
Were dinosaurs headed for extinction even before massive asteroid strike? Scientists offer new clues
To find answers, a team of researchers studied North America's fossil record, focusing on the 18 million years before the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period. The new analysis, published Tuesday in the journal Current Biology, adds to a growing body of evidence that the dinosaurs were doing just fine before the asteroid's deadly impact.
However, at face value, the fossils available for study from this time — more than 8,000 — suggest the number of dinosaur species peaked about 75 million years ago and then declined in the 9 million years leading up to the asteroid strike.
'It comes down to the fossil record and its fidelity, or its quality. And so there's been an awareness since the 1970s that the fossil record is not accurate, but it is a biased reflection in the past,' said lead study author Chris Dean, a research fellow in paleontology at University College London.
'It's only in very recent years that we've started to see the full extent of (the bias issue), when using these large databases of fossil occurrences,' he said.
To understand better what was going on at the time of the dinosaurs' demise, Dean and his colleagues turned to a statistical approach called occupancy modeling to estimate the probability of a dinosaur being present at a site. Used in present-day ecology and conservation, occupancy modeling aims to account for the fact that a species may be overlooked or not detected even when present in a particular area. This study marks the first time the approach has been used to look at dinosaurs and over a large scale, Dean said.
'Applying a new technique is really hard,' Dean noted. 'I don't think it will be the last word. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said.'
For the new study, the researchers looked at four main dinosaur families: Ankylosauridae (armored plant-eating dinosaurs such as the club-tailed Ankylosaurus), Ceratopsidae (large three-horned herbivores including Triceratops), Hadrosauridae (duck-billed dinosaurs), and Tyrannosauridae (carnivores such as Tyrannosaurus rex).
'We looked at these bigger groupings so we could have more data, effectively,' Dean said. 'We gridded up North America into a big spatial grid (and determined) the places where we can find fossils, (the places where we) have physically found fossils and how many times people have gone to look for fossils (in these places).'
The information was fed into a computer model, and Dean and his colleagues compared the physical fossil record with that proposed by the model and found a mismatch.
The model suggested that, during the 18 million-year time period in question, the proportion of land the four dinosaur clades likely occupied remained constant overall, suggesting their potential habitat area remained stable, and the risk of extinction stayed low.
One of the factors that could have clouded the true diversity patterns of dinosaurs was the lack of rock exposed at the Earth's surface during that window of time — and thus available for fossil hunters today to scrutinize.
'In this study, we show that this apparent decline is more likely a result of a reduced sampling window, caused by geological changes in these terminal Mesozoic fossil-bearing layers — driven by processes such as tectonics, mountain uplift, and sea-level retreat — rather than genuine fluctuations in biodiversity,' said study coauthor Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza, a Royal Society Newton International Fellow at University College London's department of Earth sciences, in a statement.
'Dinosaurs were probably not inevitably doomed to extinction at the end of the Mesozoic,' Chiarenza said. 'If it weren't for that asteroid, they might still share this planet with mammals, lizards, and their surviving descendants: birds.'
The study helped to highlight what biases may affect scientists' understanding of the true pattern of dinosaur diversity leading up to the extinction event, said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist at the University of Calgary in Alberta who wasn't involved in the research.
'Because of the nature of the rock record, (paleontologists have) found it was more difficult to detect dinosaurs and thus understand their diversity patterns in that window of time just before the mass extinction,' she said.
'It certainly makes sense as we know there are biases related to the rock record that can obscure true biological patterns. The more rock that is exposed at the surface (today), the better our chance of finding dinosaurs in that rock, which in turn leads to a better understanding of their diversity patterns.'
Mike Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the UK's University of Bristol, called the paper 'thorough and detailed' but said it doesn't prove there was no reduction in dinosaur diversity ahead of the extinction event. Benton's work has suggested that dinosaurs were in decline before the asteroid wiped them out. He wasn't involved in the new study.
