Laelaps

The extended twilight of the mammoths

i-27a75725c8763ca2824e5e8c6c745e39-woolly-mammoth-field-museum-thumb-500x177-24230.jpg

One of Charles R. Knight’s wonderful paintings of woolly mammoths walking through the snow of ancient Europe. On display at the Field Museum in Chicago.

ResearchBlogging.org

When did the last woolly mammoths die?

There is no easy answer to the question. In its heyday the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) was distributed across much of the northern hemisphere, from southern Spain to the eastern United States, and the entire species did not simply lay down and die at one particular moment. Some populations (such as the “dwarf” mammoths of Wrangel Island) survived until about 4,000 years ago, but most of the populations that lived on the mainland seem to have disappeared just under 13,000 years ago as part of an extinction event that also wiped out giant ground sloths, saber-toothed cats, enormous bison, and other megafauna.

Climate change, an asteroid impact, a superdisease, and hungry hungry humans have all been considered as triggers for the Pleistocene mass extinction, and determining the pattern of extinction has been important to determining what roles (if any) these mechanisms might have played. But even this is oversimplified. The Pleistocene mass extinction was not a uniform event. Some animals survived in one place while close relatives perished in others, and so a key part of figuring out what mechanism(s) caused the extinction is finding out when certain species became extinct.

The trouble is that the first and last representatives of any species are unlikely to be preserved in the fossil record. This means that even though there are fossil remains of mammoths from Europe and Asia dated to a little less than 10,000 years ago it is still difficult to know whether they were truly the last of the mammoths, the fossil record petered out, or we just have not yet found the bones that would extend the temporal range of the mammoth nearer in time. Such are the frustrations with dealing with fossil remains. Only a tiny fraction of all the organisms that ever lived became preserved as fossils, and an even tinier fraction of those have been discovered, hence Charles Darwin’s lament that the fossil record is “a history of the world imperfectly kept.”

But mammoths were not just shuffling collections of teeth and bones. They were living creatures that bled, defecated, urinated, shed hair, and eventually decomposed, spreading their genetic material all over the land they occupied. This means that there is a second sort of record for the mammoths that, under the right conditions, might be able to provide us with a better idea of where they lived and when they disappeared, and an attempt to mine this rich source of fossil data has just been published in the journal PNAS.

The new study, which was conducted by an international team of 18 scientists, focused on the extinction of mammoths and horses in the interior of Alaska. This has been an important area for research as populations of humans would have reached the interior of North America by going through Alaska first, and so what happened to the megafauna of Alaska might provide important clues about what caused the Pleistocene mass extinction. To find out more, though, the scientists did not go hunting for bones but for locations that have been relatively undisturbed for the past 15,000 years or so. Such locations might be good places to look for “sedimentary ancient DNA” (sedaDNA), genetic traces of ancient life that were frozen into ancient soil layers and remain intact.

The Alaskan permafrost is what made the investigation possible. In warm, wet conditions the genetic material of organisms might leach from one layer of soil to another, but the same quirks of preservation that entombed the bones of mammals also locked up some of their genetic traces. So long as an area of permafrost has remained undisturbed since the time it froze it has the potential to contain genetic traces of extinct animals. The researchers believed that they found such a site on the Yukon Flats near Stevens Village, Alaska, and they looked at a segment of 11,000 to 7,000 year old deposits to see if they could find any remains of ancient life.

What the scientists were after were bits of mitochondrial DNA preserved in the soil. This is the genetic material that is unique to the organelles called mitochonria inside animal cells, and sequences of mitochondrial DNA have been recovered from both extinct horses and mammoths (so the scientists would be able to recognize when they found what they were looking for). What they found was DNA from snowshoe hares, bison, moose, horse, and woolly mammoths, but not all the animals were present at each level. The DNA of different species were extracted from different levels of permafrost, meaning that different animals lived in the area at different times. And, significantly, the DNA retrieved from the mammoths matched other mitochondrial DNA extracted from mammoth remains from North America. This enhanced the likelihood that the mammoth DNA the team found actually came from animals that lived in the area and had not been somehow transported from elsewhere.

i-f900bd92e33fd30efa28a961bbcef724-strat-map-alaska-thumb-499x424-24224.jpg

A stratigraphic profile of the permafrost layers the team investigated (lower=older, higher=younger). The traces of mammoths and horses were found only at one layer near the top of the column. From the PNAS paper.

So, if the team’s analysis is correct, both mammoths and horses lived in the interior of Alaska between about 11,000 and 7,000 years ago. This is significantly more recent than the youngest fossil remains of horses and mammoths, dated between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago. There are at least two factors that might contribute to this disparity. The first is that fossils from this more recent time were preserved but have not yet been found. More likely, though, is that the populations of both mammoths and horses had dwindled to the point where fossil preservation was becoming increasingly unlikely. There were so few of them that the death of an individual in circumstances amenable to preservation was becoming rarer and rarer.

