The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hot Spots, Cold Spots, and the Geographic Mosaic Theory of Coevolution
Abstract
Species interactions commonly coevolve as complex geographic mosaics of populations shaped by differences in local selection and gene flow. We use a haploid matching-alleles model for coevolution to evaluate how a pair of species coevolves when fitness interactions are reciprocal in some locations ("hot spots") but not in others ("cold spots"). Our analyses consider mutualistic and antagonistic interspecific interactions and a variety of gene flow patterns between hot and cold spots. We found that hot and cold spots together with gene flow influence coevolutionary dynamics in four important ways. First, hot spots need not be ubiquitous to have a global influence on evolution, although rare hot spots will not have a disproportionate impact unless selection is relatively strong there. Second, asymmetries in gene flow can influence local adaptation, sometimes creating stable equilibria at which species experience minimal fitness in hot spots and maximal fitness in cold spots, or vice versa. Third, asymmetries in gene flow are no more important than asymmetries in population regulation for determining the maintenance of local polymorphisms through coevolution. Fourth, intraspecific allele frequency differences among hot and cold spot populations evolve under some, but not all, conditions. That is, selection mosaics are indeed capable of producing spatially variable coevolutionary outcomes across the landscapes over which species interact. Altogether, our analyses indicate that coevolutionary trajectories can be strongly shaped by the geographic distribution of coevolutionary hot and cold spots, and by the pattern of gene flow among populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Quantitative Survey of Local Adaptation and Fitness Trade‐Offs
Hereford, J. (2009) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/597611 · Cited by 1,247
Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks
Vázquez, D. P., Melián, C. J., Williams, N. M., Blüthgen, N., Krasnov, B. R., & Poulin, R. (2007) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15828.x · Cited by 666
Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection
Thompson, J. N., & Cunningham, B. M. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature00810 · Cited by 465
Self-citationBrodie, E. D., Ridenhour, B. J., & Brodie, E. D. (2002) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00132.x · Cited by 365
Ehrlich and Raven revisited: mechanisms underlying codiversification of plants and enemies
Janz, N. (2011) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145024 · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomulkiewicz, R., Thompson, J. N., Holt, R. D., Nuismer, S. L., & Hochberg, M. E.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 156-174
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2161104028
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hot Spots, Cold Spots, and the Geographic Mosaic Theory of Coevolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/303382
- The paper
- Gomulkiewicz, R., Thompson, J. N., Holt, R. D., Nuismer, S. L., & Hochberg, M. E. (2000). Hot Spots, Cold Spots, and the Geographic Mosaic Theory of Coevolution. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/303382
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.