RESUMEN
The relationship between the evolutionary dynamics observed in contemporary populations (microevolution) and evolution on timescales of millions of years (macroevolution) has been a topic of considerable debate. Historically, this debate centers on inconsistencies between microevolutionary processes and macroevolutionary patterns. Here, we characterize a striking exception: emerging evidence indicates that standing variation in contemporary populations and macroevolutionary rates of phenotypic divergence are often positively correlated. This apparent consistency between micro- and macroevolution is paradoxical because it contradicts our previous understanding of phenotypic evolution and is so far unexplained. Here, we explore the prospects for bridging evolutionary timescales through an examination of this "paradox of predictability." We begin by explaining why the divergence-variance correlation is a paradox, followed by data analysis to show that the correlation is a general phenomenon across a broad range of temporal scales, from a few generations to tens of millions of years. Then we review complementary approaches from quantitative-genetics, comparative morphology, evo-devo, and paleontology to argue that they can help to address the paradox from the shared vantage point of recent work on evolvability. In conclusion, we recommend a methodological orientation that combines different kinds of short-term and long-term data using multiple analytical frameworks in an interdisciplinary research program. Such a program will increase our general understanding about how evolution works within and across timescales.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studying the development of fitness related traits in hybrids from populations diverging in sympatry is a fundamental approach to understand the processes of speciation. However, such traits are often affected by covariance structures that complicate the comprehension of these processes, especially because the interactive relationships between traits of different nature (e.g. morphology, behaviour, life-history) remain largely unknown in this context. In a common garden setup, we conducted an extensive examination of a large suit of traits putatively involved in the divergence of two morphs of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus), and investigated the consequences of potential patterns of trait covariance on the phenotype of their hybrids. These traits were measured along ontogeny and involved growth, yolk sac resorption, developmental timing (hatching and the onset of exogeneous feeding), head morphology and feeding behaviour. RESULTS: Growth trajectories provided the strongest signal of phenotypic divergence between the two charr. Strikingly, the first-generation hybrids did not show intermediate nor delayed growth but were similar to the smallest morph, suggesting parental biases in the inheritance of growth patterns. However, we did not observe extensive multivariate trait differences between the two morphs and their hybrids. Growth was linked to head morphology (suggesting that morphological variations in early juveniles relate to simple allometric effects) but this was the only strong signal of covariance observed between all the measured traits. Furthermore, we did not report evidence for differences in overall phenotypic variance between morphs, nor for enhanced phenotypic variability in their hybrids. CONCLUSION: Our study shed light on the multivariate aspect of development in a context of adaptive divergence. The lack of evidence for the integration of most traits into a single covariance structure suggested that phenotypic constraints may not always favour nor impede divergence toward ecological niches differing in numerous physical and ecological variables, as observed in the respective habitats of the two charr. Likewise, the role of hybridization as a disruptive agent of trait covariance may not necessarily be significant in the evolution of populations undergoing resource polymorphism.