Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | July 2nd 2009 12:00 AM | 12 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Just when you thought evolution couldn't get attacked by anyone else, a zoologist writing in Science and his colleagues are contending that changing winter conditions due to global warming are causing Scotland's wild Soay sheep to get smaller despite the evolutionary benefits of having a large body.  Yep, climate change can trump natural selection, it turns out. 

So much for adapting to the environment.   Too bad Darwin didn't know about CO2.  

"Sheep are getting smaller. Well, at least the wild Soay sheep living on a remote Scottish island are. But according to classic evolutionary theory, they should have been getting bigger, because larger sheep tend to be more likely to survive and reproduce than smaller ones, and offspring tend to resemble their parents," said study author Tim Coulson, professor of population biology at Imperial College London who teaches courses in  ecology, evolution and conservation.

"Our findings have solved a paradox that has tormented biologists for years – why predictions did not match observation. Biologists have realized that ecological and evolutionary processes are intricately intertwined, and they now have a way of dissecting out the contribution of each. Unfortunately it is too early to tell whether a warming world will lead to pocket-sized sheep," Coulson said.

Coulson and his colleagues analyzed body-weight measurements and life-history data (which record the timing of key milestones throughout an individual's life), for the female members of a population of Soay sheep. The sheep live on the island of Hirta in the St. Kilda archipelago and have been studied closely since 1985. 

The researchers plugged their data into a numerical model that they say predicts how a trait such as body size will change over time due to natural selection and other factors that influence survival and reproduction in the wild. They selected body size because it is a heritable trait, and because the sheep have, on average, been decreasing in size for the last 25 years.

Their results lead them to state that the decrease is primarily an ecological response to environmental variation over the last 25 years. Evolutionary change has contributed relatively little. 

More specifically, lambs are not growing as quickly as they once did. As winters have become shorter and milder, due to global climate change, lambs now do not need to put on as much as weight in the first months of life to survive to their first birthday. So, even the slower-growing ones now have a chance of surviving, according to Coulson.

Also contributing to this trend is what Coulson and his colleagues call the "young mum effect." The researchers found that younger mothers are physically unable to produce offspring that are as big as they were at birth. The reasons behind this are still unclear, but the young mum effect counters the effect of natural selection, which favors larger lambs, the authors report.

Article: Arpat Ozgul , Shripad Tuljapurkar, Tim G. Benton, Josephine M. Pemberton, Tim H. Clutton-Brock, Tim Coulson, 'The Dynamics of Phenotypic Change and the Shrinking Sheep of St. Kilda', Published Online July 2, 2009 Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1173668


This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and the National Institute on Aging, NIH.

Comments

This is foolish on so many levels:
1) First, why even bother to study the growth rate of Soay Sheep. I'm all for science, but sometimes I wonder what these studies are for and how much money they spend that could go towards much more beneficial research. I'm sure there's some federal grant money involved in this, happy to see my tax dollars at work.
2) Climate change isn't "trumping" natural selection, it IS natural selection. This is a crazy statement for a scientist to make really. natural selection includes all factors in nature, including climate. While the cause of the temperature change may be in dispute (_possibly_ caused by human activity) this is irrelevant to his argument. The sheep are reacting to their environment, just as natural selection theorizes. "So much for adapting to the environment." - so what are they doing if not 'adapting to the environment'???
3) Saying their predictions don't match observations is a "paradox" is a bit of an overstatement. My guess is 80% of the predictions of species development don't match observations, I'm pretty sure we're not at that level of sophistication yet.
4) "Biologists have realized that ecological and evolutionary processes are intricately intertwined, and they now have a way of dissecting out the contribution of each." - I'm not a biologist, so chime in if you are, but do they really think their dissection process is infallible? again, I'm pretty sure we're not there yet. And let's not even comment on the "pocket sized sheep". Can I get some of this grant money?
5) "the young mum effect" - this guy seems to be witnessing natural selection in action, admits the reasons for this effect are unclear, and still, paradoxically, states that this effect "counters" the effect of natural selection.

This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't being repeated on BBC on the hour.

- Confused.

Gerhard Adam's picture
...sheep to get smaller despite the evolutionary benefits of having a large body.  Yep, climate change can trump natural selection, it turns out. 

