From the UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and the “you really need to get out of your office more” department comes this inane press release. Apparently, climate has never changed rapidly before if you believe these folks.
Mammals and birds could have best shot at surviving climate change
New research that analyzed more than 270 million years of data on animals shows that mammals and birds – both warm-blooded animals – may have a better chance of evolving and adapting to the Earth’s rapidly changing climate than their cold-blooded peers, reptiles and amphibians.
“We see that mammals and birds are better able to stretch out and extend their habitats, meaning they adapt and shift much easier,” said Jonathan Rolland, a Banting postdoctoral fellow at the biodiversity research centre at UBC and lead author of the study. “This could have a deep impact on extinction rates and what our world looks like in the future.”
By combining data from the current distribution of animals, fossil records and phylogenetic information for 11,465 species, the researchers were able to reconstruct where animals have lived over the past 270 million years and what temperatures they needed to survive in these regions.
The planet’s climate has changed significantly throughout history and the researchers found that these changes have shaped where animals live. For example, the planet was fairly warm and tropical until 40 million years ago, making it an ideal place for many species to live. As the planet cooled, birds and mammals were able to adapt to the colder temperatures so they were able to move into habitats in more northern and southern regions.
“It might explain why we see so few reptiles and amphibians in the Antarctic or even temperate habitats,” said Rolland. “It’s possible that they will eventually adapt and could move into these regions but it takes longer for them to change.”
Rolland explained that animals that can regulate their body temperatures, known as endotherms, might be better able to survive in these places because they can keep their embryos warm, take care of their offspring and they can migrate or hibernate.
“These strategies help them adapt to cold weather but we rarely see them in the ectotherms or cold-blooded animals,” he said.
Rolland and colleagues argue that studying the past evolution and adaptations of species might provide important clues to understand how current, rapid changes in temperature impact biodiversity on the planet.
###
The study was a collaboration between scientists at UBC and in Switzerland and Sweden. It was published today in Nature Ecology: http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0451-9.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But only humans have the inalienable right to tax themselves based on pseudoscience, groupthink, advocacy message management, and globalist revenue need.
Does this mean cockroaches are out of the top ‘survivor’ spot?
So in other words…we are all going to be fine?
It is true that poikilothermic species cannot adapt to arctic conditions while (a very small subset of) mammal and bird species can.
However there is little evidence that poikilotherms are less successful or less diverse or less able to colonize new habitat than birds or mammals in other environments.
Diversity: “Reptiles” c. 10,000 species, “Amphibians” c. 7,500 species, Birds c. 10,500 species, Mammals c. 5,500 species. Birds and mammals are much better known, so there is almost certainly many more unknown “reptiles” and “amphibians” than there are birds and mammals.
“Reptiles” are actually much better than mammals when it comes to surviving in hostile habitats (e. g. extreme deserts, rocky areas, small islands) and also better at crossing water barriers than mammals (though of course inferior to birds in the latter case). “Amphibians” are indeed handicapped by their inability to adapt to salt water and near-total dependence on fresh water for breeding.
The reason we see few reptiles and amphibians in temperate habitats are mostly that they are small and cryptic. When it comes to actual number of individuals snakes, lizards and frogs almost invariably outnumber birds and mammals.
‘few reptiles and amphibians in temperate climates’? What planet are you living on? The county I live in is awash in reptiles and amphibians. I have some nice frog, toad, turtle,and snake photos. I have, in fact, a fine shot of a massive female turtle crossing the road in front of my car. She was so old that she had spikes on her tail. I thought she was someone’s escaped pet reptile when I saw her, but I realized she was a very large turtle.
No offense meant, but you need to get out into the real world more, away from cities, tty. There is enough wildlife, amphibious and reptilian, for me to say that they outnumber us mere humans by the millions, and that’s just where I live.
“When it comes to actual number of individuals snakes, lizards and frogs almost invariably outnumber birds and mammals.”
This depends ENTIRELY on exactly where you are and what the habitat is. In most of the temperate world it is false. This whole paper is built on false overgeneralizations like this.
Humans are classified as mammals.
I’ve worked with a few I would classify as reptiles.
I found this interesting as a lack of insight and no real understanding of anything by the paper’s author: “The planet’s climate has changed significantly throughout history and the researchers found that these changes have shaped where animals live. For example, the planet was fairly warm and tropical until 40 million years ago, making it an ideal place for many species to live.”
The author ignores the existence of spenodontia, a warm-blooded reptilian genus related to dinosaurs, of which there are two remaining species still alive (and endangered because they are egg-layers) and native to New Zealand. And no, they are NOT iguanas.
If he had said ‘genera’ (multiple of genus), instead of ‘species’, I might pay more attention to what he tries to say. Spiders and horseshoe crabs, for instance are related to each other, but spiders (with a few exceptions) are land dwellers and horseshoe crabs are comfortable both on land and in the ocean. He ignores this. In fact, he seems to ignore all insects and their role in making the planet what it is and always has been – habitable. He has also ignored the odd but interesting Weta, a New Zealand cricket that has the ability to survive cold weather by its immunity to freezing to death, as well as the simple fact that there are many, many fish species that thrive in extremely cold water because they carry a built-in antifreeze in their blood.
