ReviewMolecular ecology2025
The Shapes of Clines and Wavefronts.
Review in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Cline theory has a central place in speciation studies. Cline locations delimit taxon boundaries, cline widths scale with barrier strength, and the shapes of clines (smooth or stepped) suggest whether species barriers are mono- or polygenic. How cline shapes vary along chromosomes therefore forms part of the genome's species barrier landscape. Further, asymmetric moving clines (wave fronts) can mark adaptive introgression puncturing species barriers, potentially leading to their collapse or decay. Here we review the development of cline and wavefront models and relate this to the use of dispersal kernels in epidemiology and ecology. We contrast classical results to those for a thick-tailed kernel, showing how cline shape affects the speed of spatial processes, including the widening of neutral clines and the spatial coalescent. We critique current cline models used for inference (both spatial and genomic clines) and address Barton's question: Why (after decades of cline fitting) is there so little evidence of stepped clines? We suggest evidence is weak because stepped cline models are over-parameterised, while current genomic cline models are under-parameterised. We explore goldilocks cline parameterisations and discuss non-parametric approaches that may help resolve these issues. This broadens to a discussion of the future of, and alternatives to, cline fitting.
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.