From Brown University it seems we need a new variation on the popular bumper sticker:
Over 65 million years North American mammal evolution has tracked with climate change
Rise and fall of groups of fauna driven by temperature
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — History often seems to happen in waves – fashion and musical tastes turn over every decade and empires give way to new ones over centuries. A similar pattern characterizes the last 65 million years of natural history in North America, where a novel quantitative analysis has identified six distinct, consecutive waves of mammal species diversity, or “evolutionary faunas.” What force of history determined the destiny of these groupings? The numbers say it was typically climate change.
“Although we’ve always known in a general way that mammals respond to climatic change over time, there has been controversy as to whether this can be demonstrated in a quantitative fashion,” said Brown University evolutionary biology Professor Christine Janis. “We show that the rise and fall of these faunas is indeed correlated with climatic change – the rise or fall of global paleotemperatures – and also influenced by other more local perturbations such as immigration events.”
Specifically, of the six waves of species diversity that Janis and her Spanish collaborators describe online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, four show statistically significant correlations with major changes in temperature. The two transitions that show a weaker but still apparent correlation with the pattern correspond to periods when mammals from other continents happened to invade in large numbers, said Janis, who is the paper’s senior and second author.
Previous studies of the potential connection between climate change and mammal species evolution have counted total species diversity in the fossil record over similar time periods. But in this analysis, led by postdoctoral scholar Borja Figueirido, the scientists asked whether there were any patterns within the species diversity that might be significant. They were guided by a similar methodology pioneered in a study of “evolutionary faunas” in marine invertebrates by Janis’ late husband Jack Sepkoski, who was a paleontologist at the University of Chicago.
What the authors found is six distinct and consecutive groupings of mammal species that shared a common rise, peak and decline in their numbers. For example, the “Paleocene fauna” had largely given way to the “early-middle Eocene fauna” by about 50 million years ago. Moreover, the authors found that these transfers of dominance correlated with temperature shifts, as reflected in data on past levels of atmospheric oxygen (determined from the isotopes in the fossilized remains of deep sea microorganisms).
By the numbers, the research showed correlations between species diversity and temperature change, but qualitatively, it also provided a narrative of how the traits of typical species within each wave made sense given the changes in vegetation that followed changes in climate. For example, after a warming episode about 20 million years in the early Miocene epoch, the dominant vegetation transitioned from woodland to a savannah-like grassland. It is no surprise, therefore, that many of the herbivores that comprised the accompanying “Miocene fauna” had high-crowned teeth that allowed them to eat the foods from those savannah sources.
To the extent that the study helps clarify scientists’ understanding of evolution amid climate changes, it does not do so to the extent that they can make specific predictions about the future, Janis said. But it seems all the clearer that climate change has repeatedly had meaningful effect over millions of years.
“Such perturbations, related to anthropogenic climatic change, are currently challenging the fauna of the world today, emphasizing the importance of the fossil record for our understanding of how past events affected the history of faunal diversification and extinction, and hence how future climactic changes may continue to influence life on earth,” the authors wrote in the paper.
In addition to Janis and Figueirido at Brown, the other authors are Juan Perez-Claros and Paul Palmqvist at the University of Malaga and Miguel De Renzi at the University of Valencia in Spain. Figueirido is also affiliated with Malaga.
Grants from the Fulbright program, the Bushnell Foundation (to Brown) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation funded the research.
the more things change the more they stay the same…HOW BOUT THAT??????
Adapt, Migrate or Die.
This is high school biology.
This study clearly shows the effects of the GEICO Cavemen driving around in their SUV’s for the past 65 million years, causing unprecedented change.
Isn’t it just as possible that by eating the vegetation, the animals over the past 65 million years changed the vegetation, which changed the climate?
Don’t grazing animals create much of the grasslands they use a food, by helping prevent the regrowth of forests? Doesn’t overgrazing lead to the creation of deserts?
Why do the authors assume a cause and effect relationship between life and climate, without first establishing which is the cause and which is the effect? Wasn’t this the mistake that climate science made with temperature and CO2 by studying ice cores? They assumed CO2 was the cause, only to discover later that temperature was the cause. By then the faulty science had been published.
But the memo says that all change is bad, and we don’t want any current species to fall, so we must stop global warming (and/or cooling) immediately!
Ferd,
Nothing wrong with publishing faulty science – it’s part of the method. What’s wrong is not expecting someone to try to falsify your work and attempting to “hide the decline” to put it in a nut shell.
MIke
What a crock. “Previous studies of the potential connection between climate change and mammal species evolution have counted total species diversity in the fossil record over similar time periods.” There is absolutely no way to use the fossil record to compare the diversity at a species level to the present level of diversity with any type of confidence to make their next great leap in assumption about climate changes.