Likewise, he has failed to account for the longest living critters (other than bacteria) on the planet, the coelacanth, which was thought to be extinct, but is not, and ALL sharks, which go back 600 million years and swim in all water temperatures. Granted, warm water holds less oxygen, therefore sharks are more comfortable in cooler water, but.they are everywhere on this planet and will probably be the last survivors.
It’s a paper that fails because the author ignores real biology in his rather hamhanded pursuit of getting published. I will politely term it ‘baloney’, and I think that turkeys are smarter than he is.
Right you are Sara. But “baloney” is too kind. Like this completely braindead over-generalization:
“For example, the planet was fairly warm and tropical until 40 million years ago, making it an ideal place for many species to live.”
It was “ideal” for species adapted to “fairly warm and tropical” environments but not for the rest. This whole paper is nothing but a selective collection of similarly ridiculous generalizations… like “birds.” Do they mean parrots or penguins? LOL.
The earth today is partially warm and tropical, partially temperate and partially subarctic to arctic (cold and not tropical) – “making it an ideal place for many species to live.”
Sara: thanks for the name and idea of looking to New Zealand. Spenodontia and warm blooded and have three eyes and cat-like irises! That is downright amazing.
This ‘study’ is a perfect example just how far the grant-funded stupidity of the CAGW Crisis Industry has gone. Totally useless ‘research.’
On the other hand, this could be turned into a fun computer game which could add unicorns and dragons to the imaginary world of CAGW.
Which Climate Change is this one that Mammals and birds will have the best shot at surviving?
There’s got to be a line there but I can’t think of it.
“Mammals that fool bird brains have the best shot at profiting from ‘climate change'”?
I’m sure that someone can come up with something better.
Birds from Siberia travel thousands of kilometers and nest in India — including where I live — and go back with their newborns. “Seasonal migration”. Before industrialization people used to move away for food and come back.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Actually it is the other way around. They breed in Siberia and winter in India. There are known cases of birds that occasionally breed in both places but it is extremely rare.
For insect eaters the northern forests are a very good place in summer, not so much in winter.
The researchers didn’t mention anything about the size of the animals that can adapt to climate change, either warming or cooling.
If the entire earth had a tropical climate during the age of dinosaurs, then there was ample vegetation for herbivores to eat, which provided lots of prey for carnivorous dinosaurs.
But after the cooling of the polar and temperate regions, there was not enough vegetation to support large animals in those areas, not only reptiles but also mammals. The largest existing mammals, such as elephants, giraffes, and hippopotamuses only live in tropical areas (other than in zoos), since they could not find enough food to get through a winter. Some large predatory mammals can survive in temperate regions, such as bears (which hibernate in winter), wolves, and mountain lions, but these are smaller than elephants and hippos. Smaller, plant eating mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, mice, and deer are abundant in temperate areas, since they can survive on less food.
The same is true of reptiles–the largest ones live in the tropics (such as crocodiles, alligators, pythons, and boa constrictors), while smaller lizards, salamanders, and snakes can find enough food in temperate regions.
Birds are somewhat the exception, because of their ability to breed in temperate regions during the warm season and fly to tropical areas to spend the winter. But flying birds are limited in how large they can grow, since a bird’s wing area (and the lift it can develop) is proportional to the square of its length, while its weight is proportional to the cube of its length, so that an excessively large bird will have trouble getting its weight airborne. It is also noted that the large flightless birds such as ostriches and emus only live in warm climates.
Penguins are also an exception, but they spend most of their time in water, where they are excellent swimmers, but they are very vulnerable to predators on land, which is why they tend to breed in cold areas where very few predators can survive.
The correct conclusion is that smaller reptiles and mammals can adapt better to a cold climate than larger ones. If the future climate of temperate regions becomes warmer, wouldn’t we see large tropical animals (including alligators and crocodiles) spreading into temperate regions?
Is there a paper publishing quota that needs to be met or something?
Someone should put out a paper on how rocks might be affected by climate change!
The University of British China can’t hold a candle to the loons at SFU . Carbon tax promoters willing to completely BS the public about the “tax neutral ” fleecing of tax payers and the fake effects of ripping people off through their scam . Businesses … why would you stay in BC if you didn’t need to? Like selling
real-estate to money laundering , low taxed Asians and shafting a whole generation of kids .
Hundreds of millions laundered through BC government licenced casino’s with full provincial knowledge and with the government as a partner year after year .
Disgusting .
Birds will surely survive if not for giant machetes and death rays
http://bokbluster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/140528birds.jpg
http://www.savetheeaglesinternational.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/birdkills-windturbines.png
Glad I’m a mammal.
Hi Anthony,
I just loved this article! As a former high school teacher, I know well the study mistakes students make – esp. studying what you already know.
Every time I mentioned this mistake to a student and/or parent it was like an epiphany. Oh, and telling students about this study mistake needs to be done individually. Students who make this mistake don’t hear the suggestion when told to the entire class.
I always suggested that students list what they know (yes, handwrite the list!), put a check by it (give credit to yourself which gives confidence), and then move on!