From Durham University, and the “would you, could you, with a goat” department comes this inanity. They can’t come up with any other explanation, so it must be ‘climate change’. At the rate of observed shrinkage, the goats will be palm sized by the year 2100. Just think of the pet market!
Via Eurekalert:
‘Shrinking goats’ another indicator that climate change affects animal size
Alpine goats appear to be shrinking in size as they react to changes in climate, according to new research from Durham University.
The researchers studied the impacts of changes in temperature on the body size of Alpine Chamois, a species of mountain goat, over the past 30 years.
To their surprise, they discovered that young Chamois now weigh about 25 per cent less than animals of the same age in the 1980s.
In recent years, decreases in body size have been identified in a variety of animal species, and have frequently been linked to the changing climate.
However, the researchers say the decline in size of Chamois observed in this study is striking in its speed and magnitude.
The research, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council is published in the journal Frontiers in Zoology.
Lead author Dr Tom Mason, in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, at Durham University, said: “Body size declines attributed to climate change are widespread in the animal kingdom, with many fish, bird and mammal species getting smaller.
“However the decreases we observe here are astonishing. The impacts on Chamois weight could pose real problems for the survival of these populations.”
The team delved into long-term records of Chamois body weights provided by hunters in the Italian Alps.
IMAGE: This shows a mother and juvenile Chamois in the Italian Alps.
They discovered that the declines were strongly linked to the warming climate in the study region, which became 3-4°C warmer during the 30 years of the study.
To date, most studies have found that animals are getting smaller because the changing climate is reducing the availability or nutritional content of their food.
However, this study found no evidence that the productivity of Alpine meadows grazed by Chamois had been affected by the warming climate. Instead, the team believes that higher temperatures are affecting how chamois behave.
Co-author Dr Stephen Willis, in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, at Durham University, said: “We know that Chamois cope with hot periods by resting more and spending less time searching for food, and this may be restricting their size more than the quality of the vegetation they eat.
“If climate change results in similar behavioural and body mass changes in domestic livestock, this could have impacts on agricultural productivity in coming decades.”
According to the authors, the future plight of the Chamois remains unclear.
Dr Philip Stephens, another co-author on the study, in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, at Durham University, said: “The body mass of juvenile animals is critical to their ability to survive harsh winters.
“However, whether that becomes a problem will depend on the balance of future climate change between the seasons.”
The research suggests that declining body size is a result of changes in both climate and the density of animals.
To counter declining body size in future, the researchers say it might be necessary to maintain Chamois populations at lower densities than occur at present, perhaps through changes in hunting regulations.
Dr Mason added: “This study shows the striking, unforeseen impacts that climate change can have on animal populations.
“It is vital that we continue to study how climate change affects species such as Chamois. Changes in body size could act as early-warning systems for worse impacts to come, such as the collapses of populations.”
###
‘The team delved into long-term records of Chamois body weights provided by hunters in the Italian Alps.’
The big ones get shot first has they make the best ‘trophies’ that means the ‘stock’ gets smaller in size thanks to unnatural selection. But then there is no grant money it that while its clear there is still lots of grant money in keeping ‘the cause ‘ going , so as a researcher looking to make you pay cheque you decided what you’re going to claim is the problem.
There’s the money shot:
“It is vital that we continue to study how climate change affects species such as Chamois. Changes in body size could act as early-warning systems for worse impacts to come, such as the collapses of populations.”
This is the sort of B$ the Veterinary Record publishes.
Earlier this year Dr Mason had this to say;
So he found and reported that chamois have competion from sheep, which pushes them to higher altitudes. Isn’t it possible that increased competion for food with the sheep has caused the reduction?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140624110605.htm
Everyone knows that cold water makes things shrink. Did anyone in this study check to see if maybe with the rising temps, the goats were taking more dips in the runoff from the melting glaciers??
