Discussion:
Humans Cause Large Mammals' Extinction.
(too old to reply)
Horace LaBadie
2018-04-19 23:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Human beings were largely responsible for the extinction of large
mammals, not only in North America, but everywhere.

<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/19/604031141/new-study-s
ays-ancient-humans-hunted-big-mammals-to-extinction>

"Over the past 125,000 years, the average size of mammals on the Earth
has shrunk. And humans are to blame.

That's the conclusion of a new study of the fossil record by
paleo-biologist Felisa Smith of the University of New Mexico.

Smith studied fossils going back 65 million years, when dinosaurs died
and mammals came into their own. Many of the early mammals went on to
get big. Among the giant creatures: "Llamas and camels and sloths and
five species of pronghorn [antelope] actually," she says, "and certainly
mammoths. And then lots of really cool predators, like Arctodus, the
short faced bear." The short-faced bear stood 11 feet tall, about the
shoulder height of some species of ancient camel."

[...]

"Looking back over the most recent 125,000 years of the fossil record,
Smith found that when humans arrived someplace, the rate of extinction
for big mammals rose. She says it basically came down to hunger.
"Certainly humans exploit large game," she says, "probably because they
are tasty"‹and because a bigger animal makes for a bigger meal.

But humans did other things besides hunting that hastened the
disappearance of big mammals. They burned forests and grasslands that
big mammals used. They competed with the big carnivores for game. They
brought dogs with them that made them better hunters.

Over time, Smith says, the downsizing of mammals affected the
environment in ways you might not imagine‹for example, in the erosion of
the land. "When a large animal walks up a hill," Smith explains, "it
zig-zags a lot, whereas a small animal walks up more directly, and that
has an impact because water follows those game trails down, so erosion
and vegetation and what-not are affected by that.""
Eric Stevens
2018-04-19 23:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 19:15:36 -0400, Horace LaBadie
Post by Horace LaBadie
Human beings were largely responsible for the extinction of large
mammals, not only in North America, but everywhere.
<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/19/604031141/new-study-s
ays-ancient-humans-hunted-big-mammals-to-extinction>
"Over the past 125,000 years, the average size of mammals on the Earth
has shrunk. And humans are to blame.
That's the conclusion of a new study of the fossil record by
paleo-biologist Felisa Smith of the University of New Mexico.
Smith studied fossils going back 65 million years, when dinosaurs died
and mammals came into their own. Many of the early mammals went on to
get big. Among the giant creatures: "Llamas and camels and sloths and
five species of pronghorn [antelope] actually," she says, "and certainly
mammoths. And then lots of really cool predators, like Arctodus, the
short faced bear." The short-faced bear stood 11 feet tall, about the
shoulder height of some species of ancient camel."
[...]
"Looking back over the most recent 125,000 years of the fossil record,
Smith found that when humans arrived someplace, the rate of extinction
for big mammals rose. She says it basically came down to hunger.
"Certainly humans exploit large game," she says, "probably because they
are tasty"?nd because a bigger animal makes for a bigger meal.
That's why, when I go fishing, I always try to catch a whale.
Post by Horace LaBadie
But humans did other things besides hunting that hastened the
disappearance of big mammals. They burned forests and grasslands that
big mammals used. They competed with the big carnivores for game. They
brought dogs with them that made them better hunters.
I suppose the dogs were bigger then too. That explains how a dog could
help with the catching of a 11 feet high bear or camel.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Over time, Smith says, the downsizing of mammals affected the
environment in ways you might not imagine?or example, in the erosion of
the land. "When a large animal walks up a hill," Smith explains, "it
zig-zags a lot, whereas a small animal walks up more directly, and that
has an impact because water follows those game trails down, so erosion
and vegetation and what-not are affected by that.""
Maybe that bit does make more sense. You double the size of an animal
and it has eight time the volume and eight times the weight. But it
only has four times the surface area from which it can lose heat. So
the large animal has to generate eight times the energy to hoist its
weight up a given hill but has only four times the surface from which
it can disipate heat. i.e. its either going to get hotter or, more
likely, pick a path on which it is going to gain height at half the
rate of the original smaller animal.

But all that ignores the question of why animals got smaller with the
arrival of mankind. Perhaps the answer is hidden in the preceding
paragraph with a touch of survival of the fittest?
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
Loading...