logo

Welcome


AboutZoos, Since 2008





201317Jun19:54

Max­i­mum size in mam­mals explained – how big is too big?

Infor­ma­tion
pub­lished 17 June 2013 | mod­i­fied 30 May 2014
Archived

BluewhaleMam­mals vary enor­mously in size, from weigh­ing less than a penny to mea­sur­ing more than three school buses in length. Some groups of mam­mals have become very large, such as ele­phants and whales, while oth­ers have always been small, like pri­mates. A new the­ory devel­oped by an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary team, led by Jor­dan Okie of Ari­zona State Uni­ver­sity (ASU), pro­vides an expla­na­tion for why and how cer­tain groups of organ­isms are able to evolve gigan­tic sizes, whereas oth­ers are not.

The inter­na­tional research team com­prised of palaeon­tol­o­gists, evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gists and ecol­o­gists exam­ined infor­ma­tion on how quickly an indi­vid­ual ani­mal grows and used it to pre­dict how large it may get over evo­lu­tion­ary time. Their research is pub­lished on 12 June in the jour­nal Pro­ceed­ings of the Royal Soci­ety B.

The new the­ory devel­oped from the obser­va­tion that some ani­mals live fast and die young, while oth­ers take their time and mature much later. This is called the slow-​fast life-​history con­tin­uum, where “fast” ani­mals — such as mice — breed very quickly, while humans mature slowly and are rel­a­tively older when they first have chil­dren. The the­ory pro­poses that those species that are rel­a­tively faster are more likely to evolve a large size quicker than slow species, and that their max­i­mum size will be greater.

The research team tested their the­ory using the fos­sil records of mam­mals over the last 70 mil­lion years, exam­in­ing the max­i­mum size of each mam­mal group through­out that time, includ­ing whales, ele­phants, rodents, seals and pri­mates. They found that their the­ory was very well supported.

Pri­mates have evolved very slowly, and never got big­ger than 1,000 pounds. The oppo­site was true of whales, which evolved their large size at the fastest rates recorded.
Jor­dan Okie, School of Earth and Space Explo­ration, ASU »

The the­ory also makes pre­dic­tions about the rel­a­tive risks of extinc­tion for large ani­mals com­pared to small ani­mals. The max­i­mum size of an ani­mal is lim­ited by the rate of mor­tal­ity in the pop­u­la­tion. Because larger ani­mals tend to breed less fre­quently than smaller ani­mals, if the mor­tal­ity rate dou­bles, the max­i­mum size is pre­dicted to be 16 times smaller.

“This is a really sur­pris­ing find­ing,” said co-​author Alis­tair Evans of Monash Uni­ver­sity (Mel­bourne, Aus­tralia). “It points to another rea­son why many of the large ani­mals went extinct after the last Ice Age, and their high risk of extinc­tion in mod­ern environments.”

The research clar­i­fies some of the dif­fer­ences among the main groups of mam­mals and makes fur­ther pre­dic­tions about how changes in body size affect the evo­lu­tion­ary poten­tial. In the future, this work will be extended to help explain how extinc­tion risk may be reduced in chang­ing climates.

(Source: ASU press room, 13.06.2013)

UN Biodiversity decade
WWF Stop Wildlife Crime
Fight for Flight campaign
End Ivory-funded Terrorism
Support Rewilding Europe
NASA State of Flux

Goal: 7000 tigers in the wild

Tiger range countries map

Tiger map” (CC BY 2.5) by Sander­son et al., 2006.

about zoos and their mis­sion regard­ing breed­ing endan­gered species, nature con­ser­va­tion, bio­di­ver­sity and edu­ca­tion, which of course relates to the evo­lu­tion of species.
Fol­low me on: