Many studies have recorded phenotypic changes in natural populations and attributed them to climate change. However, controversy and uncertainty has arisen around three levels of inference in such studies. First, it has proven difficult to conclusively distinguish whether phenotypic changes are genetically based or the result of phenotypic plasticity. Second, whether or not the change is adaptive is usually assumed rather than tested. Third, inferences that climate change is the specific causal agent have rarely involved the testing – and exclusion – of other potential drivers. We here review the various ways in which the above inferences have been attempted, and evaluate the strength of support that each approach can provide. This methodological assessment sets the stage for 11 accompanying review articles that attempt comprehensive syntheses of what is currently known – and not known – about responses to climate change in a variety of taxa and in theory. Summarizing and relying on the results of these reviews, we arrive at the conclusion that evidence for genetic adaptation to climate change has been found in some systems, but is still relatively scarce. Most importantly, it is clear that more studies are needed – and these must employ better inferential methods – before general conclusions can be drawn. Overall, we hope that the present paper and special issue provide inspiration for future research and guidelines on best practices for its execution.

No abstract

We evaluate methods for measuring and specifying rates of microevolution in the wild, with particular regard to studies of contemporary, often deemed "rapid," evolution. A considerable amount of ambiguity and inconsistency persists within the field, and we provide a number of suggestions that should improve study design, inference, and clarity of presentation. (1) Some studies measure change over time within a population (allochronic) and others measure the difference between two populations that had a common ancestor in the past (synchronic). Allochronic studies can be used to estimate rates of "evolution," whereas synchronic studies more appropriately estimate rates of "divergence." Rates of divergence may range from a small fraction to many times the actual evolutionary rates in the component populations. (2) Some studies measure change using individuals captured from the wild, whereas others measure differences after rearing in a common environment. The first type of study can be used to specify "phenotypic" rates and the later "genetic" rates. (3) The most commonly used evolutionary rate metric, the darwin, has a number of theoretical shortcomings. Studies of microevolution would benefit from specifying rates in standard deviations per generation, the haldane. (4) Evolutionary rates are typically specified without an indication of their precision. Readily available methods for specifying confidence intervals and statistical significance (regression, bootstrapping, randomization) should be implemented. (5) Microevolutionists should strive to accumulate time series, which can reveal temporal shifts in the rate of evolution and can be used to identify evolutionary patterns. (6) Evolutionary rates provide a convenient way to compare the tempo of evolution across studies, traits, taxa, and time scales, but such comparisons are subject to varying degrees of confidence. Comparisons across different time scales are particularly tenuous. (7) A number of multivariate rate measures exist, but considerable theoretical development is required before their utility can be determined. We encourage the continued investigation of evolutionary rates because the information they provide is relevant to a wide range of theoretical and practical issues.

We evaluate methods for measuring and specifying rates of microevolution in the wild, with particular regard to studies of contemporary, often deemed "rapid," evolution. A considerable amount of ambiguity and inconsistency persists within the field, and we provide a number of suggestions that should improve study design, inference, and clarity of presentation. (1) Some studies measure change over time within a population (allochronic) and others measure the difference between two populations that had a common ancestor in the past (synchronic). Allochronic studies can be used to estimate rates of "evolution," whereas synchronic studies more appropriately estimate rates of "divergence." Rates of divergence may range from a small fraction to many times the actual evolutionary rates in the component populations. (2) Some studies measure change using individuals captured from the wild, whereas others measure differences after rearing in a common environment. The first type of study can be used to specify "phenotypic" rates and the later "genetic" rates. (3) The most commonly used evolutionary rate metric, the darwin, has a number of theoretical shortcomings. Studies of microevolution would benefit from specifying rates in standard deviations per generation, the haldane. (4) Evolutionary rates are typically specified without an indication of their precision. Readily available methods for specifying confidence intervals and statistical significance (regression, bootstrapping, randomization) should be implemented. (5) Microevolutionists should strive to accumulate time series, which can reveal temporal shifts in the rate of evolution and can be used to identify evolutionary patterns. (6) Evolutionary rates provide a convenient way to compare the tempo of evolution across studies, traits, taxa, and time scales, but such comparisons are subject to varying degrees of confidence. Comparisons across different time scales are particularly tenuous. (7) A number of multivariate rate measures exist, but considerable theoretical development is required before their utility can be determined. We encourage the continued investigation of evolutionary rates because the information they provide is relevant to a wide range of theoretical and practical issues.

Human activity is causing wild populations to experience rapid trait change and local extirpation. The resulting effects on intraspecific variation could have substantial consequences for ecological processes and ecosystem services. Although researchers have long acknowledged that variation among species influences the surrounding environment, only recently has evidence accumulated for the ecological importance of variation within species. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the ecological effects of variation within a species (intraspecific effects) with the effects of replacement or removal of that species (species effects). We evaluated direct and indirect ecological responses, including changes in abundance (or biomass), rates of ecological processes and changes in community composition. Our results show that intraspecific effects are often comparable to, and sometimes stronger than, species effects. Species effects tend to be larger for direct ecological responses (for example, through consumption), whereas intraspecific effects and species effects tend to be similar for indirect responses (for example, through trophic cascades). Intraspecific effects are especially strong when indirect interactions alter community composition. Our results summarize data from the first generation of studies examining the relative ecological effects of intraspecific variation. Our conclusions can help inform the design of future experiments and the formulation of strategies to quantify and conserve biodiversity.