More shrinkage from cold water:
BS. That is all.
nowhere in the research or within the posts can I find any evidence of ‘size’ being measured or even mentioned in a quantifiable way. Weight does not necessarily relate to body size it can easily relate to the health and nutritional state of the animal, ie if I eat and drink less and my weight reduces by 25% I will still be the same height, my size has only varied due to my nutritional imput – nothing to do with genetics or climactic conditions per se.
The noted increase in chamois populations almost certainly has lead to greater competition for food within the wild population that has lead to a reduction in average weight. There is no graph printed here to show if there is any correlation between body weight and population size. I would suspect that none of the information is accurate enough to make any scientific statement. If this is research which is claiming that less food is available then I couldnt find it therefore that cant be down to climate. Nowhere was there any indication that the animals were getting smaller – just lighter and more numerous – no surprise there either.
Just as likely is the statement that climate change is responsible for the tightening of hunting laws!!
What a complete load of BS
They should tout climate change as a cure for the obesity epidemic. There is a lot more consumer money involved in the diet industry than there is grant money in climate change research.
From CRS’ “Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014”: Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from FY2008 through FY2013.
From Marketdata (a market research firm that has tracked diet products and programs since 1989) in its biennial study: “The U.S. Weight Loss & Diet Control Market.” the U.S. weight loss market is now estimated to have reached over $60 Billion per year.
The obesity clinic could charge for arranging for the patient to move in with a mountain goat … er oops, I forgot this is for family reading.
Yes it likely is climate change causing it to adapt on the basis of stored genetic information gathered over 100,000’s of years thus … THIS ALREADY HAPPENED BEFORE, (measurements of mountain goat fossils from warmer periods of the past may easily prove it). Warmer conditions provide for a longer period of food availability as well as food at higher altitudes both of which allow the goat to store less fat which then not only increases its agility and therefore survivability in negotiating rough mountain terrain – it expends less energy in doing so.
Warmer is better for just about all living things, (and why most species live in the tropics).
During the reign of Queen Victoria the pomeranian dog reduced in size 50% due to inbreeding. But that could never happen to goats.
It couldn’t be the fact that hunters shoot mainly the big goats and only the smaller ones are left to breed, could it?
More proof that NERC should be disbanded asap
Another astonsihing statement for the “Climat Science Wall of Shame”. How in the world can they make this assertion. Widespread? Fishes, birds and mammals? What about insects? I don’t even think we are able to count the number of species that reside on the earth never mind declare most of them are getting smaller.
On a personal note, I wish it was true that climate change changed body size especially around my waist.
Natural selection. Bigger goats are easier to shoot and, of course the most sought after. Why waste a shot on the more difficult to hit runt. I suppose they covered the idea that if a goat was uncomfortable with the heat, he could merely climb a few hundred metres higher. Goats aren’t as dumb as environmental ecologists, you know. I wonder also if they used the engineer’s way of experimentation. Sample the goats at various elevations to see if they vary in size. Examine populations on shorter mountains. Check out the size of goats in the thousand miles of latitude change between Zurich and Tirana, Albania at the south end of the Dinaric Alps. That should be ~4C diff.
Really, I’m only an engineer/geologist. I shouldn’t be able to design a better research model about mountain goats than Bio-Zoo types. Shame, shame Dura U. (Dura in Russian means stupid)
As another old goat I volunteer to peer review Old Goat’s paper
The topic of ambient temperature versus weight gain has been well studied for domesticated animals raised on farms, such as chickens and cattle. A number of papers have established a clear link between higher ambient temperatures and reduced weight gain. One paper is here: http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/4/499.full.pdf
The same phenomenon is true in dairy cattle as it relates to milk production: http://vi-cor.com/dairy/health-nutrition/heat-stress/
Given that, a reduction in the size of alpine goats due to increasing temperatures is not surprising. I am not saying the increasing temperature is the only possible explanation, but it’s not an unreasonable one.
Yes, but that’s all it is, a “possible explanation.” Yet the authors proceed as though they’ve demonstrated a causal link – which they haven’t actually done. Further, the paper seems heavily biased toward focusing on the climate changes as opposed to population increases due to changes in hunting regulations. I think they have to show that the hunting regulations and resulting population increases are insufficient to explain the change in weights. And I don’t think that they did that.
