Climate change has led to shifts in phenology in many species distributed widely across taxonomic groups. It is, however, unclear how we should interpret these shifts without some sort of a yardstick: a measure that will reflect how much a species should be shifting to match the change in its environment caused by climate change. Here, we assume that the shift in the phenology of a species' food abundance is, by a first approximation, an appropriate yardstick. We review the few examples that are available, ranging from birds to marine plankton. In almost all of these examples, the phenology of the focal species shifts either too little (five out of 11) or too much (three out of 11) compared to the yardstick. Thus, many species are becoming mistimed due to climate change. We urge researchers with long-term datasets on phenology to link their data with those that may serve as a yardstick, because documentation of the incidence of climate change-induced mistiming is crucial in assessing the impact of global climate change on the natural world.

A crucial assumption underlying the breeders' equation is that selection acts directly on the trait of interest, and not on an unmeasured environmental factor which affects both fitness and the trait. Such an environmentally induced covariance between a trait and fitness has been repeatedly proposed as an explanation for the lack of response to selection on avian breeding time. We tested this hypothesis using a long-term dataset from a Dutch great tit (Parus major) population. Although there was strong selection for earlier breeding in this population, egg-laying dates have changed only marginally over the last decades. Using a so-called animal model, we quantified the additive genetic variance in breeding time and predicted breeding values for females. Subsequently, we compared selection at the phenotypic and genetic levels for two fitness components, fecundity and adult survival. We found no evidence for an environmentally caused covariance between breeding time and fitness or counteracting selection on the different fitness components. Consequently, breeding time should respond to selection but the expected response to selection was too small to be detected.

The pivotal question in the debate on the ecological effects of climate change is whether species will be able to adapt fast enough to keep up with their changing environment. If we establish the maximal rate of adaptation, this will set an upper limit to the rate at which temperatures can increase without loss of biodiversity.The rate of adaptation will primarily be set by the rate of microevolution since (i) phenotypic plasticity alone is not sufficient as reaction norms will no longer be adaptive and hence microevolution on the reaction norm is needed, (ii) learning will be favourable to the individual but cannot be passed on to the next generations, (iii) maternal effects may play a role but, as with other forms of phenotypic plasticity, the response of offspring to the maternal cues will no longer be adaptive in a changing environment, and (iv) adaptation via immigration of individuals with genotypes adapted to warmer environments also involves microevolution as these genotypes are better adapted in terms of temperature, but not in terms of, for instance, photoperiod.Long-term studies on wild populations with individually known animals play an essential role in detecting and understanding the temporal trends in life-history traits, and to estimate the heritability of, and selection pressures on, life-history traits. However, additional measurements on other trophic levels and on the mechanisms underlying phenotypic plasticity are needed to predict the rate of microevolution, especially under changing conditions.Using this knowledge on heritability of, and selection on, life-history traits, in combination with climate scenarios, we will be able to predict the rate of adaptation for different climate scenarios. The final step is to use ecoevolutionary dynamical models to make the link to population viability and from there to biodiversity loss for those scenarios where the rate of adaptation is insufficient.

In seasonal environments, the main selection pressure on the timing of reproduction (the ultimate factor) is synchrony between offspring requirements and food availability. However, reproduction is initiated much earlier than the time of maximum food requirement of the offspring. Individuals should therefore start reproduction in response to cues (the proximate factors), available in the environment of reproductive decision making, which predict the later environment of selection. With increasing spring temperatures over the past decades, vegetation phenology has advanced, with a concomitant advancement in the reproduction of some species at higher trophic levels. However, a mismatch between food abundance and offspring needs may occur if changes in the environment of decision making do not match those in the environment of selection. Date of egg laying in a great tit (Parus major) population has not advanced over a 23–year period, but selection for early laying has intensified. We believe that this is the first documented case of an adaptive response being hampered because a changing abiotic factor affects the environment in which a reproductive decision is made differently from the environment in which selection occurs.