Search

A fundamental goal in evolutionary biology is to understand the genetic architecture of adaptive traits. Using whole-genome data of 3955 of Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Island of Daphne Major, we identified six loci of large effect that explain 45% of the variation in the highly heritable beak size of Geospiza fortis, a key ecological trait. The major locus is a supergene comprising four genes. Abrupt changes in allele frequencies at the loci accompanied a strong change in beak size caused by natural selection during a drought. A gradual change in Geospiza scandens occurred across 30 years as a result of introgressive hybridization with G. fortis . This study shows how a few loci with large effect on a fitness-related trait contribute to the genetic potential for rapid adaptive radiation.

Inferring the evolutionary dynamics at play during the process of speciation by analyzing the genomic landscape of divergence is a major pursuit in population genomics. However, empirical assessments of genomic landscapes under varying evolutionary scenarios that are known a priori are few, thereby limiting our ability to achieve this goal. Here we combine RAD-sequencing and individual-based simulations to evaluate the genomic landscape of divergence in the silvereye ( Zosterops lateralis ). Using pairwise comparisons that differ in divergence timeframe and the presence or absence of gene flow, we document how genomic patterns accumulate along the speciation continuum. In contrast to previous predictions, our results provide limited support for the idea that divergence accumulates around loci under divergent selection or that genomic islands widen with time. While a small number of genomic islands were found in populations diverging with and without gene flow, in few cases were SNPs putatively under selection tightly associated with genomic islands. The transition from localized to genome-wide levels of divergence was captured using individual-based simulations that considered only neutral processes. Our results challenge the ubiquity of existing verbal models that explain the accumulation of genomic differences across the speciation continuum and instead support the idea that divergence both within and outside of genomic islands is important during the speciation process., (Copyright © 2020 Sendell-Price et al.)

When populations colonize new areas, both strong selection and strong drift can be experienced due to novel environments and small founding populations, respectively. Empirical studies have predominantly focused on the phenotype when assessing the role of selection, and limited neutral‐loci when assessing founder‐induced loss of diversity. Consequently, the extent to which processes interact to influence evolutionary trajectories is difficult to assess. Genomic‐level approaches provide the opportunity to simultaneously consider these processes. Here, we examine the roles of selection and drift in shaping genomic diversity and divergence in historically documented sequential island colonizations by the silvereye (Zosterops lateralis). We provide the first empirical demonstration of the rapid appearance of highly diverged genomic regions following population founding, the position of which are highly idiosyncratic. As these regions rarely contained loci putatively under selection, it is most likely that these differences arise via the stochastic nature of the founding process. However, selection is required to explain rapid evolution of larger body size in insular silvereyes. Reconciling our genomic data with these phenotypic patterns suggests there may be many genomic routes to the island phenotype, which vary across populations. Finally, we show that accelerated divergence associated with multiple founding steps is the product of genome‐wide rather than localized differences, and that diversity erodes due to loss of rare alleles. However, even multiple founder events do not result in divergence and diversity levels seen in evolutionary older subspecies, and therefore do not provide a shortcut to speciation as proposed by founder‐effect speciation models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]