Body temperatures of dinosaurs measured for the first time

Jun 23, 2011 by Marcus Woo
This is a Camarasaurus tooth from the Jurassic Morrison Formation of North America that was analyzed in the study by Eagle et al. Credit: Thomas Tütken (Bonn University)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Were dinosaurs slow and lumbering, or quick and agile? It depends largely on whether they were cold or warm blooded. When dinosaurs were first discovered in the mid-19th century, paleontologists thought they were plodding beasts that had to rely on their environments to keep warm, like modern-day reptiles. But research during the last few decades suggests that they were faster creatures, nimble like the velociraptors or T. rex depicted in the movie Jurassic Park, requiring warmer, regulated body temperatures like in mammals.

Now, a team of researchers led by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has developed a new approach to take body temperatures of for the first time, providing new insights into whether dinosaurs were cold or warm blooded. By analyzing isotopic concentrations in teeth of sauropods, the long-tailed, long-necked dinosaurs that were the biggest to have ever lived—think Apatosaurus (also known as Brontosaurus)—the team found that the dinosaurs were about as warm as most modern mammals.

"This is like being able to stick a thermometer in an animal that has been extinct for 150 million years," says Robert Eagle, a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech and lead author on the paper to be published online in the June 23 issue of Science Express.

"The consensus was that no one would ever measure dinosaur body temperatures, that it's impossible to do," says John Eiler, a coauthor and the Robert P. Sharp Professor of Geology and professor of geochemistry. And yet, using a technique pioneered in Eiler's lab, the team did just that.

The researchers analyzed 11 teeth, dug up in Tanzania, Wyoming, and Oklahoma, that belonged to Brachiosaurus brancai and Camarasaurus. They found that the Brachiosaurus had a temperature of about 38.2 degrees Celsius (100.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and the Camarasaurus had one of about 35.7 degrees Celsius (96.3 degrees Fahrenheit), warmer than modern and extinct crocodiles and alligators but cooler than birds. The measurements are accurate to within one or two degrees, Celsius.

"Nobody has used this approach to look at dinosaur body temperatures before, so our study provides a completely different angle on the longstanding debate about dinosaur physiology," Eagle says.

The fact that the temperatures were similar to those of most modern mammals might seem to imply that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded metabolism. But, the researchers say, the issue is more complex. Because large sauropod dinosaurs were so huge, they could retain their body heat much more efficiently than smaller mammals like humans. "If you're an animal that you can approximate as a sphere of meat the size of a room, you can't be cold unless you're dead," Eiler explains. So even if dinosaurs were "cold blooded" in the sense that they depended on their environments for heat, they would still have warm body temperatures.

"The body temperatures we've estimated now provide a key piece of data that any model of dinosaur physiology has to be able to explain," says Aradhna Tripati, a coauthor who's an assistant professor at UCLA and visiting researcher in geochemistry at Caltech. "As a result, the data can help scientists test physiological models to explain how these organisms lived."

The measured temperatures are lower than what's predicted by some models of body temperatures, suggesting there is something missing in scientists' understanding of dinosaur physiology. These models imply dinosaurs were so-called gigantotherms, that they maintained warm temperatures by their sheer size. To explain the lower temperatures, the researchers suggest that the dinosaurs could have had some physiological or behavioral adaptations that allowed them to avoid getting too hot. The dinosaurs could have had lower metabolic rates to reduce the amount of internal heat, particularly as large adults. They could also have had something like an air-sac system to dissipate heat. Alternatively, they could have dispelled heat through their long necks and tails.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Caltech-led researchers measure body temperatures of dinosaurs for the first time. Interviews with the Caltech researchers, John Eiler and Rob Eagle. Credit: Caltech

Previously, researchers have only been able to use indirect ways to gauge dinosaur metabolism or body temperatures. For example, they infer dinosaur behavior and physiology by figuring out how fast they ran based on the spacing of dinosaur tracks, studying the ratio of predators to prey in the fossil record, or measuring the growth rates of bone. But these various lines of evidence were often in conflict. "For any position you take, you can easily find counterexamples," Eiler says. "How an organism budgets the energy supply that it gets from food and creates and stores the energy in its muscles—there are no fossil remains for that," he says. "So you just sort of have to make your best guess based on indirect arguments."

