No abstract

The classification of reproductive isolating barriers laid out by Dobzhansky and Mayr has motivated and structured decades of research on speciation. We argue, however, that this classification is incomplete and that the unique contributions of a major source of reproductive isolation have often been overlooked. Here, we describe reproductive barriers that derive from the reduced survival of immigrants upon reaching foreign habitats that are ecologically divergent from their native habitat. This selection against immigrants reduces encounters and thus mating opportunities between individuals from divergently adapted populations. It also reduces the likelihood that successfully mated immigrant females will survive long enough to produce their hybrid offspring. Thus, natural selection against immigrants results in distinctive elements of premating and postmating reproductive isolation that we hereby dub "immigrant inviability." We quantify the contributions of immigrant inviability to total reproductive isolation by examining study systems where multiple components of reproductive isolation have been measured and demonstrate that these contributions are frequently greater than those of traditionally recognized reproductive barriers. The relevance of immigrant inviability is further illustrated by a consideration of population-genetic theory, a review of selection against immigrant alleles in hybrid zone studies, and an examination of its participation in feedback loops that influence the evolution of additional reproductive barriers. Because some degree of immigrant inviability will commonly exist between populations that exhibit adaptive ecological divergence, we emphasize that these barriers play critical roles in ecological modes of speciation. We hope that the formal recognition of immigrant inviability and our demonstration of its evolutionary importance will stimulate more explicit empirical studies of its contributions to speciation.

The classification of reproductive isolating barriers laid out by Dobzhansky and Mayr has motivated and structured decades of research on speciation. We argue, however, that this classification is incomplete and that the unique contributions of a major source of reproductive isolation have often been overlooked. Here, we describe reproductive barriers that derive from the reduced survival of immigrants upon reaching foreign habitats that are ecologically divergent from their native habitat. This selection against immigrants reduces encounters and thus mating opportunities between individuals from divergently adapted populations. It also reduces the likelihood that successfully mated immigrant females will survive long enough to produce their hybrid offspring. Thus, natural selection against immigrants results in distinctive elements of premating and postmating reproductive isolation that we hereby dub "immigrant inviability." We quantify the contributions of immigrant inviability to total reproductive isolation by examining study systems where multiple components of reproductive isolation have been measured and demonstrate that these contributions are frequently greater than those of traditionally recognized reproductive barriers. The relevance of immigrant inviability is further illustrated by a consideration of population-genetic theory, a review of selection against immigrant alleles in hybrid zone studies, and an examination of its participation in feedback loops that influence the evolution of additional reproductive barriers. Because some degree of immigrant inviability will commonly exist between populations that exhibit adaptive ecological divergence, we emphasize that these barriers play critical roles in ecological modes of speciation. We hope that the formal recognition of immigrant inviability and our demonstration of its evolutionary importance will stimulate more explicit empirical studies of its contributions to speciation.

The distribution of effect sizes of genes underlying adaptation is unknown (Orr 2005)

Policies ensuring that research data are available on public archives are increasingly being implemented at the government [1], funding agency [2-4], and journal [5, 6] level. These policies are predicated on the idea that authors are poor stewards of their data, particularly over the long term [7], and indeed many studies have found that authors are often unable or unwilling to share their data [8-11]. However, there are no systematic estimates of how the availability of research data changes with time since publication. We therefore requested data sets from a relatively homogenous set of 516 articles published between 2 and 22 years ago, and found that availability of the data was strongly affected by article age. For papers where the authors gave the status of their data, the odds of a data set being extant fell by 17% per year. In addition, the odds that we could find a working e-mail address for the first, last, or corresponding author fell by 7% per year. Our results reinforce the notion that, in the long term, research data cannot be reliably preserved by individual researchers, and further demonstrate the urgent need for policies mandating data sharing via public archives.

Reproducibility is the benchmark for results and conclusions drawn from scientific studies, but systematic studies on the reproducibility of scientific results are surprisingly rare. Moreover, many modern statistical methods make use of 'random walk' model fitting procedures, and these are inherently stochastic in their output. Does the combination of these statistical procedures and current standards of data archiving and method reporting permit the reproduction of the authors' results? To test this, we reanalysed data sets gathered from papers using the software package STRUCTURE to identify genetically similar clusters of individuals. We find that reproducing structure results can be difficult despite the straightforward requirements of the program. Our results indicate that 30% of analyses were unable to reproduce the same number of population clusters. To improve this, we make recommendations for future use of the software and for reporting STRUCTURE analyses and results in published works.

. Mosaic hybrid zones arise when ecologically differentiated taxa hybridize across a network of habitat patches. Frequent interbreeding across a small‐scale patchwork can erode species differences that might have been preserved in a clinal hybrid zone. In particular, the rapid breakdown of neutral divergence sets an upper limit to the time for which differences at marker loci can persist. We present here a case study of a mosaic hybrid zone between the fire‐bellied toads Bombina bombina and B. variegata (Anura: Discoglossidae) near Apahida in Romania. In our 20 × 20 km study area, we detected no evidence of a clinal transition but found a strong association between aquatic habitat and mean allele frequencies at four molecular markers. In particular, pure populations of B. bombina in ponds appear to cause massive introgression into the surrounding B. variegata gene pool found in temporary aquatic sites. Nevertheless, the genetic structure of these hybrid populations was remarkably similar to those of a previously studied transect near Pescenica (Croatia), which had both clinal and mosaic features: estimates of heterozygote deficit and linkage disequilibrium in each country are similar. In Apahida, the observed strong linkage disequilibria should stem from an imperfect habitat preference that guides most (but not all) adults into the habitats to which they are adapted. In the absence of a clinal structure, the inferred migration rate between habitats implies that associations between selected loci and neutral markers should break down rapidly. Although plausible selection strengths can maintain differentiation at those loci adapting the toads to either permanent or temporary breeding sites, the divergence at neutral markers must be transient. The hybrid zone may be approaching a state in which the gene pools are homogenized at all but the selected loci, not dissimilar from an early stage of sympatric divergence.

The data underlying scientific papers should be accessible to researchers both now and in the future, but how best can we ensure that these data are available? Here we examine the effectiveness of four approaches to data archiving: no stated archiving policy, recommending (but not requiring) archiving, and two versions of mandating data deposition at acceptance. We control for differences between data types by trying to obtain data from papers that use a single, widespread population genetic analysis, STRUCTURE. At one extreme, we found that mandated data archiving policies that require the inclusion of a data availability statement in the manuscript improve the odds of finding the data online almost a thousand-fold compared to having no policy. However, archiving rates at journals with less stringent policies were only very slightly higher than those with no policy at all. At one extreme, we found that mandated data archiving policies that require the inclusion of a data availability statement in the manuscript improve the odds of finding the data online almost a thousand fold compared to having no policy. However, archiving rates at journals with less stringent policies were only very slightly higher than those with no policy at all. We also assessed the effectiveness of asking for data directly from authors and obtained over half of the requested datasets, albeit with about 8 days delay and some disagreement with authors. Given the long term benefits of data accessibility to the academic community, we believe that journal based mandatory data archiving policies and mandatory data availability statements should be more widely adopted