Table 1.

Mathematical models of geographic parthenogenesis differ in their assumptions about parthenogens and in their ecological outcomes. YES, explicit focus of the model; Y, model implicitly applies to it; ∼, model would need modifications to include this assumption; N, model structure conflicts with this assumption. First three columns concern the assumptions made regarding parthenogens' degree of uniparentality (autonomous/pseudogamous/pseudo-gamous hermaphrodite), the next two columns indicate assumptions regarding homozygosity (apomictic/automictic). The ‘sexes’ column indicates whether the model assumes a gonochorous species (♀ + ♂) or an outcrossing hermaphrodite ( (out)). The ‘democost’ column indicates the reproductive output of asexuals compared with sexuals in the model; 2 means that total fecundity is the same but: in a gonochoristic context the number of female offspring is doubled; in a hermaphroditic context male function resources are reallocated to female function. Models also differ in their assumptions about spatial structure, mating among sexuals (or possibility for crosses between asexual male function and sexual females), dispersal and clonal diversity, as indicated. The final columns include whether clonal diversity is a requirement of the mechanism leading to a geographic parthenogenesis pattern (column ‘diversity required?’), what this mechanism is, where the asexuals are predicted to prevail, whether coexistence of sexuals and asexuals is possible, and the temporal pattern predicted.

paper	auto-nom.	pseudog.	pseudog.+hermaphro.	apo-mictic	auto-mictic	sexes	democost	space	mating	dispersal	clonal diversity	diversity required?	mechanism leading to geographic parthenogenesis	habitat of asexuals?	coexistence?	stable?
Variability and competition for resources
Gaggiotti [23]	YES	Y	Y	Y	Y	(out)	[1 ; 2]	patches with heterogeneous competition	random (space, genotype)	random	implicit, lower than sexuals	N	competitive asymmetries	lower competition/more structured resource/lower diversity of sexuals	partial asexual refugium	stable
Weeks [72]	YES	Y	Y	Y	Y	(out)	2	1 patch, stable or fluctuating resource	random (no space)	n.a.	explicit (ongoing lineage generation)	Y	fluctuating environment favours phenotypic diversity	more stable resource	dynamic equilibrium
Scheu et al. [73]	YES	Y	Y	Y	Y	♀+♂	2	one patch, regrowing resources	random (no space)	n.a.	explicit (ongoing lineage generation)	Y	competitive asymmetries	lower competition = higher mortality /more stable resource/regrows faster/larger population	N	stable
Song et al. [74]	YES	Y	Y	Y	Y	♀+♂	2	continuous, latitudinal gradient in resource / death rate	local, random	short-distance, random (migration rate affects coexistence)	explicit (ongoing lineage generation)	N	competitive asymmetries	lower competition = higher mortality /more stable resource/regrows faster/larger population	Y (for intermediate migration rate)	stable
Barrier against outbreeding
Peck et al. [24]	YES	Y	Y	Y	∼	(out)	[0.7 ; 1]	discrete, South–North gradient of productivity	local, random	random	low (ongoing lineage generation and selection)	Y/N	outbreeding depression of sexuals	sink habitat	Y (gradient)	stable
Mutation accumulation in space
Salathé et al. [75]	YES	N	Y	Y	∼	(out)	2	homogeneous grid	local, random	short-distance, random	deleterious mutation accumulation	N	mutational meltdown prevents invasion of large pop	small pop	N	stable
Contagious asexuality
Britton & Mogie [76]	YES	N	∼	Y	N	(out)	<1	continuous, homogeneous	local, random; asexual ♂ ×sexual ♀	local (diffusion)	n.a.	N	contagious asexuality	newly opened (verbal extrapolation)	yes (long-term)	slow asexual spread