What changes in hunting regulations are you referring to?
Both mammals and birds, being warm blooded, have thermoregulatory systems. That’s why I included chickens – not because of respiratory systems. Alpine goats, being long haired, are of course going to be less able to tolerate warmer temperatures than their lowland equivalents. Do you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis about greater parasitic loads? Regarding the larger animals being shot, do you have evidence that the larger one year old goats are being hunted now (and weren’t in the past), thus skewing the size distribution of 1 year olds? Do you have evidence that grass is more loaded with parasites than leaves?
Hi Lewis, I grabbed them since they came to mind as commonly studied animals, whose commercial value means they will have been studied as it relates to most efficient weight gain, milk production, etc. But I’m fine with leaving out chickens and focusing only on ruminants. There are also papers on goats, which I found more recently. One is here: http://www.smallruminantresearch.com/article/0921-4488(89)90040-0/abstract I believe this is for lowland shorthair goats, so they would have higher temperature tolerance than alpine. And of course the 22C mentioned in the above paper was an average maximum across the entire growing season, which will include the springtime where it is cooler than in the summertime.
In summary, it is clear that in ruminants there are optimum (and non optimum) temperature ranges for weight gain and overall health. To me it is not at all unreasonable for an alpine ruminant to be adversely affected by a 4C increase in growing season temperatures. Yet the paper was met with predominantly outright ridicule here. I appreciate your measured response, though I don’t see the foundation for your hypothesis – the paper stated that the goats had not suffered a decline in available grazing habitat in recent years.
I have a counter hypothesis. Hunting regulations resulted in population growth. The 50-75% increase in population made food resources somewhat scarce. The goats ate less and grew less fat.
I imagine their thought process went something like this:
1- We need an animal that no one has studied yet on how it’s being affected by climate change.
2- How do like the Italian Alps?
together- Alpine goats!
1- The goats are doing just fine though.
2- Yeah but we can just use our imagination, this is soft science, remember?
1- Oh right, remember how animals are supposed to be shrinking because plants are less nutritious now that the planet is 0.7 degrees warmer on average? The goats are undoubtedly shrinking so let’s go out and prove it.
2- Hmm, we have no historical record of the size distribution of their population. Let’s just look back at the hunting records, that’s a solid sampling.
1- Oh yeah, of course I don’t see any problem with using bag weights from hunters to assume the average weight of these critters 30 years ago.
2- Bingo! The bag weights from 30 years ago are heavier than the goats we’ve weighed today and we already know the cause.
1- Oh crap! There is no change in nutritional content of their food.
2- Let’s just say it’s because they are resting more frequently, because you know, goats must expend a lot of energy looking for food, right?
1- No, but it’s good enough to get published and determine that further study is needed.
2- Ah, staring at goats over the next 10 years in the Italian Alps will be such a great way to spend our summers.
together- Salud!
PhilCP October 21, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Unfortunately, they did not have temperatue records, so they used the size of the goats as proxies.
Hey, at least they’re not tree rings
——————-
Winner!
Here’s the actual paper:
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/pdf/s12983-014-0069-6.pdf
From phys.org, articles on this paper and an earlier one from the same authors at Durham, on the same focus group:
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-goats-indicator-climate-affects-animal.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-restricting-competitors-threatened-species-cope.html#nRlv
I must admit, my livestock look fine, but parts of me have shrunk somewhat during the recent cold weather.
It would seem that the vegan warmists would be pleased that smaller goats means less CO2 and less meat being eaten. Double win.
Well, not only has the temperature stabilized, this old goat weights now 10% more than 18 years ago. Surely not the only specimen across the globe nowadays. What more do we need for concluding the anthropogenic climate nob project ready?
What a quandary! Which goat do we sacrifice?
This is cool. We could keep one in the kitchen in a tupperware container. It would eat all the potato peels and when needed be milked into a cup of coffee. How “Green” would that be!!