'The current paper suggests that the 'reduction' can be explained as a statistical artefact,' Benton said via email. 'What it shows is … simply that the reduction could be real or could be explained by reduced sampling, in my opinion.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Fed One Group of People Ultraprocessed Foods and Another Group Whole Foods, and the Difference in What Happened to Them Was Wild
As the industrial food system pushes ultraprocessed foods to every corner of the globe, new research shows that even seemingly healthy packaged meals may fall short of the benefits offered by whole, minimally processed foods. A fascinating new study published in Nature Medicine dove into the real-world effects ultraprocessed foods have on the human body. Following a six-month clinical trial involving 55 volunteers, researchers at the University College London found that eating minimally processed foods was not only potent fuel for weight loss, but quickly led to healthier biomedical readings across the board — a grim indictment of what's inexorably become the norm in global eating. To run the experiment, the team of over 20 researchers split the participants into two groups, each of which followed a strict diet for eight weeks. One group was assigned to eat only minimally processed whole foods, while the other was given the task of eating mainly hyper-processed slop. After the first diet was finished, the volunteers took a four-week break, then switched to the other chow. Given the direct comparison, the findings are noteworthy. Participants on the non-processed food regimen burned more fat, had lower systolic blood pressure, and lower levels of glycated hemoglobin — bloodsugar, essentially — compared to the processed one. And zooming in a bit, the researchers found that losses in fat mass, body fat percentage, visceral fat rating and total body water mass were "significantly lower" on the whole food diet, but not the ultraprocessed one. Participants on the processed diet also reported a greater number of "adverse events," like constipation, acid reflux, fatigue, and infections. Volunteers surveyed said that both diets were equally satisfying, likely because both tended toward "healthier"-seeming foods — both diets followed UK government dietary guidelines — though they reported having an easier time controlling their cravings on the non-processed diet, as noted by Gizmodo. Comparing the two menus is fascinating on its own. Participants on the non-processed diet enjoyed meals like breakfast cinnamon and apple overnight oats, sticky BBQ ribs with smoky rice and fruit, and salmon with herbed new potatoes and mixed vegetables. Their snacks were stuff like like blueberry, oat, nut and seed muffins, and pasta salad. Alarmingly, the ultraprocessed group were treated to foods that, on a surface level, looked comparable: commercial breakfast oat and fruit bars, premade ribs and rice with fruit snacks, and boxed salmon with potatoes and corn, and snacks made up of meal-replacement drinks, plant-based yogurt, and packaged wrapped oat bars. Though definitions vary, ultraprocessed food is typically identified as containing foodstuff rarely, if ever used in kitchens — like high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oil — or which have been pumped full of synthetic additives like flavoring, dyes, sweeteners, or emulsifiers. Studies have shown that ultraprocessed food makes up over half of the dietary energy consumed in high-income countries like the US and the UK, the latter of which is where the clinical trial was run. Meanwhile, the ultraprocessed food market is projected to grow by an astonishing $856 billion over the next four years. It's not just about individual choices at the grocery store or restaurant, either: the class differences in diets are stark, with poor people forced to consume far more cheap ultraprocessed junk than their more affluent peers, meaning that to meaningfully improve health outcomes, the food supply needs to be restructured at a basic level. More on food: Scientists Find that Hosing Glizzies Is Basically a Death Sentence Solve the daily Crossword


Miami Herald
5 days ago
- Miami Herald
Ancient creature with porcupine-like quills found in amber. It's a new species
