Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 418

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adaptive Radiation in Sticklebacks: Size, Shape, and Habitat Use Efficiency

Schluter, Dolph·1993·Ecology

Abstract

I examined habitat use efficiencies of two morphologically distinct threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.). The species make up one of several coexisting pairs that apparently formed in the past 13 000 yr in coastal British Columbia lakes. Previous comparative work has shown that morphology and habitat use are correlated within and among populations. Sticklebacks occurring alone in lakes are intermediate in morphology and habitat use, suggesting that differences between the sympatric species result from ecological character displacement. I tested two hypotheses to explain these patterns, and which are implicit in general views of the causes of adaptive radiation: (1) Each resource (habitat) subjects its species to unique selection pressures, owing to the advantages of certain combinations of traits for foraging; (2) Phenotypes intermediate between habitat specialists suffer a competitive disadvantage. These hypotheses were evaluated by measuring the foraging rates of the two species and their interspecific hybrids in the two main habitats (benthos and open water) provided in the laboratory. Efficiencies of habitat exploitation matched obeserved morphological differences. In the benthic habitat the larger, deeper bodies species (having also a wide mouth and few short gill rakers) was superior to the smaller, more slender species (having a narrow mouth and many long gill rakers). Success of hybrids was intermediate. This rank order of species efficiencies was reversed in the open water habitat. These results support the hypothesis that different traits are favored in different habitats, and that adaptation to one habitat has occurred at the expense of feeding rate in the other. Average foraging success of hybrids in the two habitats fell near to below the average of the two parental species, suggesting natural selection against intermediate phenotypes. Foraging efficiency in open water was greatest in the smaller size classes of fish, hinting that small size of the open water species is the result of selection for high foraging efficiency. However, size could not explain most differences in feeding efficiency between species, and it is likely that many traits contribute.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1940797

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 418

Metadata

Authors
Schluter, D.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-04
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
699-709
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2166770106
Cited by
418
References
1
FWCI
13.80
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: Adaptive Radiation in Sticklebacks: Size, Shape, and Habitat Use Efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940797
The paper
Schluter, D. (1993). Adaptive Radiation in Sticklebacks: Size, Shape, and Habitat Use Efficiency. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940797

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.