Climate change downsizing fauna, flora: study
October 16, 2011 by Marlowe Hood
Plants are seen in Paris in 2010. Climate change is reducing the body size of many animal and plant species, including some which supply vital nutrition for more than a billion people already living near hunger's threshold, according to a study released Sunday.
Climate change is reducing the body size of many animal and plant species, including some which supply vital nutrition for more than a billion people already living near hunger's threshold, according to a study released Sunday.
From micro-organisms to top predators, nearly 45 percent of species for which data was reviewed grew smaller over multiple generations due to climate change, researchers found.
The impact of rapidly climbing temperatures and shifts in rainfall patterns on body size could have unpredictable and possible severe consequences, they warned.
Previous work established that recent climate change has led to sharp shifts in habitat and the timing of reproductive cycles. But impact on the size of plants and animals has received far less attention.
Jennifer Sheridan and David Bickford at the National University of Singapore looked at scientific literature on climate-change episodes in the distant past and at experiments and observations in recent history.
Fossil records, they found, were unambiguous: past periods of rising temperatures had led both marine and land organisms to became progressively smaller.
During a warming event 55 million years ago -- often seen as an analogue for current climate change -- beetles, bees, spiders, wasps and ants shrank by 50 to 75 percent over a period of several thousand years.
Mammals such as squirrels and woodrats also diminished in size, by about 40 percent.
The pace of current warming, though, is far greater than during this so-called Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).
A toad is seen in Borneo in July 2011. Climate change is reducing the body size of many animal and plant species, including some which supply vital nutrition for more than a billion people already living near hunger's threshold, according to a study released Sunday.
It, too, has begun to shrink dozens of species, the study found.Among 85 examples cited, 45 percent were unaffected. But of those remaining, four out of five had gotten smaller, while a fifth got bigger.
Some of the shrinkage came as a surprise. "Plants were expected to get larger with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide," but many wound up stunted due to changes in temperature, humidity and nutrients available, the researchers said.
For cold-blooded animals -- including insects, reptiles and amphibians -- the impact is direct: experiments suggest that an upward tick of one degree Celsius translates into roughly a 10 percent increase in metabolism, the rate at which an organism uses energy. That, in turn, results in downsizing.
The common toad, for example, has measurably shriveled in girth in only two decades, along with some tortoises, marine iguanas and lizards.
Overfishing has been blamed for decreased body size in both wild and commercially-harvested aquatic species, threatening the key source of protein of a billion people around the world, mainly in Africa and Asia.
But experiments and observational studies have shown that warming waters play a role as well, especially in rivers and lakes.
Birds -- including passerines, goshawks and gulls -- and mammals such as soay sheep, red dear and polar bears, have also trended towards less bulk.
Some of the most worrying changes are at the bottom of the food chain, especially in the ocean, where tiny phytoplankton and calcium-building creatures are dwindling in size due to acidification and the reduced capacity of warmer water to hold oxygen and nutrients.
Carbon pollution has probably locked in an additional 1.0 C increase in average global temperatures, and continued emissions of greenhouse gases could push up the thermometre another 4.0 to 5.0 C (7.4 to 9.0 F) by centuries end, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Because warming is occurring at unprecedented rates, "may organisms may not respond or adapt quickly enough", especially those with long generation times, the authors noted in an email.
"We do not yet know the exact mechanisms involved, or why some organisms are getting smaller while others are unaffected," they added. "Until we understand more, we could be risking negative consequences that we can't yet quantify."
The study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.
(c) 2011 AFP
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
19 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
2 hours ago |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
|
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
4 hours ago |
4 / 5 (1) |
11
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
4 hours ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (14) |
40
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (21)
So by stating plants and animals are getting smaller means that nature is compensating for any increase and actually proving a levelling out or slight decrease in CO2 levels, thus using its own information showing that this is not global warming. This story uses an opinion piece with cherry picked information and attempts to make it sound like facts.
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (13)
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (14)
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
You must have never heard of the Keeling curve. Here, take a look:
http://en.wikiped...ng_Curve
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
Taken directly from the article: "Some of the shrinkage came as a surprise. 'Plants were expected to get larger with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,' but many wound up stunted due to changes in temperature, humidity and nutrients available, the researchers said."