Either way, this discovery has important implications for the extinction of horses and mammoths in North America. Based upon the fossil data alone it had been hypothesized that both disappeared around the time that humans became established in North America.* Some have taken this association to suggest that humans engaged in a blitzkrieg in which naive New World megamammals were quickly dispatched by the human hunters. If the new evidence is correct, though, humans did not wipe out horses and mammoths overnight. Instead humans lived alongside dwindling populations in Alaska for thousands of years. Likewise, these new findings also contradict the favored hypothesis of one of the study’s authors, Ross MacPhee, who previously proposed that some kind of “hyperdisease” carried by humans (or animals that traveled with humans) quickly wiped out these animals. The pattern of extinction was obviously more protracted.

*[The date of the first arrival of humans in the "New World" is in dispute, and the first records of people in North American might represent a wave of dispersal rather than humans becoming established on the continent. As far as this post is concerned, when humans became established in North America is more important to the question of extinction than "first contact."]

i-f0cf4498c4c44de58e3907dd919ce0b9-sed-dna-prob-thumb-500x319-24227.jpg

A map of the world highlighting places in which sedimentary ancient DNA might be likely to be found. Areas of permafrost (grey) might be best, followed by warm and dry areas (yellow), with the liklihood of preservation declining in warm and wet areas (greens). From the PNAS paper.

Granted, this is only evidence from one site, but it is still an intriguing finding. Alaska was the gateway to the rest of North America, and if the “quick kill” models of extinction were correct those animals should have been the first to go. Instead they persisted for thousands of years after humans established themselves in North America, and a map included in the paper suggests that there are probably other similar sites out there. Areas of permafrost that have been undisturbed by flooding or other events since the time of the Pleistocene could provide other windows into the past through the methods the scientists employed in this study.

But one of the things I appreciated most about the paper was that the authors proposed a synthesis of “traditional” paleontology and genetic data to help resolve the questions still surrounding the Pleistocene extinction. The new techniques are not meant to replace what paleontologists have been doing with fossils but to complement those investigations, thus providing intertwining lines of evidence as well as spurring new hypotheses. That is why paleontology is such a vibrant field right now; the traditional methods of fossil hunters are being combined with lab techniques to derive a more comprehensive understanding of the history of life on earth.

No doubt the methods and findings presented in the new paper will be debated, but that’s what science is all about. At the very least, though, I think it is wonderful that the authors of the new paper have taken research in a new direction that might provide better resolution on the timing of the Pleistocene mass extinction. The new paper does not so much solve a problem as open up a number of new questions, and I look forward to future studies of this kind.

[For more, check out John McKay's post on the same research.]

Haile, J., Froese, D., MacPhee, R., Roberts, R., Arnold, L., Reyes, A., Rasmussen, M., Nielsen, R., Brook, B., Robinson, S., Demuro, M., Gilbert, M., Munch, K., Austin, J., Cooper, A., Barnes, I., Moller, P., & Willerslev, E. (2009). Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0912510106

Comments

  1. #1 Lilian Nattel
    December 22, 2009

    This is so interesting. I’m taking my kids to the museum tomorrow, and I will be thinking of this while looking at the woolly mammoths, which are one of my favourite parts of the trip.

  2. #2 Allen Hazen
    December 22, 2009

    Just to be ornery…
    The fact that humans would first have entered the New World from the northwest corner doesn’t necessarily mean that Alaskan megafauna would have been the first to be blitzkrieged. Counnterscenario: the first humans came by a coastal route and, being sea-food fanciers, stayed west of the mountains. Some time — perhaps thousands of years–later some of them moved inland, probably first in temperate or tropical areas, learned to make Clovis-style projectile points, and started wiping out the megafauna. Arctic wastes are not particularly enticing for most people, so they would have moved north only gradually, as game got harder to find at low latitudes. So that horses and mammoths in the Alaskan interior– Stevens Village is a long way from the coast, certainly NOT an area that one would expect to attract the first colonists, who were more likely to follow the sea otters from one abalone bed to the next down the coast– would have been among the last to meet Clovis-style big game hunters.

    (Note the word “scenario”: I’m proposing a possible model, not claiming to know what actually happened.)

    (And, yes, it’s a fascinating bit of research!)

  3. #3 bcoppola
    December 23, 2009

    Wow – recovering ancient DNA from the ground raises all kinds of interesting possibilities in my layperson’s mind. Take archaeology and history; recovering human DNA from habitation and battle sites for instance. I’ve sometimes rather morbidly wondered how much the blood (or at least the DNA) shed in places like Marathon and Gettysburg is still detectable “somehow” in the soil, and what if anything it could tell us about those events. Or maybe even, did it somehow alter the biology of the area for a time and can that be traced? Or early human habitation – could we put better numbers on how long a site was inhabited – and maybe compare ancient DNA with nearby modern inhabitants? Especially where isolates like the Basques are concerned – how closely are they related to prehistoric populations in their region?