But according to classic evolutionary theory, they should have been getting bigger, because larger sheep tend to be more likely to survive and reproduce than smaller ones, and offspring tend to resemble their parents

What are these statements supposed to mean?  Why is it presumed that bigger bodies are better?  In reading the article it seems that natural selection is working precisely as it should, so where's the dilemma?

Hank's picture
"Sheep are getting smaller. Well, at least the wild Soay sheep living on a remote Scottish island are. But according to classic evolutionary theory, they should have been getting bigger, because larger sheep tend to be more likely to survive and reproduce than smaller ones, and offspring tend to resemble their parents," 

Their original press release was even sillier, thus the study's inclusion here:
 Environmental change can override natural selection, researchers report in Science

Changing winter conditions are causing Scotland's wild Soay sheep to get smaller despite the evolutionary benefits of having a large body, researchers report in a study that shows how climate change can trump natural selection.

I am a little skeptical of the claims that are being made. In any population of sheep, or any population of any species, you can bet there are many variations of the genes that control size and growth. At any time, the sheep are giving birth to lambs that will be larger, average and smaller than the platonic average sheep, who grow slower, average or faster than the average sheep. If a particular combination of genes seems to be winning, it could be for many reasons we are not aware of, such as,
1) the genes in question give an advantage that is not related to size of the animal but to body proportions, perhaps the advantage is something like length of leg bone versus length of body, or width of pelvis versus length of body.
2) Maybe a gene that makes the animal smaller also gives it some unrelated ability, like helping it smell better.
3) Maybe there is also a genetic disposition to mating with smaller members of the opposite sex.

Not to say that a change in climate isn't causing a local change to sheep size, but this only becomes significant if climate mattered to the global sheep populations, Are African sheep smaller than Icelandic sheep? If not, why not?
3)

briantaylor's picture
It's almost always about who gets to write the definitions.

logicman's picture
These sheep are representative of natural selection at work in an island population.  There are two major processes affecting population size here: population crash and size reduction.  Both processes reduce total sheep biomass, but only one increases total sheep genome mass.

Soay sheep population studies 101:
http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/larg/pages/SoaySheepSurvivalSite2.html

DARWINIAN THEORY OF MICRO-EVOLUTION x MATRIX THEORY OF MACRO-EVOLUTION

Thanks to Tim Coulson by good job of collecting new data, and thanks to comments here that show to us what to think about.

The Scotland's wild Soay sheep could be an effect from the "astronomic clock" acting throught its smaller representative, the "molecular clock'? In Matrix Theory models, the global warming of any kind of planets are normal and natural process regulated by the astronomic clock, which is an effect from LUCA's life (the Last Universal Common Ancestor). Human activities could affect the natural process, but global warming was expected to happen naturally and it is a ruler of natural selection as well. The problem behind the paradox and about "why predictions did not match observation", I think, is due the differences between micro and macro evolution. What's happend with the Scotland's sheeps are effects from macro-evolution, and Darwin did not understood it.

As you can see in Matrix's Theory, its models suggests that LUCA was/is not a biological system, but an astronomic and mechanical Newtonian system, it was/is not leaving at Earth, and there were no origins of life... neither there is such difference between living and non-living natural systems. Cheers...

Gerhard Adam's picture
What does that even mean?

Hank's picture
It means he wanted to promote his blog.   Darwin didn't understand macro-evolution?   That's pretty funny, actually.   No difference between living and non-living natural systems?   That's why they had to invent the concept of dark matter.   This does not mean eating a dead/alive cat is the same as throwing Pee Wee Herman through a window.

Gerhard Adam's picture
This does not mean eating a dead/alive cat is the same as throwing Pee Wee Herman through a window.

You have such a way with words .. :)

Hank's picture
I can't believe you understood it.  I suppose if I had said "Schroedinger's dead cat" the physics analogy would have made more obvious sense.  Somewhere, you learned to speak Hank!

Gerhard Adam's picture

... and here I thought you were relating quantum effects (dead/live cat - superposition) to Newtonian (throwing PeeWee Herman a window - an imposition).  :))



Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.