Abstract
Detecting contemporary evolution requires demonstrating that genetic change has occurred. Mixed effects models allow estimation of quantitative genetic parameters and are widely used to study evolution in wild populations. However, predictions of evolution based on these parameters frequently fail to match observations. Here, we applied three commonly used quantitative genetic approaches to predict the evolution of size at maturity in a wild population of Trinidadian guppies. Crucially, we tested our predictions against evolutionary change observed in common-garden experiments performed on samples from the same population. We show that standard quantitative genetic models underestimated or failed to detect the cryptic evolution of this trait as demonstrated by the common-garden experiments. The models failed because (1) size at maturity and fitness both decreased with increases in population density, (2) offspring experienced higher population densities than their parents, and (3) selection on size was strongest at high densities. When we accounted for environmental change, predictions better matched observations in the common-garden experiments, although substantial uncertainty remained. Our results demonstrate that predictions of evolution are unreliable if environmental change is not appropriately captured in models.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 29-46 |
Number of pages | 18 |
Journal | American Naturalist |
Volume | 197 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jan 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the many interns, field managers, and laboratory technicians of the Guppy Project, without whom this study would not have been possible. We thank the Ramlal family in Trinidad for providing housing and logistical support. Jennifer Lau, Jill T. Anderson, Jarrod Hadfield, and an anonymous reviewer provided insightful feedback that greatly improved the manuscript. Thanks to Anja Felmy for valuable discussions and comments on this work. T.P. is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (United Kingdom) through the Oxford Environmental Research Doctoral Training Program and by a Lamb and Flag scholarship from St. John’s College, Oxford. The empirical work presented here was supported by National Science Foundation awards EF-062362, DEB-1258231, DEB-1556884, and DEB-0846175.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by The University of Chicago.
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
PubMed: MeSH publication types
- Journal Article
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.