    Just thinking out loud here. Hope I’m not causing you real scientists to roll your eyes too much! Fascinating stuff. It’s why I enjoy poking around SB.

  4. #4 AD
    January 14, 2010

    Great post. But it would have been nice to see a mention of the recent Science paper, which used a nice lake-sediment proxy to document the changes in flora and fauna 10 kya or so, and provided good evidence that the flora changed after the fauna disappeared, implicating humans and not climate change; further, the Clovis people were around only for the final dwindling of the megafaunal population, and other peoples were around for the bulk of the decline. Note also that the site examined in Alaska does not show a neat drop-off of megafauna as time passes; rather it appears and disappears. Who knows, maybe the climate had to change somewhat to allow the large animals to appear, and perhaps most of the big-game hunting populations were busy in the more temperate latitudes of NA and took a little while to catch on to what was going on in Alaska. Also without having read the paper, from your post there is no evidence of how local the signal recorded at this one site is, nor on what the ecological characteristics of the environment in that local (or more-than-local) area. So we can’t say whether or not ecosystem succession drove the appearance and disappearance, unlike the case in the Science paper.

  5. #5 AD
    January 14, 2010

    Also just because a blitzkrieg model is not supported by all the evidence doesn’t mean humans are off the hook. Like in the recent Science paper, which records a decline over decades or hundreds of years before the Clovis apparently delivered the coup de grace. I mean you have to have some sort of model for how human populations interacted with these animals and their population biology, how different groups of humans interacted at different times and places. Avoid the straw men of “blitzkrieg, or climate” (or ASTEROIDDD!!!11!)<- (don’t get me started…)

    But thanks for bringing this article to my attention.

  6. #6 EbuZerr
    February 5, 2010

    ilahi, ilahiler, online ilahi, en g├╝zel ilahiler, ilahiler dinlemek istiyorum – http://www.ilahilerdinlenet.com

  7. #7 film indir
    August 28, 2010

    Alaska does not show a neat drop-off of megafauna as time passes; rather it appears and ow local the signal recorded at this one site is, nor on what the ecological characteristics of the environment in that maybe even, did it somehow alter the biology of the area for a time and can that be traced.

  8. #8 horlama
    October 20, 2010

    Areas of permafrost that have been undisturbed by flooding or other events since the time

  9. #9 film izle
    October 25, 2010

    Wow – recovering ancient DNA from the ground raises all kinds of interesting possibilities in my layperson’s mind. Take archaeology and history; recovering human DNA from habitation and battle sites for instance. I’ve sometimes rather morbidly wondered how much the blood (or at least the DNA) shed in places like Marathon and Gettysburg is still detectable “somehow” in the soil, and what if anything it could tell us about those events. Or maybe even, did it somehow alter the biology of the area for a time and can that be traced? Or early human habitation – could we put better numbers on how long a site was inhabited – and maybe compare ancient DNA with nearby modern inhabitants? Especially where isolates like the Basques are concerned – how closely are they related to prehistoric populations in their region?

  10. #10 dizi izle
    January 29, 2011

    Great post. But it would have been nice to see a mention of the recent Science paper, which used a nice lake-sediment proxy to document the changes in flora and fauna 10 kya or so, and provided good evidence that the flora changed after the fauna disappeared, implicating humans and not climate change; further, the Clovis people were around only for the final dwindling of the megafaunal population, and other peoples were around for the bulk of the decline. Note also that the site examined in Alaska does not show a neat drop-off of megafauna as time passes; rather it appears and disappears. Who knows, maybe the climate had to change somewhat to allow the large animals to appear, and perhaps most of the big-game hunting populations were busy in the more temperate latitudes of NA and took a little while to catch on to what was going on in Alaska. Also without having read the paper, from your post there is no evidence of how local the signal recorded at this one site is, nor on what the ecological characteristics of the environment in that local (or more-than-local) area. So we can’t say whether or not ecosystem succession drove the appearance and disappearance, unlike the case in the Science paper.

  11. #11 dizi izle
    January 30, 2011

    Who knows, maybe the climate had to change somewhat to allow the large animals to appear, and perhaps most of the big-game hunting populations were busy in the more temperate latitudes of NA and took a little while to catch on to what was going on in Alaska. Also without having read the paper, from your post there is no evidence of how local the signal recorded at this one site is, nor on what the ecological characteristics of the environment in that local (or more-than-local) area. So we can’t say whether or not ecosystem succession drove the appearance and disappearance, unlike the case in the Science paper.

  12. #12 lig tv izle
    January 30, 2011

    I agree with this “Alaska does not show a neat drop-off of megafauna as time passes; rather it appears and ow local the signal recorded at this one site is, nor on what the ecological characteristics of the environment in that maybe even, did it somehow alter the biology of the area for a time and can that be traced.”

  13. #13 FILM IZLE
    February 15, 2011

    YOUR ARTICLE IS REALLY GOOD. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE ARTICLES FROM YOU, I WLL ALWAYS VSIT YOUR WEBSITE

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!