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Estimation of the strength of mate preference from mated pairs observed in the wild.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. How the manakin got its crown: A novel trait that is unlikely to cause speciation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Anatomy of a Neotropical insect radiation.BMC evolutionary biology · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Maria R ServedioDepartment of Biology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill NC USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theoretical and empirical research on the evolution of reproductive isolation have both indicated that the effects of sexual selection on speciation with gene flow are quite complex. As part of this special issue on the contributions of women to basic and applied evolutionary biology, I discuss my work on this question in the context of a broader assessment of the patterns of sexual selection that lead to, versus inhibit, the speciation process, as derived from theoretical research. In particular, I focus on how two factors, the geographic context of speciation and the mechanism leading to assortative mating, interact to alter the effect that sexual selection through mate choice has on speciation. I concentrate on two geographic contexts: sympatry and secondary contact between two geographically separated populations that are exchanging migrants and two mechanisms of assortative mating: phenotype matching and separate preferences and traits. I show that both of these factors must be considered for the effects of sexual selection on speciation to be inferred.

Indexed as

allopatryassortative matingmigrationsecondary contactsympatrytwo‐island model

Identifiers

PMID27087841
PMCPMC4780376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.