How Dinosaurs Shaped Fruit Evolution
What do humans have in common with the dinosaurs that trampled through ancient forests? It turns out that both may have a surprising impact on the size of seeds in the fruits growing around them. When researchers mapped the evolution of seed sizes onto that of land animals, they observed that when land animals got bigger, so did fruit seeds—with a few outsize exceptions. A recent study in Palaeontology illustrates how, over the course of natural history, gigantic megafauna such as dinosaurs curbed the growth of seed sizes by physically altering the ecosystem, influencing forest light levels. Today that role may be filled by a much tinier species: humans.
The idea that land animals can alter their environments is 'fairly straightforward and well substantiated in a variety of scales,' explains Clive G. Jones, an ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y., who was not involved in the new study. For instance, savanna elephants push down trees and tear at shrubs, transforming the plant landscape. But even this elephantine influence is minor in comparison to that of prehistoric creatures.
The researchers' new model suggests dinosaurs caused a level of destruction that suppressed an evolutionary tendency for seeds to grow bigger, says study lead author Christopher E. Doughty, an earth system scientist at Northern Arizona University. Bigger seeds tend to attract bigger animals for dispersal and to sprout taller plants, Doughty explains; both factors can give plants better access to sunlight in crowded conditions. But this was generally not the case when there were 'big lumbering dinosaurs knocking things down, opening up the environment' and thinning forests, Doughty says.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
After dinosaurs went extinct, forest understories became about 20 percent darker. This change 'reset the slate' for plants and other animals, Doughty says. And 'during this time the canopy became more closed,' notes Brian Atkinson, a University of Kansas paleobotanist not involved in the study. This growth would have placed evolutionary pressure on seeds to get larger again, Atkinson says, which is also reflected in fossil data. Another dip in seed size occurred with the emergence of early giant mammals and persisted until they died out.
But even though we're far from megafauna-sized, humans' influence on forests—particularly via logging—resembles that of those long-extinct giants, Doughty says. If we continue at this rate, our effect on fruit seeds might someday rival that of dinosaurs.
Jones notes that humans influence plant life in many other ways as well. 'Agriculture [is] one obvious example,' he says, along with 'introducing exotic species, clearing forests to make suburbia, to make cities, and so on.'
That complexity is one reason it could be difficult for the model to predict future fruit seed sizes, Doughty says. Another important factor to consider is the rapid pace at which human technology tends to develop in realms such as farming. Although the model provides a good analytical comparison of forest density alterations by megafauna and by humans, developments such as agriculture mean 'normal ecological rules don't really apply anymore.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mathematicians Solve Multidimensional Shape-Slicing Dilemma
In 1986 Belgian mathematician Jean Bourgain posed a seemingly simple question that continued to puzzle researchers for decades. No matter how you deform a convex shape—consider shaping a ball of clay into a watermelon, a football or a long noodle—will you always be able to slice a cross section bigger than a certain size? A paper by Bo'az Klartag of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and Joseph Lehec of the University of Poitiers in France, posted to the preprint site has finally provided a definitive answer: yes. Bourgain's slicing problem asks whether every convex shape in n dimensions has a 'slice' such that the cross section is bigger than some fixed value. For three-dimensional objects, this is like asking whether an avocado of a given size, no matter the exact shape, can always be split into two halves with each side revealing at least some sizable slice. Bourgain, a titan of mathematics, is said to have spent more time on this problem than any other; although it may seem deceptively easy to resolve in the physical world's two or three dimensions, it quickly balloons in difficulty when we consider four or five. This added complexity makes determining anything in n-dimensional space seem impossible. 'If you believe in this so-called curse of dimensionality, you might just give up,' Klartag says. Fortunately, he adds, he and Lehec 'belong to a different school of thought.' The pair's breakthrough builds on recent progress by mathematician Qingyang Guan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who approached the problem with a technique based on physics rather than geometry. Specifically, Guan showed that modeling how heat diffuses out of a convex shape can reveal hidden geometric structures. Researchers could calculate filling any convex shape with warm gas and carefully observe the heat's dissipation according to physical laws. Guan's key insight—a precise limit on how rapidly the rate of dissipation changes during this heating process—proved to be just what Klartag and Lehec needed. 'Guan's bound tied together all the other key facts' known for the problem, says mathematician Beatrice-Helen Vritsiou of the University of Alberta. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] The result let Klartag and Lehec resolve the problem in only a few days. Klartag notes that 'it was lucky because we knew [Guan's result] was exactly one of the things we needed' to connect several seemingly disparate approaches to the puzzle. With this final piece in place, the geometry of convex bodies in high dimensions is now a little less mysterious—although, as always in mathematics, each new slice reveals more questions to explore.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
How We Solve the Climate Crisis
I spend a lot of time on the Internet; it's become my second home in the 20 years I've communicated science online. And recently I came across an image that stuck with me: a cartoon of a sad, crying Earth covered in cut-down trees that says, 'No intelligent species would destroy their own environment.' I think this cartoon and the ideas it represents are both wrong and destructive. I don't want my son, who is eight years old, to believe that humans are dumb and evil—both because that's a pretty big bummer and because it's obviously untrue. But I often find myself quite lonely in having that perspective, and I'm wondering if, perhaps, there are other folks out there who feel the same as I do. Humans didn't cause climate change by being stupid; they caused it by being extremely smart. We started burning coal to solve problems. We did it to grow more food, to heat and light our homes, to power refrigerators, to connect the world in a way that made the past few centuries of scientific advancement possible. We are here precisely because of our intelligence—and yes, the greed and selfishness of people in the fossil fuel industry who have certainly slowed our transition away from fossil fuels. