ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2026
A microbial view on secondary contact between two Alpine butterflies.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWidespread sympatry between sibling species can be limited if they are ecologically too close, potentially leading to the formation of narrow zones of secondary contact. While the ecological niche is commonly estimated using abiotic factors, the potential differentiation in gut microbial communities as a proxy for biotic niche differentiation is less well studied. We address this gap in research, focusing on two Alpine butterfly species of the genus Erebia that form a stable and very narrow contact zone.
resultsUsing a metabarcoding approach to sequence the adult gut microbial communities of our two focal species as well as capturing the microbial diversity found on three nectar plant species, we found that the microbial community i) significantly differed between species but not between sexes, that ii) the abundance of the heritable endosymbiont Wolbachia differed between species, where its high abundance resulted in the detection of fewer other microbial taxa, and that iii) microbes found on flowers largely but not completely overlapped with the ones found in the butterfly hosts, suggesting that intestinal environmental filtering occurs only to some degree.
conclusionsConsistent with biotic niche differentiation, we uncovered species specific differences in the gut microbial communities, further highlighting the complex interactions between host biology and environmental factors in shaping the gut microbiota. The observed microbial differences could reflect local adaptation to different resources or microhabitats. Overall, our study highlights the utility of gut microbial metabarcoding to study ecological niche differentiation, also during secondary contact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.