Fossils offer the opportunity to look at an era of time permanently frozen in stone. Dinosaurs swallowed by mud or plants pressed into the ground over millions of years create imprints of a world long extinct. Another material, however, allows researchers in the modern day to see a specific moment in time, from an insect stuck in flight to a creature's last breath still captured in a bubble. That material is amber and it's created when gloopy, sticky tree resin hardens over millennia. In Myanmar, amber has been discovered throughout the Kachin State — including one piece with a new species hidden inside. The amber was discovered and sold into trade in 2014, before political conflict surrounded the amber mines, and later moved to a lab at Capital Normal University in Beijing, according to a study published Aug. 4 in the peer-reviewed journal Fossil Record. The piece was trimmed and polished, providing a window to the animal caught inside, according to the study. The new species is a mite and it represents the first species in a new genus, researchers said. The amber dates to the Cretaceous period about 98 million years ago, according to the study. The mite looks like something you might find today, except for one key feature. The critter has 'ultra-long' dorsal setae, or hair-like structures that cover the back of the body, according to the study. 'The dorsal setae of Cretachyzeria macroseta (a new genus and species) are extremely long and dense, resembling the quills of a porcupine,' researchers said. 'This unusual morphological structure likely served specific biological functions.' In modern mites, small hair-like features on the body are used to provide shelter to their larvae, making it easier for them to transport and disperse the larvae, according to the study. The prehistoric mite may have used them for the same purpose, or at least for protection as the specimen trapped in amber is covered with small grains of sand or earth. 'This suggests that the ultra-long setae may provide some protection from impurities, safeguarding the fragile abdomen. This feature would enhance the survival of the mite inhabiting tree or soil environments,' researchers said. The scientists also hypothesized that the mite might have been red in color, which would have made it less likely to be eaten by predatory insects or spiders, according to the study. The long setae could have also made it hard for predators to grab on to the small critter. 'The discovery of a new species in Cretaceous Myanmar amber suggests that this feature was already present 99 million years ago,' researchers said, also suggesting this mite group 'evolved at a slow rate and that its ancestral traits have remained relatively unchanged from those (living) species.' Kachin State is in northern Myanmar, along the border with China. The research team includes Yu Liu, Qing-Hai Fan and Dong Ren.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
How a mother's genes can determine their child's weight for life
A mother's genes could play a role in determining a child's future weight – more so than a father's. Researchers at University College London (UCL) investigated how a parent's weight and genes influence their children's weight and diet from birth to age 17. To make the comparison, researchers used genetic and health data of 2,621 UK families in the Millennium Cohort Study, a UK birth cohort study of individuals born in 2001-2002. The study, published in the journal PLOS Genetics, looked at the BMI of parents and the birthweight of their children. They also looked at the child's diet at ages three, five, seven, 11, 14, and 17. Children's diets were assessed through self-reported records of how often and how much they consumed different food groups, including fruit, vegetables, fast food, and sugary drinks. Researchers then separated the direct effects of inherited genes from the indirect effects of genes that were not inherited. Study authors explained that non-inherited genes can still influence children's outcomes by influencing the development environment, such as conditions in the womb and parenting practices, as these are shaped by parents' genetics. Analysis revealed that while both parents' genetics influence a child's BMI, a mother's BMI continued to affect the child's weight beyond direct genetic inheritance. Researchers suggest this means genetic nurture, where a parent's genes shape the environment they create for their child, might be a big factor in a child's weight. This could be the case if a mother's genes influence her own weight, eating habits, or behaviours during pregnancy, which in turn can affect the child's development and long-term health. Dr Liam Wright, the study's lead author, said: 'Mothers' genetics appear to play an important role in influencing their child's weight over and above the child's genetics. 'In addition to the genes mums directly pass on, our findings suggest that maternal genetics are instrumental in shaping the environment in which the child develops, therefore indirectly influencing the child's BMI too.' Almost a third of children aged two to 15 were considered to be obese or overweight in 2024, according to NHS data. However, researchers acknowledge BMI is not the most accurate way of measuring body fat, particularly among children, and so supplemented their analysis with several other adiposity-related measures, including fat mass. Dr Wright added: 'This isn't about blaming mothers, rather, supporting families to make a meaningful difference to children's long-term health. Targeted interventions to reduce maternal BMI, particularly during pregnancy, could reduce the intergenerational impacts of obesity."