Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

On the causes of geographically heterogeneous parallel evolution in sticklebacks

An Author Correction to this article was published on 22 April 2021

This article has been updated


The three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is an important model system for the study of parallel evolution in the wild, having repeatedly colonized and adapted to freshwater from the sea throughout the northern hemisphere. Previous studies identified numerous genomic regions showing consistent genetic differentiation between freshwater and marine ecotypes but these had typically limited geographic sampling and mostly focused on the Eastern Pacific region. We analysed population genomic data from global samples of the three-spined stickleback marine and freshwater ecotypes to detect loci involved in parallel evolution at different geographic scales. Most signatures of parallel evolution were unique to the Eastern Pacific and trans-oceanic marine–freshwater differentiation was restricted to a limited number of shared genomic regions, including three chromosomal inversions. On the basis of simulations and empirical data, we demonstrate that this could result from the stochastic loss of freshwater-adapted alleles during the invasion of the Atlantic basin and selection against freshwater-adapted variants in the sea, both of which can reduce standing genetic variation available for freshwater adaptation outside the Eastern Pacific region. Moreover, the elevated linkage disequilibrium associated with marine–freshwater differentiation in the Eastern Pacific is consistent with secondary contact between marine and freshwater populations that evolved in isolation from each other during past glacial periods. Thus, contrary to what earlier studies from the Eastern Pacific region have led us to believe, parallel marine–freshwater differentiation in sticklebacks is far less prevalent and pronounced in all other parts of the species global distribution range.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Linkage disequilibrium network analysis.
Fig. 2: Genetic parallelism identified by the unsupervised and supervised methods.
Fig. 3: Ecological genetics in simulated data.
Fig. 4: Genomic differentiation in simulated data.

Data availability

The RAD-seq data have been uploaded to the GenBank under accession numbers SAMN14078677 to SAMN14078738 ( Previously published sequencing data are retrieved from studies specified in Supplementary Table 1.

Code availability

The scripts used for analysing empirical data (genotype likelihood estimation, filtering, LDna) and simulated data are available in DRYAD repository:

Change history


  1. Schluter, D. & Conte, G. L. Genetics and ecological speciation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9955–9962 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arendt, J. & Reznick, D. Convergence and parallelism reconsidered: what have we learned about the genetics of adaptation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 26–32 (2008).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. DeFaveri, J., Shikano, T., Shimada, Y., Goto, A. & Merila, J. Global analysis of genes involved in freshwater adaptation in threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Evolution 65, 1800–1807 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stern, D. L. The genetic causes of convergent evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 751–764 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, M. A. & Foster, S. A. The Evolutionary Biology of the Threespine Stickleback (Oxford Univ. Press, 1994).

  6. Gibson, G. The synthesis and evolution of a supermodel. Science 307, 1890–1891 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hendry, A. P., Peichel, C. L., Matthews, B., Boughman, J. W. & Nosil, P. Stickleback research: the now and the next. Evol. Ecol. Res. 15, 111–141 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lescak, E. A. et al. Evolution of stickleback in 50 years on earthquake-uplifted islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E7204–E7212 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Östlund-Nilsson, S., Mayer, I. & Huntingford, F. A. Biology of the Three-spined Stickleback (CRC Press, 2006).

  10. McKinnon, J. S. & Rundle, H. D. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 480–488 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones, F. C. et al. The genomic basis of adaptive evolution in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 484, 55–61 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferchaud, A. L. & Hansen, M. M. The impact of selection, gene flow and demographic history on heterogeneous genomic divergence: three-spine sticklebacks in divergent environments. Mol. Ecol. 25, 238–259 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hohenlohe, P. A. et al. Population genomics of parallel adaptation in threespine stickleback using sequenced RAD tags. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000862 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hohenlohe, P. A. & Magalhaes, I. S. in Population Genomics (eds Oleksiak, M. F. & Rajora, O.P.) 249–276 (Springer, 2020).

