Shock news: mammals adapt to changing climate

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 climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Westhaver
December 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Caleb,
I liked your comment to me. I am puzzled by the operators that cause a creature to change in time. If there is an agent at work causing periodic mutations for instance, then there is nothing to cease them from doing so now… or in the shark… that is if you view change as a consequence of mutation and not selection. If it is selection, then that process is governed by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
If the agent existed, then it exists, and ought to be observable, just as the cycle of the moon and planets Why would it cease for a shark, or a coelacanth.or a horseshoe crab….
Cheers

December 27, 2011 11:45 pm

Al Gore(d);
http://flyfishyellowstone.blogspot.com/2007/03/wolves-trout.html

From the 1890s through the 1920s, in an effort to increase the elk herds and “protect the wildlife,” the park service went about the business of eradicating the wolf from Yellowstone. The last wolf pack was killed off in 1926.
For half a century things were fine. The elk herds, lacking the wolf packs that historically preyed upon them, rapidly expanded. When winter arrived, knowing they had nothing to fear, the herds elected to browse the readily obtainable young cottonwoods and willows that lined the trout streams and rivers of the park. Ecologists began to note that there were always plenty of sapling cottonwoods and any number of mature, 70-year-old trees, but nothing in between.
Then the trout started disappearing. Lacking the intermediate-sized trees and heavy underbrush that had been consumed due to the elk’s overgrazing, the exposed banks of the rivers were now washing away in the spring freshets and the summer thunderstorms. Those streams, once crystal clear, were now silted over and murky. The trout, being sight feeders, either starved or swam off in search of cleaner water. The fly-fishermen of the Lamar, Yellowstone and Firehole rivers were also disappearing, much to the frustration of the local outfitters and hotels.
In an effort to reduce the overgrazing, the National Park Service, amidst a storm of local controversy, decided to capture 14 wolves from the wilds of British Columbia and reintroduce them into Yellowstone in 1995. Eventually three separate wolf packs were established within the park. With the wolves keenly aware of the elks’ tendency to browse along the riverbanks during the deep snow-packed months of winter, the wolves were inadvertently standing guard over the young cottonwoods and willows. Once the wolf packs began to thin the elk in these river valleys, the juvenile cottonwoods soon returned, the trout streams cleared, and there you have it: wolves = trout.

http://www.owlpages.com/image.php?image=sequence-Unusual+Owls-Hybrids-1
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260150/killing-owls-save-owls-lou-dolinar

in arguing against terminating the barred owl with extreme prejudice, some biologists say that the two species are closely related, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Some suspect they diverged from a common ancestor during the last Ice Age, when populations were split into East Coast and West Coast versions, with the West Coast branch (typically) becoming more laid back. Rather than the extinction of a species, it may be that all we’re seeing is a post-glacial restoration of the natural order of things.

STFUKMRAFOAD

DesertYote
December 28, 2011 12:00 am

Paul Westhaver
December 27, 2011 at 6:24 pm
I have a fish fossil in my china cabinet that they say is 250 million years old. It looks a lot like a fish I’d see today. This represents a challenge to common descent since it would seem that fish, our cousins, haven’t changed much in 250 million years yet humanity came from a small vole to what we are today. I am not discounting it… but I say it is in the realm of theory since we can’t provided evidence or reproduce it in a lab.
###
Not to be too pendantic, but that 250 million year old fish is nothing close to a modern fish. The fact that it looks like one to you has more to do with your perception. Just because they have fins and a tail does not mean they are related. Even the extent sharks that everyone thinks have been around for millions of years are of a recent origin. The fact that they resemble ancient sharks super-fish-ally has more to do with how they make a living then anything else. Its one hell of a successful design. Probably the most ancient living fish, are of the genus Polypterus. The genus goes back to the cretaceous (which is pretty amazing if you think about it). Other ancient fishes include the paddle fishes and the sturgeons.
BTW, what is that 250 million year old fish fossil you have?

Blade
December 28, 2011 4:12 am

Stark Dickflüssig [December 27, 2011 at 11:14 am] says:
“Nope, sorry. 1970-2011 isn’t long enough for evolution to take place. And everyone knows that the universe was created in 1970.”

Thanks to the pop-scientists at NSIDC we now know that creation occurred in 1979.

Justthinkin [December 27, 2011 at 11:41 am] says:
” … 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!”

Nail.Meet.Head. I believe this is the root of our problems.

MattC
December 28, 2011 6:23 am

This study really eases my mind. I currently own a farm that has been in my family for a very long time. I would hope, one day, that my descendents will own and care for the land and then their descendents would do the same and so on…. I’ve always been worried though because the land is in Michigan and the entirety of this State was, during the last ice age, covered by glaciers a mile thick and eventually it will be again. I’m glad to find out that it is likely that my descendents will probably evolve the ability to outrun glaciers.

Al Gored
December 28, 2011 11:02 am

Brian H says:
December 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
What you pasted re Yellowstone has accurate elements but is the simplistic and historically false and revisionist story that the wolf and wilderness advocates spin. Here’s some starting points on the real story:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4002370
http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Yellowstones%20Natural%20Regulations%20Policy%2021-a.pdf
http://www.mendeley.com/research/role-native-americans-structuring-western-ecosystems-13/
For more, google ‘Charles E. Kay.’
Barred Owls. I said, “I doubt very much if they would or could interbreed in the wild for many reasons. Now that their ranges overlap that is more possible but I still have not heard of that nor would i expect that.”
So thanks for that link. I am surprised that there is a documented case of hybridization, made possible by their recent range overlap. Given the differences in their calls and habitat I didn’t think that was likely. And I agree with the sentiments expressed in that piece you pasted.
Finally, I am not sure what “STFUKMRAFOAD” means exactly but I’m guessing it isn’t sweet.

son of mulder
December 28, 2011 2:05 pm

Climate change changes what evolutionary change would have happened without climate change. Nuff said.