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (10)
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Of what material relevance to the extant observations?
Oct 16, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (12)
The 'ppm' figure is with respect to atmospheric concentration. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. The 70 ppm increase for CO2 is actually a 22% increase relative to the low-point of 315 on the Keeling curve. Historical maximum over the past 400,000 years, until the last couple of centuries, was actually 280 ppm. So relative to that, today's nearly 390 ppm translates into a nearly 40% rise.What doctrine would that be? The Mauna Loa series is merely the oldest-running such series. CO2 measurements have been kept all over the globe. The Keeling curve does not deviate from the global value.
http://en.wikiped...mosphere
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Funny... That's what YOU do
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
The problem with this study for me is it apparently ignores other pressures such as shrinking habitats, invasive species and the shifting of water resources toward cities and farmland. How about non-carbon pollution? Ocean acidification?
The Permian era saw a huge increase in temperatures , with a median temperature 2 degrees higher than present and a CO2 concentration of 900ppm, saw the rise of Meganeuropsis permiana, a 1-lb dragonfly-like insect with a wingspan of 30 inches.
Climate change is becoming a catch-all for second-rate science because the time it takes for these predictions to be shown as correct or incorrect is much longer than the lifespan of those who are researching it.
I'm not denying climate change here... I'm just questioning this study's results.
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
These are all factors of the climate system.
duh, what do you think this research is about?
Climate change is becoming an abomination second-rate citizens
fixed
Which is good, but read
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Diverting the Colorado River to provide water to Las Vegas is a climate system factor? Clearing land to make room for cities and towns ins a climate system factor? Invasive species hitching a ride in a container of bananas from South America is a climate system factor?
Duh, this research is about species *shrinking* because of increasing temperatures. The example I cited is of a particularly *large* species which existed during a particularly warm period in earth's history.
Please spell and grammar check before submitting a post. I don't even know what you're saying here. I think you were trying to call me a "second-rate citizen" (which would be an ad hominem attack and against commenting policy), but I'm not sure.
Thank you for the suggestion, however I did read it.
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (5)
Climate system are mostly factors that influence climate. Read about climate system.
doh, read the article. no reading comprehension?
article:
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I did. try pointing out what I missed. Read my comments.
Have you ever attempted to grow a garden? Small variation in temperature has much much less to do with how well plants grow than does variation in nutrients. Read about fertilizer.
On a side note, it's really easy to just write "read about x" to try and demonstrate that the person you're arguing against has no clue what they're talking about. The problem is you're basing that argument on the assumption that I haven't read anything nor am I educated. Try a different tactic.
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (7)
I did answer your question. I told you to read about climate systems.
All the factors you summed up go under the climate system.
The climate system influences climate.
My last post i waste on you.
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (4)
So basically you admit that you have no real dog in the fight here. It's ok to storm off in a hissy fit when you're six years old, but it's more fun to act like a grown up.
I really don't see how I am wrong in pointing out that you can't just look at "shrinking species", compare it to a graph of recent temperature change and say "see, that's the reason why". The environment is just too complicated to draw conclusions like that based on such thin evidence.
If you take my Colorado River example, we are diverting water and nutrients from locations downstream that a higher biodiverity. Take away the nutrients and the species, on the average, will likely start getting smaller.
Invasive species choke out native plants, forcing them to exist in smaller areas, which only grow smaller as we continue expanding our cities. Think of fish in a small fishbowl.
And also, I never asked you to reply to my comment. You *chose* to do that yourself.
Oct 17, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (6)
Climate Science has become the new Bible (when interpreted literally) where even the thinnest shred of evidence is perverted to make it fit with an strongly-held ideology even though there very well be a better explanation.
Edit-
But at the same time, please don't consider my comments "denialist"... Is the climate changing? Yes. Does man probably have something to do with it? Yes. Is climate change far overblown? Yes. Is the pop-culture nature of climate science to blame for some of the "climate smut" that's out there? YES.
Oct 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
- Wait a minute, we're supposed to like read and stuff? But Rush Limbaugh already explained all this.