  15. Liu, S., Ferchaud, A. L., Gronkjaer, P., Nygaard, R. & Hansen, M. M. Genomic parallelism and lack thereof in contrasting systems of three-spined sticklebacks. Mol. Ecol. 27, 4725–4743 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pujolar, J. M., Ferchaud, A. L., Bekkevold, D. & Hansen, M. M. Non-parallel divergence across freshwater and marine three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus populations. J. Fish Biol. 91, 175–194 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Terekhanova, N. V., Barmintseva, A. E., Kondrashov, A. S., Bazykin, G. A. & Mugue, N. S. Architecture of parallel adaptation in ten lacustrine threespine stickleback populations from the White Sea area. Genome Biol. Evol. 11, 2605–2618 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Terekhanova, N. V. et al. Fast evolution from precast bricks: genomics of young freshwater populations of threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004696 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chan, Y. F. et al. Adaptive evolution of pelvic reduction in sticklebacks by recurrent deletion of a Pitx1 enhancer. Science 327, 302–305 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Colosimo, P. F. et al. Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of ectodysplasin alleles. Science 307, 1928–1933 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nelson, T. C. & Cresko, W. A. Ancient genomic variation underlies repeated ecological adaptation in young stickleback populations. Evol. Lett. 2, 9–21 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kemppainen, P. et al. Linkage disequilibrium network analysis (LDna) gives a global view of chromosomal inversions, local adaptation and geographic structure. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1031–1045 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Betancur, R. R., Orti, G. & Pyron, R. A. Fossil-based comparative analyses reveal ancient marine ancestry erased by extinction in ray-finned fishes. Ecol. Lett. 18, 441–450 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Matschiner, M., Hanel, R. & Salzburger, W. On the origin and trigger of the notothenioid adaptive radiation. PLoS ONE 6, e18911 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meynard, C. N., Mouillot, D., Mouquet, N. & Douzery, E. J. A phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of Mediterranean teleost fishes. PLoS ONE 7, e36443 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanciangco, M. D., Carpenter, K. E. & Betancur, R. R. Phylogenetic placement of enigmatic percomorph families (Teleostei: Percomorphaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 94, 565–576 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fang, B., Merila, J., Matschiner, M. & Momigliano, P. Estimating uncertainty in divergence times among three-spined stickleback clades using the multispecies coalescent. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 142, 106646 (2020).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fang, B., Merila, J., Ribeiro, F., Alexandre, C. M. & Momigliano, P. Worldwide phylogeny of three-spined sticklebacks. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 127, 613–625 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Orti, G., Bell, M. A., Reimchen, T. E. & Meyer, A. Global survey of mitochondrial DNA sequences in the threespine stickleback: evidence for recent migrations. Evolution 48, 608–622 (1994).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Halliburton, R. & Halliburton, R. Introduction to Population Genetics (Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004).

  31. Hyten, D. L. et al. Impacts of genetic bottlenecks on soybean genome diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 16666–16671 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johannesson, K. et al. Repeated evolution of reproductive isolation in a marine snail: unveiling mechanisms of speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 365, 1735–1747 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kemppainen, P., Lindskog, T., Butlin, R. & Johannesson, K. Intron sequences of arginine kinase in an intertidal snail suggest an ecotype-specific selective sweep and a gene duplication. Heredity 106, 808–816 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roesti, M., Gavrilets, S., Hendry, A. P., Salzburger, W. & Berner, D. The genomic signature of parallel adaptation from shared genetic variation. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3944–3956 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Varadharajan, S. et al. A high-quality assembly of the nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) genome. Genome Biol. Evol. 11, 3291–3308 (2019).

  36. Feder, J. L. & Nosil, P. The efficacy of divergence hitchhiking in generating genomic islands during ecological speciation. Evolution 64, 1729–1747 (2010).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ramachandran, S. et al. Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15942–15947 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bierne, N., Gagnaire, P. A. & David, P. The geography of introgression in a patchy environment and the thorn in the side of ecological speciation. Curr. Zool. 59, 72–86 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Baker, V. R. & Bunker, R. C. Cataclysmic Late Pleistocene flooding from glacial Lake Missoula—a review. Quat. Sci. Rev. 4, 1–41 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bretz, J. H. The Lake Missoula floods and the channeled scabland. J. Geol. 77, 505–543 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Oviatt, C. G. Chronology of Lake Bonneville, 30,000 to 10,000 yr BP. Quat. Sci. Rev. 110, 166–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Upham, W. The Glacial Lake Agassiz Vol. 25 (US Government Printing Office, 1896).