But Eagle, Eiler, and their colleagues have developed a so-called clumped-isotope technique that shows that it is possible to take body temperatures of dinosaurs—and there's no guessing involved. "We're getting at body temperature through a line of reasoning that I think is relatively bullet proof, provided you can find well-preserved samples," Eiler says. In this method, the researchers measure the concentrations of the rare isotopes carbon-13 and oxygen-18 in bioapatite, a mineral found in teeth and bone. How often these isotopes bond with each other—or "clump"—depends on temperature. The lower the temperature, the more carbon-13 and oxygen-18 tend to bond in bioapatite. So measuring the clumping of these isotopes is a direct way to determine the temperature of the environment in which the mineral formed—in this case, inside the dinosaur.

"What we're doing is special in that it's thermodynamically based," Eiler explains. "Thermodynamics, like the laws of gravity, is independent of setting, time, and context." Because thermodynamics worked the same way 150 million years ago as it does today, measuring isotope clumping is a robust technique.

A Jurassic sauropod. [Credit: Illustrated by Russell Hawley, Tate Geological Museum]

Identifying the most well-preserved samples of dinosaur teeth was one of the major challenges of the analysis, the researchers say, and they used several ways to find the best samples. For example, they compared the isotopic compositions of resistant parts of teeth—the enamel—with easily altered materials—dentin and fossil bones of related animals. Well-preserved enamel would preserve both physiologically possible temperatures and be isotopically distinct from dentin and bone.

The next step is to take temperatures of more dinosaur samples and extend the study to other species of extinct vertebrates, the researchers say. In particular, taking the temperature of unusually small and young dinosaurs would help test whether dinosaurs were indeed gigantotherms. Knowing the of more dinosaurs and other extinct animals would also allow scientists to learn more about how the physiology of modern and birds evolved.

Explore further: Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

Related Stories

Taking the temperature of a dinosaur

Aug 24, 2010

Tyrannosaurus rex is often portrayed as a cold-blooded killer, but whether the Cretaceous-era dinosaur actually had a slow, reptilian-like metabolism or a faster, more bird-like metabolism is still a mystery.

Warm-blooded sea reptiles of the Jurassic

Jun 10, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New evidence shows that reptiles roaming the oceans at the time of the dinosaurs could maintain a constant body temperature well above that of the surrounding water.

Chilly times for Chinese dinosaurs

Mar 11, 2011

Dinosaurs did not always enjoy mild climates. New findings show that during part of the Early Cretaceous, north-east China had a temperate climate with harsh winters. They explain the abundance of feathered ...

Possible dinosaur burrows clues to survival strategies

Jul 16, 2009

Internationally renowned palaeontologist and Monash University Honorary Research Associate, Dr Anthony Martin has found evidence of a dinosaur burrow along the coast of Victoria, which helps to explain how dinosaurs protected ...

Recommended for you

Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

Jul 22, 2014

Scientists said Tuesday they hope that radar technology will help them find a century-old Aboriginal burial ground on an Australian island, bringing some closure to the local indigenous population.

Archaeologists excavate NY Colonial battleground

Jul 19, 2014

Archaeologists are excavating an 18th-century battleground in upstate New York that was the site of a desperate stand by Colonial American troops, the flashpoint of an infamous massacre and the location of the era's largest ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

that_guy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2011
It is amazingly clever to figure out a way to determine the average body temperature of animales that died 150 million years ago.

I have one question - Did they measure the temperature for a single animal of each species, or did they come up with the same result for multiple members of each species. It seems taht it would be important to the question if you find whether this average applies to all members of a species or whether it varies significantly.
Shelgeyr
1.1 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2011
This is another example of a poorly written headline.