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] But we are problem-solving machines, and we will solve this problem too. Our intelligence is geared toward survival. We want to provide a good life for ourselves and our children. The results have been staggering. In the U.S. in 1895 one quarter of people died before age five. Today, it's under 6 percent, and we will keep striving until it hits zero. Imagine the essays Ben Franklin or Mark Twain would write about this level of advancement. How would they keep tears from their eyes if they saw what we've achieved? So much of that achievement has been based on energy, and the fossil fuels we've burned to generate it, whether coal, natural gas or oil. We've learned that this harms both the environment and people, and to our credit we aren't always bad at addressing this. It was not long ago that London could be so clogged with coal smoke that you had to clean it off the windows every day. When rivers catch on fire, the U.S. changes its policies. When rain becomes acidic, the world changes its policies. When harms are done locally, we tend to be pretty good at cleaning things up. But with climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions, we're facing a much harder problem. That's for two reasons. First, on a psychological level, the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate are often invisible to us. Weather is always messy, and climate works on such big and long scales that it's hard to detect, communicate and respond to what's happening. And second, unlike the sulfur and nitrogen pollution that caused acid rain, or the chlorofluorocarbons that threatened to wear a hole in the ozone layer, carbon dioxide is not an unintended byproduct; it is the goal of burning fossil fuels. If you burn fossil fuels as cleanly as possible, all you get is carbon dioxide and water vapor. Responding to climate change means we must reduce the amount of CO2 that burning fossil fuels creates. It requires us to completely reimagine how we power our planet. Here's where I feel hope: we have already done this, and we know it is possible. In the U.K. CO2 emissions are now at their lowest levels since 1879 following a shift from coal to renewable energy! This is possible; we can see it being done. And it's the responsibility of the biggest polluters, the countries like the U.S. who have benefitted most from burning fossil fuels, to make those changes happen. And here is where I think we should absolutely feel some shame at our species. Humans are greedy. Humans are shortsighted. Humans will tell stories to make themselves believe that the things that they already want to do (like delaying climate action) are the right things to do. This is our nature, and I do think we could have done a better job at overcoming it. I am frustrated by the amount of time we've spent arguing instead of acting. I am frustrated by the extent to which we will not accept any inconvenience or sacrifice in exchange for making the world more livable for people in other places in the world, and even for our own children. It's worth acknowledging that this amount of foresight is unique to humans. It requires a great deal of intelligence, and, frankly, it's remarkable to me that we're able to do it at all. We are not like trees, which caused a mass extinction of their own when they evolved on land; we know that our actions today are threatening up to a million species worldwide. This is both an indictment of our failure to act sooner, and a reason to believe we can succeed if we dedicate ourselves to this fight. I don't want my son growing up thinking that his species is in some way evil. I want him thinking humans are problem solvers, and that solving problems always creates new ones. Whatever strategies we take to fix global warming will create more new problems, too. Renewable technologies like solar panels and wind turbines, for example, use way more land than coal-fired power plants, contributing to their own environmental impact. They're the best solution in many places right now, but maybe in the future we will replace them with better ways of generating energy, like advanced geothermal, more nuclear fission or maybe even nuclear fusion. The people of the future will be mad at us for the flawed work that we did, just like we're kind of mad at all the people who tried to make the world a better place by burning a bunch of coal. And that's all right. Humans are not evil. We solve problems, and when we do, we create new problems. And I think that, ultimately, this is a pretty normal story for intelligent species. One day, if we ever make contact with another species like our own, I bet they'll have a lot of stories about how they did the same thing—and how they found their way through. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
This ‘Tower of Worms' Is a Squirming Superorganism
When food runs out, certain tiny roundworms, barely visible to the naked eye, crawl toward one another and build living, wriggling towers that move as one superorganism. For the first time, we've caught them doing that in nature on video. Scientists spent months pointing their digital microscope at rotting apples and pears to finally catch a glimpse of these living towers formed by Caenorhabditis roundworms in an orchard that is just downhill from the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior's location in Konstanz, Germany. 'It wasn't that hard to find. It's just the people didn't have the interest or time or funding for this kind of research,' says biologist Daniela Perez, lead author of the study. Perez and her team at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior then studied this behavior in a laboratory to learn more. To spur the towering, they placed groups of Caenorhabditis elegans in a dish without food, alongside a toothbrush bristle that could work as a scaffold. Dozens of worms quickly climbed on top of the bristle and one another to form a structure that moved in an eerily coordinated manner. The tower responded to the touch of a glass pipe by attempting to latch onto it; it stretched to bridge the gap between the bottom of the dish and its lid; and it even waved its tip around to probe the surrounding environment. The results were published Thursday in Current Biology. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Researchers had previously observed this towering in the lab but didn't know that it was an actual survival strategy in the wild. 'Discovering [this behavior] in wild populations is really important as it shows this is a part of how these animals live and not just a lab artifact,' says William Schafer, a geneticist at the University of Cambridge, who studies C. elegans and was not involved in the study. Why do the worms do this? The researchers think towering helps worms set out to find richer food sources. When resources are limited, 'it probably makes sense for microscopic organisms to cooperate for dispersing by forming something bigger,' says the study's senior author Serena Ding. The towers could allow some of their members to reach new places or to hitchhike on other organisms such as fruit flies. The bigger question is how the worms communicate within the towers. If the worms on top latch onto a fly, how do those at the bottom know to detach from where they're anchored? They could communicate chemically through pheromones and mechanically through movement patterns, Schafer suggests. Perez says her team plans to test this next. 'Every time we have a meeting, we end up with 10 new project ideas,' she says. 'There are so many directions we can take this.'