This narrative that the fossil record can be used in context with present day specie definitions has been kicking around for a while- first to support the marketing of the alarm that we are entering the next great extinction event and now climate change. Someone needs to put a stake in this nonsense.
And the temperatures encountered by the terrestrial habitat was defined by the oxygen isotopes of deep sea creatures- C’mon.
This seems to be more about how can paleontology get on the CO2 grant gravy train. Paleontology is such a great science and the intellectual battles over the interpretation of the fossil record have been fun to follow. Please allow me to have one part of the natural sciences that can be enjoyed without being a proxy war for the climate wars.
Here is the most important lesson from Darwin- Evolution may be able to describe the past but it can’t predict the future.
Speaking of adaptive migration, the Seattle Times carried this story on its front page: “Rare influx of Arctic snowy owls wintering here.” Apparently, this unusual influx of snowy owls is occurring across our northern states. The reporter did not mention global warming as a potential cause of the migration.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017100661_snowies27m.html
My take is that either Hansen is correct and there is a huge 4C to 8C warming anomaly, or it is so cold in the Arctic that the owls are beginning to migrate south to safety. See: http://www.real-science.com/jimmy-works-arctic-magic and
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-ice-extent-set-year-record
Who is correct or are there other explanations?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that complex organisms possess the instructions in their DNA to modify their metabolic systems to deal with acute variations in weather and climate for both individuals and their offspring. Is that evolution? I don’t think so. I say creatures can adapt and individuals survive or die based on their ability to adapt but to assume that a short term thermal event has some magical ability to mutate DNA to the better of a species is utter nonsense and is, as of yet, unsubstantiated even in the Journal of Evolutionary MicroBiology.
Know this.
Human females already possess ALL of the eggs (therefore nucleii, ergo DNA) of their offspring when they are 3 months a fetus within the womb of their mothers…..seriously. A grandmother, when pregnant for her daughter, has within her womb a fetus which has already all the eggs of her grand children. Think about it. How do the eggs inside the 96.8 F fetus, inside the womb at 96.8 know how to mutate in accordance with 0.05 C change in global temp?
Silly scientists!
DNA is wondrously complex and nearly not understood at all.
Pat, I disagree evolution can predict the future and from what I’m seeing it is going one way fast, downhill
Nope, sorry. 1970-2011 isn’t long enough for evolution to take place. And everyone knows that the universe was created in 1970.
Gor blinking blimey, who’d ever have guessed? You could ‘ave knocked me down wiv a fevver when I ‘eard this amazing noos.
Life – eh? Funny thing, life………. You’d almost imagine that after a billion or so years of evolution it might be getting quite good at it by now…..
Ain’t it wonderful wot the scientists can find out nowadays.
/sarc…to be read in the dialect ‘Cockney a la van Dyke’
Evolution requires evolution of molecules.
Please give me an example of this scenario:
Molecule A expresses result Alpha
Molecule A changes to Molecule B
Molecule B expresses result Alpha AND Beta, where Beta is non inhibiting to Alpha.
This is a present and real challenge to the scientific community for it is the basis of mutation and species improvement. No examples yet exist.
Natural selection exists, it can be reproduced in the lab.
Mutation exists, it can be reproduced in the lab.
Adaptation of an existing species is well documented.
Common descent is unsubstantiated theory.
Evolution as distinct from the four mechanisms above is unproven. I don’t know what people mean when they say evolution. Do they actually mean natural selection or adaptation? Ok… look at the range of pet dogs, we know selection works but that is a narrowing of the gene pool….Do they mean life came from nothing… there is no evidence for that. Cripes!! Dawkins thinks that life was seeded here by aliens!!
When we agree on what evolution is, science will have made a step forward.
If on means
Good thing too. Why if those brown bears had not turned into polar bears, we wouldn’t have any polar bears to whine about.
“Joe says:
December 27, 2011 at 10:14 am
Adapt, Migrate or Die.
This is high school biology.”
Yes Joe, but’s let not forget that what passes for a ‘prof” these days can barely be equated to a high school diploma of yore,especially in the soft degrees!
When one species can’t handle conditions in one location, it dies out and a more adaptable species takes over. That is evolution in a nutshell.
Therefore: We need to stop messing with evolution by “protecting” species that are trying to make room for better adapters. Delete the absurd Endangered Species Act and all its anti-scientific relatives. At the same time, stop worrying so much about “invasive species”. They are simply the other side of natural adaptation.
We certainly need to regulate hunting and fishing, because those are the ACTUAL causes of unnecessary extinction. But the habitat-oriented “protections” are strictly counterproductive.
“Barny we better take that Brontosuarus steak off the BBQ, the smoke will pollute and kill everything”. ” Her her her! err sure fing Fred”.
