They shrink horses, don't they?

From the University of Nebraska-Lincoln . Tom Nelson quipped earlier today that he hadn’t noticed any pygmy horses near the equator where it is warmer.

Study: Evolution of earliest horses driven by climate change

New research offers evidence of rising temperatures’ effects on body size

This is an artist's reconstruction of Sifrhippus sandrae (right) touching noses with a modern Morgan horse (left) that stands about 5 feet high at the shoulders and weighs about 1,000 pounds. Sifrhippus was the size of a small house cat (about 8.5 pounds) at the beginning of the Eocene (approximately 55.8 million years ago) and is the earliest known horse. Credit: Danielle Byerley, Florida Museum of Natural History.

When Sifrhippus, the earliest known horse, first appeared in the forests of North America more than 50 million years ago, it would not have been mistaken for a Clydesdale. It weighed in at around 12 pounds — and it was destined to get much smaller over the ensuing millennia.

Sifrhippus lived during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a 175,000-year interval of time some 56 million years ago in which average global temperatures rose by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit, caused by the release of vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans.

About a third of mammal species responded with significant reduction in size during the PETM, some by as much as one-half. Sifrhippus shrank by about 30 percent to the size of a small house cat (about 8.5 pounds) in the PETM’s first 130,000 years and then rebounded to about 15 pounds in the final 45,000 years of the PETM.

Scientists have assumed that rising temperatures or high concentrations of carbon dioxide primarily caused the phenomenon in mammals during this period, and new research led by Ross Secord of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Jonathan Bloch of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida in Gainesville offers new evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between temperature and body size. Their findings also offer clues to what might happen to animals in the near future from global warming.

In a paper to be published in the Feb. 24 issue of the international journal Science, Secord, Bloch and colleagues used measurements and geochemical composition of fossil mammal teeth to document a progressive decrease in Sifrhippus‘ body size that correlates very closely to temperature change over a 130,000-year span.

Bloch, associate curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Florida Museum of Natural History, said multiple trails led to the discovery.

One was the fossils themselves, recovered from the Cabin Fork area of the southern Bighorn Basin near Worland, Wyo. Stephen Chester, then an undergraduate student at Florida, now an anthropology Ph.D. candidate at Yale and a co-author on the paper, had the task of measuring the horses’ teeth. What he found when he plotted them through time caught Bloch and Secord by surprise.

“He pointed out that the first horses in the section were much larger than those later on,” Bloch recalled. “I thought something had to be wrong, but he was right — and the pattern became more robust as we collected more fossils.”

A postdoctoral researcher in Bloch’s lab for the first year of the project, Secord performed the geochemical analysis of the oxygen isotopes in the teeth. What he found provided an even bigger surprise.

“It was absolutely startling when Ross pulled up the first oxygen isotope data,” Bloch said. “We looked at the curve and we realized that it was exactly the same pattern that we were seeing with the horse body size.

“For the first time, going back into deep time — going back tens of millions of years — we were able to show that indeed temperature was causing essentially a one-to-one shift in body size within this lineage of horse. Because it’s over a long enough time, you can argue very strongly that what you’re looking at is natural selection and evolution — that it’s actually corresponding to the shift in temperature and driving the evolution of these horses.”

Secord, who came to UNL in 2008 as an assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Nebraska State Museum, said the finding raises important questions about how plants and animals will respond to rapid change in the not-too-distant future.

“This has implications, potentially, for what we might expect to see over the next century or two, at least with some of the climate models that are predicting that we will see warming of as much as 4 degrees Centigrade (7 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next 100 years,” he said.

Those predictions are based largely on the 40 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (from 280 to 392 parts per million) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century.

Ornithologists, Secord said, have already started to notice that there may be a decrease in body size among birds.

“One of the issues here is that warming (during the PETM) happened much slower, over 10,000 to 20,000 years to get 10 degrees hotter, whereas now we’re expecting it to happen over a century or two,” Secord said. “So there’s a big difference in scale and one of the questions is, ‘Are we going to see the same kind of response?’ Are animals going to be able to keep up and readjust their body sizes over the next couple of centuries?”

Increased temperatures are not the only change animals will have to adapt to, Secord said. Greenhouse experiments show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide lowers the nutritional content of plants, which he said could have been a secondary driver of dwarfism during the PETM.

###

Other co-authors on the paper are Doug M. Boyer of Brooklyn College, Aaron R. Wood of the Florida Museum of Natural History, Scott L. Wing of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Mary J. Kraus of the University of Colorado-Boulder, Francesca A. McInerny of Northwestern University, and John Krigbaum of the University of Florida.

The research was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, with additional support from UNL.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom in Florida
February 24, 2012 4:34 am

I wonder what the growth graph of horses living near Yamal would look like?
FIW, there are a whole lot of short people living in Florida.

