It has long been evident that genome size is not an accurate measure of organismal complexity. This paradox was “solved” with the discovery of nonfunctional and selfish DNA in the 1970s. However, emerging from this explanation was an enigma of complexity. Neither neutral nor adaptive models can account for all genome size variation across the tree of life. An organism with intraspecific variation is needed to investigate the functional role of genome size differences. Here I use different populations of the seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus, with a known intraspecific genome size variation of ~4%. It has previously been shown that a larger genome is associated with higher scores in fitness-related traits for this species. In this study, genome size is regressed with phenotypic plasticity along three different environmental gradients. Genome size did not correlate with plasticity in mass and development time along environmental gradients of temperature and host types. However, the results show that larger genomes are consistent with higher canalization of fitness under different food regimes. This further supports the idea that natural selection acts on genome size variation in this species.

During the last decades the climate has been changing more rapidly than in the preceding periods. This is for instance characterized by an increase in temperature. Interestingly, such changes in the environment are not necessarily constant over time as they often show high levels of fluctuation. Organisms are exposed to these changes and respond to them and a recent theoretical model predicts that fluctuations in the environment are important for populations’ response to climate change. The aim of this thesis is to investigate how populations respond to a changing environment, including fluctuations. My thesis is based on the previously mentioned theoretical model and I used a suite of laboratory experiments on the seed beetle Callsosobruchus maculatus, to test the model predictions in a quantitative genetic framework. First, I assessed the genetic architecture of several life history and morphological traits in order to verify that there is sufficient additive genetic variation for the population to respond to changes in the environment. Second, I tested the detailed model predictions explicitly, by investigating whether different types of environmental fluctuations matter for a population’s response. Third, I investigated changes in quantitative genetic variation after i) a rapid shift in temperature and ii) long term selection under increasing temperature including fluctuations. Fourth, I concentrated on sex differences in response to temperature, and finally, I assessed the relative importance of genetic and nongenetic inheritance for traits that differ in their plastic response to a change in the environment. I found that environmental fluctuations are highly important for a population’s response to environmental change. I could detect changes in a set of quantitative genetic parameters, suggesting that a population’s potential to respond to selection, environmental sensitivity and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity are affected by the selective past. I also found that sexes differ in additive genetic variation and plasticity and that parental effects may play an important role in the evolutionary process. Therefore, future studies would benefit greatly from considering details of the selective past and especially environmental fluctuations during attempts to predict how populations respond to a changing environment, particularly with regards to climate change.

In the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus, the female is the larger sex and the male is the smaller sex. However, males that are almost as large as females can also occur, which is due to a specific Y chromosome haplotype. This Y chromosome polymorphism is not expected since the Y chromosome does not recombine and has lost genetic variation as a consequence. Nevertheless, the Y chromosome manages to maintain this polymorphism. Thus, the questions asked are how this occurs and how the large male Y haplotype persists to exist since previous studies have shown how small males have the higher fitness. In this study, large males were from line SL3b Y and small males were from line SL1b Y. To answer the questions, two important measures of fitness were conducted, mating- and lifetime reproductive success, as well as lifetime-history traits of the SL1b Y and SL3b Y males. Males from line SL3b Y turned out to have a faster growth rate and a shorter development time compared to the SL1b Y males. Both the SL3b Y males with a shorter development time and the SL1b Y males with a longer development time had larger body sizes. Large males also showed to have heavier ejaculate weight and produced more offspring compared to the other male Y haplotype. However, neither of the males had higher pre-mating success. In conclusion, the two male Y haplotypes must coexist in nature since their traits are beneficial in different environments and circumstances.