Estimating hybridization rates in the wild: Easier said than done?

Hybridization has important effects on the evolutionary trajectories of natural populations but estimates of this process in the wild and at the individual-level are lacking. Justyn et al. attempted to fill this gap using the citizen science database eBird but there are limitations to this approach. Here, we outline and directly test these limitations using literature searches, case studies, and a comparison between eBird and Birds of North America (BNA), a database that documents hybridization using the scientific literature. We use a hybrid zone between Lazuli and Indigo buntings to highlight the importance of considering geographic range when estimating rates of hybridization and two literature searches to show the importance of considering cryptic hybrids (those that cannot be identified using phenotypic traits) when quantifying these rates. We also use BNA and a case study of hybrid White-faced and Glossy Ibises to show that citizen scientists are underreporting hybrids compared with experts. Justyn et al. highlighted an important gap in the literature, but their results likely represent the lower limit of hybridization between birds and a more nuanced interpretation of their results (e.g., considering extrinsic postzygotic selection) is needed.

Automated summary

Researchers filled the gap in literature by analyzing hybridization in natural populations using databases and case studies, indicating that citizen scientists underreport hybrids compared to experts. The results suggest that geographic range and cryptic hybrids need to be considered when estimating hybridization rates in birds.