Divergent selection between contrasting habitats can sometimes drive adaptive divergence and the evolution of reproductive isolation in the face of initially high gene flow. “Progress” along this ecological speciation pathway can range from minimal divergence to full speciation. We examine this variation for threespine stickleback fish that evolved independently across eight lake-stream habitat transitions. By quantifying stickleback diets, we show that lake-stream transitions usually coincide with limnetic-benthic ecotones. By measuring genetically based phenotypes, we show that these ecotones often generate adaptive divergence in foraging morphology. By analyzing neutral genetic markers (microsatellites), we show that adaptive divergence is often associated with the presence of two populations maintaining at least partial reproductive isolation in parapatry. Coalescent-based simulations further suggest that these populations have diverged with gene flow within a few thousand generations, although we cannot rule out the possibility of phases of allopatric divergence. Finally, we find striking variation among the eight lake-stream transitions in progress toward ecological speciation. This variation allows us to hypothesize that progress is generally promoted by strong divergent selection and limited dispersal across the habitat transitions. Our study thus makes a case for ecological speciation in a parapatric context, while also highlighting variation in the outcome.

Background: With the establishment of high-throughput sequencing technologies and new methods for rapid and extensive single nucleotide (SNP) discovery, marker-based genome scans in search of signatures of divergent selection between populations occupying ecologically distinct environments are becoming increasingly popular. Methods and Results: On the basis of genome-wide SNP marker data generated by RAD sequencing of lake and stream stickleback populations, we show that the outcome of such studies can be systematically biased if markers with a low minor allele frequency are included in the analysis. The reason is that these ‘uninformative’ polymorphisms lack the adequate potential to capture signatures of drift and hitchhiking, the focal processes in ecological genome scans. Bias associated with uninformative polymorphisms is not eliminated by just avoiding technical artifacts in the data (PCR and sequencing errors), as a high proportion of SNPs with a low minor allele frequency is a general biological feature of natural populations. Conclusions: We suggest that uninformative markers should be excluded from genome scans based on empirical criteria derived from careful inspection of the data, and that these criteria should be reported explicitly. Together, this should increase the quality and comparability of genome scans, and hence promote our understanding of the processes driving genomic differentiation.