February 24, 2012 4:45 am

So….a 30% drop in body mass for a 10 degree rise (fahrenheit, not celcius).
What about other species? What about this “horse”, what was its diet etc?

Peter
February 24, 2012 5:00 am

My Grandfather was born is a cold country. He was short. My parents grew up in a cool area, but they were above average height. I grew up in the Tropics (on the equator), and I am just under 2 meters tall. Confounding factors.

February 24, 2012 5:26 am

Dinosaurs would have been absolutely massive if it hadn’t been so warm. Or was it the other way around? If it was the other way around, perhaps the predators got bigger as it got warmer, and ate all the larger horses, until only the smaller ones managed to survive? The sabre toothed Beagle was absolutely enormous in its day, although it suffered from having short legs. Try as it might, it could not catch horses the size of cats.

catweazle666
February 24, 2012 5:35 am

What a pile of old donkey droppings.
Truly, I’ve seen some rubbish papers in my time, but really!

starzmom
February 24, 2012 6:02 am

Okay–So I got hung up on the picture. Looks just like my Eagle–a Morgan–touching noses with one of the cats. As for the theory–hogwash.

Watchman
February 24, 2012 6:14 am

If we look at the smaller breeds of horse (other than those bred for work in mines etc) they tend to be found on marginal islands, generally northern (although this may reflect the lesser use of horses in hot climates, and a general later introduction from Eurasia rather than be significant).
Their smaller size reflects the relative scarcity of food, and also perhaps other adaptions to a tough environment (greater size means greater heat loss in winter for example (or at night in a sub-tropical desert)). In effect, this is evolution in action (as observed elsewhere – e.g. the pygmy elephants of the Meditaranean islands during the last ice age) – the mutations that make survival in the environment easiest (in a marginal environment, generally smaller size) win out.
So if climate change is causing the size of animals to change, does this mean they are effectively ruling out evolution? In the way that those of us who doubt the science of man-made climate change is fully correct are accused of doing with no basis…

Brian H
February 24, 2012 6:47 am

Watchman says:
February 24, 2012 at 6:14 am

Their smaller size reflects the relative scarcity of food, and also perhaps other adaptions to a tough environment (greater size means greater heat loss in winter for example) (

Somewhat spotty and confused posting. Actually, greater size means lowered heat loss. Surface area goes up as the square of height, while volume and mass go up as the cube. The ratio of exposed surface to total mass drops with increasing size. E.g.: Polar bears are the largest on the planet.

wermet
February 24, 2012 7:06 am

I think that what is actually shrinking here is the mental capacity of Climate Scientists.

Mark Fawcett
February 24, 2012 7:11 am

It is apparent to me that there may well be a direct correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and both the size and IQ of your average climate scientist’s brain. The correlation would of course be an inverted one…
Cheers
Mark

Frumious Bandersnatch
February 24, 2012 7:40 am

I guess that means that we, as humans have shrunk considerably since the AGW began 200 years ago…

Jay Davis
February 24, 2012 7:56 am

I have two hypotheses I’ve developed regarding this particular species. The first is this species had some growth gene that was adversely effected by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, as CO2 concentration rose, these horses got smaller. Eventually they got so small they couldn’t adapt to the food supply then available to them and died off. The second hypothesis is they got smaller to adapt to the changing flora (or to better evade predators) and eventually got so small they disappeared from the fossil record. But they still exist, only in the forest, and when seen, are mistaken for some common arboreal rodent species.
Hey you all, don’t laugh or criticize me, my two hypotheses are at least as good as the BS these so-called scientists have put forth. Apparently PhD’s are given away at the universities these days.

Austin
February 24, 2012 7:56 am

Does the study use temp records based on isotopes and then studies the teeth based on isotopes? No wonder the correlation would be 1:1.
As for size, animal size is driven by food availability and predation. Food availability is driven by food being present and competition for that food.

February 24, 2012 8:22 am

Several years ago a documentary on the dwarf elephants and people of south east Asia put forth that the scarcity of food is what drove size change not temperature. So why the Masai and Watusi in Africa?

Robertvdl
February 24, 2012 8:28 am
Rob Crawford
February 24, 2012 9:25 am

“Grass didn’t even evolve until 25 to 30 million years later. What was the cat-sized horse eating.”
Horse-sized cats, maybe?

TANSTAAFL
February 24, 2012 9:33 am

How many other species followed the same size changes?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?

Bill Parsons
February 24, 2012 10:00 am

There is no reliable way of measuring CO2 over short periods that far back, and as far as I know nobody has ever managed to measure it at all for the PETM (which is quite short geologically speaking).