No, the body temperatures of dinosaurs were NOT "measured", not as we use the term. No, it is NOT "like being able to stick a thermometer in an animal..."

They claim that by analyzing isotopic concentrations in teeth they can measure "body temperature through a line of reasoning that [Eiler] thinks is relatively bullet proof" to within 1 or 2 degrees C. No word on anything other than temperature that might enhance or retard carbon-13 and oxygen-18 clumping, nor a means to determine their original concentrations.

They seem awfully sure about their "findings", but even if their process is 100% correct, doesn't that at best just indicate the temperature in the dinos' mouths? It may seem like a silly question, but what if they were mouth-breathers? I dont think you have to speculate even that wildly to reasonably question both their results and their certitude.
Sinister1811
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2011
My guess is that because they were larger (or, at least, most of them) than today's reptiles, that they were able to obtain more heat from the sun over a larger surface area. Perhaps they were able to regulate heat much more efficiently like today's Crocodilians.
ArkavianX
5 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2011
"If you're an animal that you can approximate as a sphere of meat the size of a room, you can't be cold unless you're dead,"

Well irregardless of the rest of the article that was hilarious.
jmcanoy1860
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2011
"No word on anything other than temperature that might enhance or retard carbon-13 and oxygen-18 clumping, nor a means to determine their original concentrations. "

Which part of being consistently created/existing in specific ratios do you not understand? There is no original concentration to know of as isotopes are consistently created in certain ratios which then decay at known rates. Waaaiiittt...........are you a creationist?
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2011
@jmcanoy1860 said:
Which part of being consistently created/existing in specific ratios do you not understand? ...isotopes are consistently created in certain ratios which then decay at known rates.


What in the world are you talking about?

Why would you say isotopes are consistently created in certain ratios when A) geologic homogeneity is pretty much non-existent at any scale (heck, both your average rock and the face of the SUN aren't homogenous), and B) the commonly accepted theory of element creation involves supernovas for everything with an atomic number greater than Iron (26), and supernovas seem to be so varied that each could easily be considered unique?

Leave creationism out of this - we don't know the "starting" (when the planet formed) ratios of anything.

And while I wasn't thinking of this, I find it amusing that at least some decay rates apparently vary with the planet's distance from the sun. I have no idea why.
that_guy
not rated yet Aug 05, 2011
radio isotope dating is not based on geology shelgeyr. It's based on radioactive isotopes.

Radio isotope dating is based on the fact that there ARE certain consistent ratios of isotopes of a given element. For example: the ratios of U235 to U238 in uranium ore varies at about 1 part per thousand. This means it varies by one tenth of a percent. This is a variable ratio.

For biology, C14 is used. The radioactive carbon is created in the atmosphere through interactions with solar radiation at a specific rate. organisms take up the carbon. When the organism dies, it is no longer taking in any new carbon, so the radioactive carbon decays at its half life and slowly depletes.

We measure how much C14 is left, compared to a stable carbon isotope, and viola, we have an approximate time that this organism has been dead.

We know the processes involved, and can deem our results fairly reliable, and build in a margin of error to account for those very tiny variations.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2011
Yes, thank you that_guy... is that how it works? I forgot. What happened to Earth-Fire-Water-Air?

Carbon-14 isn't of any use for dating organisms beyond roughly 60K years old. The article is talking about 150 million year-old dinosaur teeth, and a method based on measuring the concentrations (and bonding/clumping) of the "rare isotopes carbon-13 and oxygen-18", not the ratio of carbon-13 vs. carbon-some-other-number, ditto that of oxygen.

When you're talking temperature and chemical bonding, the available concentration does matter. Since the available concentration matters, and we don't know what that concentration was, as far as I can tell it throws their results into question. OR - and I'll give them this much - it indicates that the article here doesn't do justice in justifying their results (in which case I'd expect their published works to fill the gaps).

Also, FWIW, everything on Earth, element-wise, can be considered to have a geological base (esp. if you include meteors).