Back

Contrasting evolutionary outcomes in a human life history trait which is heritable and under consistent unbiased directional selection

Mawass, W.; Milot, E.

2025-10-14 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2025.10.13.682154 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Microevolution is well documented in natural populations, yet its persistence as an adaptive process remains debated. Despite widespread directional selection on heritable traits, including life-history traits, evolutionary stasis often prevails, with no detectable microevolutionary response. However, evidence of microevolution in some populations raises a key question: do populations under similar ecological conditions and selective pressures exhibit parallel evolution in the same traits? To address this, we examined age at first reproduction (AFR) in three contemporary human populations considered semi-independent replicates, sharing a genetic, demographic, and historical background, with pedigree data available for [~]7 generations. Across all populations, we found strong directional selection favoring earlier AFR, yet quantitative genetic analyses revealed consistently low heritability (h2 {approx} 0.11). Only in the Charlevoix population did AFR show a negative genetic correlation with relative fitness, where more than 50% of the standardized phenotypic selection gradient was explained by the genetic selection gradient. Using the Breeders Equation and Robertsons Secondary Theorem of Selection, we predicted an evolutionary response to selection for AFR, which emerged only in Charlevoix. However, neither phenotypic nor breeding values of AFR showed temporal trends, indicating evolutionary stasis. These findings demonstrate that even under consistent directional selection and moderate additive genetic variation, microevolutionary responses may vary across replicate populations. Our results underscore the prevalence of evolutionary stasis, challenging assumptions about the inevitability of microevolution in response to natural selection.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
3
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
4
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.8%
5
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.4%
7
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
8
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
9
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.7%
10
Heredity
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
17
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
18
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
19
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
20
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
24
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.7%
25
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
26
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%