Yep Bedrock has alot to answer for LOL
@Latimer Alder: That was terrible, how dare you conjure up images of stripped jackets and straw boaters. 🙂
polistra,
“one species can’t handle conditions in one location, it dies out”
That is an example of a reduction in the information content in the gene pool… that is natural selection. Not evolution……If we presume that evolution is a increase in the information in the genome of a species.
paddylol says:
December 27, 2011 at 11:06 am
“Speaking of adaptive migration, the Seattle Times carried this story on its front page: “Rare influx of Arctic snowy owls wintering here.” Apparently, this unusual influx of snowy owls is occurring across our northern states. The reporter did not mention global warming as a potential cause of the migration.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017100661_snowies27m.html”
I have seen this story splashed on the media with hints of AGW.
Problem is, it is entirely bogus. Snowy owls winter EVERY YEAR in the south Vancouver (BC) area immediately north of where this ‘surprising’ influx is happening, and I would bet that they also occur on the US side there every winter too. The only thing unusual is the number this year and these peaks happen with regularity too.
So this ‘news’ simply plays on the public’s ignorance of what normally happens.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
“Nope, sorry. 1970-2011 isn’t long enough for evolution to take place. And everyone knows that the universe was created in 1970.”
While I think I agree with the intent of your post– there is actually have some really good evidence among the polyploids like salmon that we can see evolutionary changes in a matter of decades. Having more than two paired sets of chromosomes helps as does some other factors beyond this post. But not the type of change that could be seen or understood in the fossil record.
I don’t know if I want to laugh or to cry when reading this paper.
Didn’t these scientists note that there was ‘a 20 million year warming episode’ … warming!!!
And the planet hasn’t cooked to death, no tipping points, nothing, just went on turning.
As for ‘providing a narrative’ – goodness gracious me. Is that another example of post-modern ‘science’, where facts only matter if there are narratives, and other assorted ‘humanising’ curlicues attached to it?
Talking of climate change and adaptation –
Based on models ;>)
Why is it that almost everything said about
global warmingclimate change is good for bad things and bad for good things? As Lord Monckton puts it.The brilliant Willis Eschenbach wrote a fantastic piece last year on extinction entitled “Where Are The Corpses?” I’m sure it’s available in the WUWT archives or you can download a PDF version from SPPI here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/where_are_the_corpses.pdf
This should be required reading for every college kid. I agree that the loathsome Endangered Species Act should be repealed or severely limited. It is little more than a political weapon for the environmentalist left. There are many examples of abuse of the ESA by the “greenshirts” at the EPA. The big problem with the ESA is that it is so open-ended and all too often the regulations are based on specious and nonsensical “science.” We all know the story of the useless Delta smelt and how water for the incredibly productive San Joaquin valley was shut off to “protect” this fish. There is the case of the farmer who was denied use of many acres of his land because an “endangered” rodent had taken up residence on his land. After a couple years the government-funded biologists returned and found the rodent had relocated. Apparently their food source had disappeared. The EPA “allowed” the farmer to resume use of his own land – but with no recompense. We also have the case of some beetle that lives on the sandy bluffs in Maryland. Homeowners were denied the right to reinforce these bluffs (their own property) because it could destroy the eco-system of these “endangered” bugs. As a result millions of dollars of human habitat could be lost to erosion. Perhaps my favorite example is the “sub-species” of a common lizard that has adapted to live in the sandy environment in the Permian basin in SW TX and SE NM. These critters look exactly like the lizards that climb up my stucco and window screens. I bet they would even interbreed if kept together in a terrarium. But the EPA is thinking of using this sub-species to halt oil and building development in this huge area (larger than most NE states).
Where do we draw the line with the ESA? An owl destroyed the Pacific logging industry. Turns out the numbers of spotted owls continue to decline; not due to habitat loss but rather from competition from another species of owl. Lizards, tiny fish, insects and rodents – where does it stop? How about bacteria and viruses? Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I like most dogs better than I like most people, but I’m still pretty fond of people – certainly more so than I am of owls, lizards, rats, insects and tiny, useless fish. What good is it being at the top of the food chain when snot-nosed “environmental studies” grad students and nameless, faceless bureaucrats can deprive us of the use of private property, food and energy production to “protect” species that are so insignificant as to be unknown to most of us? It is interesting to note that many more previously unknown species have been discovered in the last decade than the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century. If a species cannot adapt and co-exist with humans it probably SHOULD become extinct.
Dr. Dave says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Well. The eco-crisis industry fully accepts the theory of evolution except for the extinction part.
P.S. That Spotted Owl story is much, much more bogus than you correctly hinted at, and ALWAYS was. Now it is getting very complicated as they plan to shoot that other owl species you mentioned to ‘save’ the Spotted Owl. And that species, the Barred Owl, is essentially the eastern version of the Spotted Owl, which has spread first west then SOUTH in an AGW defying pattern that the gang would rather not talk about.
The Spotted Owl, wolf and grizzly bear are the most lied about species in the West, and, coincidentally, the most important poster children for the eco-crisis industry.