  43. Hohenlohe, P. A., Bassham, S., Currey, M. & Cresko, W. A. Extensive linkage disequilibrium and parallel adaptive divergence across threespine stickleback genomes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 367, 395–408 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bolnick, D. I., Barrett, R. D. H., Oke, K. B., Rennison, D. J. & Stuart, Y. E. (Non)parallel evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 49, 303–330 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Roda, F., Walter, G. M., Nipper, R. & Ortiz-Barrientos, D. Genomic clustering of adaptive loci during parallel evolution of an Australian wildflower. Mol. Ecol. 26, 3687–3699 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Barghi, N. et al. Genetic redundancy fuels polygenic adaptation in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000128 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kautt, A. F., Elmer, K. R. & Meyer, A. Genomic signatures of divergent selection and speciation patterns in a ‘natural experiment’, the young parallel radiations of Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fishes. Mol. Ecol. 21, 4770–4786 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Le Moan, A., Gagnaire, P. A. & Bonhomme, F. Parallel genetic divergence among coastal–marine ecotype pairs of European anchovy explained by differential introgression after secondary contact. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3187–3202 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Westram, A. et al. Do the same genes underlie parallel phenotypic divergence in different Littorina saxatilis populations? Mol. Ecol. 23, 4603–4616 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Morales, H. E. et al. Genomic architecture of parallel ecological divergence: beyond a single environmental contrast. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav9963 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Roesti, M., Kueng, B., Moser, D. & Berner, D. The genomics of ecological vicariance in threespine stickleback fish. Nat. Commun. 6, 8767 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Twyford, A. D. & Friedman, J. Adaptive divergence in the monkey flower Mimulus guttatus is maintained by a chromosomal inversion. Evolution 69, 1476–1486 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Faria, R. et al. Multiple chromosomal rearrangements in a hybrid zone between Littorina saxatilis ecotypes. Mol. Ecol. 28, 1375–1393 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Westram, A. M. et al. Clines on the seashore: the genomic architecture underlying rapid divergence in the face of gene flow. Evol. Lett. 2, 297–309 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Paccard, A. et al. Repeatability of adaptive radiation depends on spatial scale: regional versus global replicates of stickleback in lake versus stream habitats. J. Hered. 111, 43–56 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Conte, G. L. et al. Extent of QTL reuse during repeated phenotypic divergence of sympatric threespine stickleback. Genetics 201, 1189–1200 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Conte, G. L., Arnegard, M. E., Peichel, C. L. & Schluter, D. The probability of genetic parallelism and convergence in natural populations. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 5039–5047 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Hubbard, T. et al. Ensembl 2005. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D447–D453 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Catchen, J., Hohenlohe, P. A., Bassham, S., Amores, A. & Cresko, W. A. Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3124–3140 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Li, H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinformatics 27, 2987–2993 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Korneliussen, T. S., Albrechtsen, A. & Nielsen, R. ANGSD: analysis of next generation sequencing data. BMC Bioinform. 15, 356 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kitano, J. et al. A role for a neo-sex chromosome in stickleback speciation. Nature 461, 1079–1083 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Natri, H. M., Shikano, T. & Merilä, J. Progressive recombination suppression and differentiation in recently evolved neo-sex chromosomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1131–1144 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hedrick, P. W. Sex: differences in mutation, recombination, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. Evolution 61, 2750–2771 (2007).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Schaffner, S. F. The X chromosome in population genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 43–51 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Li, Z., Kemppainen, P., Rastas, P. & Merila, J. Linkage disequilibrium clustering-based approach for association mapping with tightly linked genomewide data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 809–824 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Fox, E. A., Wright, A. E., Fumagalli, M. & Vieira, F. G. ngsLD: evaluating linkage disequilibrium using genotype likelihoods. Bioinformatics 35, 3855–3856 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Roesti, M., Moser, D. & Berner, D. Recombination in the threespine stickleback genome—patterns and consequences. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3014–3027 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Matthey‐Doret, R. & Whitlock, M. C. Background selection and FST: consequences for detecting local adaptation. Mol. Ecol. 28, 3902–3914 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Stankowski, S. et al. Widespread selection and gene flow shape the genomic landscape during a radiation of monkeyflowers. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000391 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Neuenschwander, S., Hospital, F., Guillaume, F. & Goudet, J. quantiNemo: an individual-based program to simulate quantitative traits with explicit genetic architecture in a dynamic metapopulation. Bioinformatics 24, 1552–1553 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hu, A. et al. Influence of Bering Strait flow and North Atlantic circulation on glacial sea-level changes. Nat. Geosci. 3, 118–121 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Meiri, M. et al. Faunal record identifies Bering isthmus conditions as constraint to end-Pleistocene migration to the New World. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, 20132167 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Zheng, X. et al. A high-performance computing toolset for relatedness and principal component analysis of SNP data. Bioinformatics 28, 3326–3328 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful to the following people who helped in obtaining the samples used in this study: J. DeFaveri, A. Adill, W. Aguirre, T. Bakker, A. Bell, M. Bell, B. Borg, F. Franzén, A. Goto, A. Hendry, G. Herczeg, F. von Hippel, A. Hirvonen, J. Hämäläinen, M. Kaukoranta, A. Kijewska, D. Kingsley, Y. Kosaka, L. Kvarnemo, D. Lajus, T. Leinonen, A. Levsen, S. McCairns, A. Millet, J. Morozinska, C. Munk, H. Mäkinen, A. Nolte, K. Østbye, W. Pekkola, J. Pokela, M. Ravinet, K. Räsänen, D. Schluter, M. Seymor, T. Shikano, P. Sjöstrand, G. Staines, B. Stelbrink, I. Syvänperä, A. Vasemägi, M. Webster, J. Willacker, H. Winkler and L. Zaveik. Our research was supported by Academy of Finland grant nos. 250435, 263722, 265211 and 1307943 to J.M. and grant no. 316294 to P.M., the Finnish Cultural Foundation grant no. 00190489 to P.K. and the Chinese Scholarship Council grant no. 201606270188 to B.F. We thank J. DeFaveri for feedback and linguistic corrections.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



P.K. and J.M. conceived the concept of the study, with contributions from P.M. and B.F. B.F. and P.K. carried out analyses with significant contributions from P.M. P.K. and B.F. led the writing, with significant contributions from P.M. and J.M. X.F. contributed to LiftOver analysis. B.F. visualized the data. All authors accepted the final version of this manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bohao Fang or Petri Kemppainen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Visualization of all LD-clusters identified by LDna.