This 12-year-old study claims to (see graphs lower down):
paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf
But I would want to know whether their margins of error aren’t so large that they allow the same fatal mistakes that other AGW paleo studies make – that CO2 drove temps, rather than that the temps (or some geological disruptions) drove changes in CO2. If the former, the post here is the same dog-wagging tail that we’ve seen before.
My hunch-of-the-day is that even in the thermal maximum there were sudden fluctuations of temperature (perhaps even more dramatic than in stable periods of moderate temps). A cold spell brought a sudden change in available food, a change in predation, and “Presto” (so to speak), a few hundred (thousands?) of generations later horses have lost considerable size and are inhabiting a different ecological niche, even (devolving / evolving) into a smaller species altogether.
One part of the ever-popular “Hothouse Earth” article from National Geo fleshes out the Gingerich research (same area) with pictures. It says that the “most popular” explanation of the sudden carbon spike is still the oldest one: heat drove the releases:

Many sources have been suggested for the PETM carbon spike, and given the amount of carbon, it likely came from more than one. At the end of the Paleocene, Europe and Greenland were pulling apart and opening the North Atlantic, resulting in massive volcanic eruptions that could have cooked carbon dioxide out of organic sediments on the seafloor, though probably not fast enough to explain the isotope spikes. Wildfires might have burned through Paleocene peat deposits, although so far soot from such fires has not turned up in sediment cores. A giant comet smashing into carbonate rocks also could have released a lot of carbon very quickly, but as yet there is no direct evidence of such an impact.
The oldest and still the most popular hypothesis is that much of the carbon came from large deposits of methane hydrate, a peculiar, icelike compound that consists of water molecules forming a cage around a single molecule of methane. Hydrates are stable only in a narrow band of cold temperatures and high pressures; large deposits of them are found today under the Arctic tundra and under the seafloor, on the slopes that link the continental shelves to the deep abyssal plains. At the PETM an initial warming from somewhere—perhaps the volcanoes, perhaps slight fluctuations in Earth’s orbit that exposed parts of it to more sunlight—might have melted hydrates and allowed methane molecules to slip from their cages and bubble into the atmosphere.

Tom G(ologist)
February 24, 2012 12:10 pm

Bill Illis:
I am recalling this from memory, but I believe grasses first evolved during the latest Cretaceous, at around 66 m.a. or perhaps just a little bit later. So grasses were around in the Paleocene.
I invite you to check out post No. 1 at http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/
for a glimpse into the truly, stupendously mundane conclusion that climate affects evolution.
Tom

Alan Bates
February 24, 2012 12:26 pm

Just in case anyone is confused, Sifrhippus sandrae is the current name for what used to be called Eohippus (“dawn horse”) or Hyracotherium. It would be correct to call it the first equid found in North America but it definitely was not the first horse as that term is generally understood. Equid and horse are not synonymous terms.
The Wiki article on evolution of the horse gives a simplified understanding of where it fits in.

Barefoot boy from Brooklyn
February 24, 2012 2:27 pm

I wish that I could take credit for the following comment, but it is from someone else, who is like a brother to me:
“Another one of nature’s marvelous self-correcting mechanisms. We will all get smaller as the planet heats. Cities will be tiny and closer together. Cars will be smaller and more fuel-efficient, and who will go far in them anyway? You’ll be able to boil an egg in your tiny pot in seconds. Warm yourself by a match. Fossil fuel use will plummet, the planet will cool back down again. Then we can all re-inflate. Ain’t nature grand?”

Jimbo
February 24, 2012 2:37 pm

Has anyone found any Pygmy Arabian stallions?

Sifrhippus lived during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a 175,000-year interval of time some 56 million years ago in which average global temperatures rose by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit, caused by the release of vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans.

On a serious note, I thought that the cause of the PETM is under debate.

Steve from Rockwood
February 24, 2012 2:51 pm

That’s why everything’s smaller in Texas. I sometimes wonder if the scientists who publish this stuff aren’t giggling a little when they get their preprints.

Bill Illis
February 24, 2012 2:54 pm

Tom G(ologist) says:
February 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Bill Illis:
I am recalling this from memory, but I believe grasses first evolved during the latest Cretaceous, at around 66 m.a. or perhaps just a little bit later. So grasses were around in the Paleocene.
———————
I was going from memory as well. I guess it was the C4 grasses I was thinking of which evolved 32 to 25 million years ago. (Interesting that CO2 fell below 280 ppm for perhaps the very first time 24 million years ago just as the C4 pathway evolved). It was this evolutionary step which allowed grasses to become dominant in low precipitation environments (and especially low precipitation, hot environments). There was no savanna/steppe/grassland environments around until much after the PETM and mostly only starting 8 million years ago.

Jimbo
February 24, 2012 2:54 pm

I wonder why those pesky dinosaurs grew so big in all that warmth? Or where they bigsmall? Can you imagine the size they would have been in a cooler world? Heh, heh. ;>)