In each panel, I) the top and II) middle plots represent the marine–freshwater differentiation (FST) of the clustered loci of the individuals in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, respectively. III) The bottom left plot shows population differentiation based on loci in each LD-cluster (principal component analysis; PCA). Only one chromosome is presented on the x axis when the clustered loci were located on a single chromosome. IV) The bottom right plot depicts the number of in-group samples (as positive value) and the remaining samples (as negative value). Global samples from various regions are shown in different colours; freshwater ecotypes are indicated by light-colour and marine ecotype by dark-colour. The same colour scheme was used in the PCA. The p-values were obtained from permutation tests of cluster separation (Supplementary Information 1).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Ability of LDna to recover marine–freshwater differentiated regions from Jones et al.11.

Jones et al.11 identified 812 regions showing parallel marine–freshwater differentiation in the Eastern Pacific (“i-regions”) and 81 regions showing global parallelism (“m-f regions”). (a) The proportions of m-f and i-regions that were correctly recovered by LDna (red; at least one SNP from 29 LD-clusters mapped to these regions), the proportion or regions for which we had data but LDna analyses failed to recover (cyan), and regions for which we had no genetic data (blue). (b) Number of high LD-SNPs (produced by the first LDna-filtering step) and raw SNPs (bottom row) in regions that were and were not recovered by LDna and (c) size of the regions that were and were not recovered by LDna (on log10 scale). (d) FST from raw SNPs located within regions that were and were not recovered by LDna. Overall, m-f regions and i- regions that were not recovered by LDna were generally smaller, contained fewer SNPs (that is had lower sequencing coverage) and exhibited lower FST than the regions correctly recovered by LDna.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Genome-wide marine–freshwater differentiation (FST) in the Atlantic, Eastern Pacific and Western Pacific Oceans.

(ac) SNP-based FST of the individuals in the Atlantic (ATL), Eastern Pacific (EP) and Western Pacific (WP), respectively. Ecotype pairs follow the main analyses (Extended Data Table 2). (d) Window-based FST (win-size=100 kb) between EP freshwater samples (n = 13) and EP marine samples (n = 4). (e) Window-based FST between EP freshwater samples (n = 13) and all Pacific marine samples (n = 13). (d, e) are significantly correlated (r = 0.904, p < 0.0001). (f, g) SNP-based EP genetic parallelism (LD-clusters 2, 21, 29) for the same ecotype comparison as (d, e), respectively. Loci from LD-clusters involved in genetic parallelism are colour-coded for all panels (refer to main Fig. 2).

Extended Data Fig. 4 PCA plot of LDna clusters with population identification.

See Supplementary Table 1 for population identifiers.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Population diversity and Isolation-By-Distance (IBD) in marine three-spined stickleback populations.

(a) Boxplots of individual heterozygosity (proportion heterozygous positions per individual) of marine individuals in different geographical regions (EP = Eastern Pacific, WP = Western Pacific and ATL = Atlantic; GLM, F2,64 = 43.05, P < 0.001). (b) Boxplots of individual heterozygosity of LD-cluster 2 in different geographical regions (GLM, F2,64 = 91.9, P < 0.001). (c) IBD between marine populations. Note that the different scales of empirical and simulated heterozygosity in (a, b) are not relevant. This is because in the simulations of all allele frequencies started from 0.5 and while a burn in of 10k generations was appropriate for loci linked to QTL, neutral loci would have required four times more generations to reach equilibrium (see Supplementary Information 3). However, the trends in terms of loss of heterozygosity away from the ancestral Eastern Pacific marine populations is still informative and consistent with the empirical data.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Mercator projection of global three-spined stickleback populations used in the study.

166 three-spined stickleback individuals from 63 localities were used, including 119 freshwater individuals and 47 marine individuals. For a complete list of samples, see Supplementary Table 1.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Summary of all LD-clusters.

Shaded rows (LD-clusters) contribute to genetic parallelism of regional or trans-oceanic freshwater populations.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Sampling schemes for FST analyses.

The table specifies sampling schemes used for FST analyses and figures.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes 1–5, references, Figs. 1–3 and Table 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, B., Kemppainen, P., Momigliano, P. et al. On the causes of geographically heterogeneous parallel evolution in sticklebacks. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 1105–1115 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing