North American Rattlesnake's Reaction To Climate Change Offers Glimpse Of Future

By Karen Hopkin
(Click here for original article.)

It's hard to feel a sense of urgency about climate change -- it feels so slow. Well, try telling that to the critters dealing with it. Because new data suggest that the climate will change more than 100 times faster than the rate at which species can adapt. That's according to a study published in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [A. Michelle Lawing and P. David Polly, "Pleistocene Climate, Phylogeny, and Climate Envelope Models: An Integrative Approach to Better Understand Species' Response to Climate Change"]

To assess this race between animals and the elements, scientists looked at climate records from the past 300,000 years, a period that included three ice ages. And they asked how a particular organism, the North American rattlesnake, coped with those climate changes.

They found that rattlesnakes, which are cold-blooded, deal with temperature changes by moving: their ranges have shifted about two meters a year to keep the snakes inside their comfort zone. Now, if global temperatures increase by another 1 to 6 degrees Celsius over the next 90 years, as current models predict, rattlers could be forced to slither up to a thousand times farther. And the snakes may not have the legs for such a trip.

How millions of other species will attempt to cope is a vast, unplanned evolutionary experiment. With no control in sight.

The above text is a transcript of this podcast.

Comments

[Peter Wone]

04:16 AM on 08/09/2012

@Norge - I agree that a steady moderate threat is likely to accelerate natural selection, but I think the posited threat is baloney. I find it hard to believe they can't move 2km per annum, which is about 0.0002km/h, easily achieved by the lamest of slugs.

@Deep Thinking Man and various noble-savage enthusiasts, the amerindians ate well because they numbered in the hundreds of thousands. If you want to live like that, first you have to kill off 999 out of every thousand of your neighbours. Moreover, the low population was limited by one or more of the following: predation, food, water or shelter. Predation includes large predators (including other humans at war) and parasites and diseases. They lived in an absence of toilet paper. There was no Preparation H to relieve the agony of haemorrhoids. No dentist to remove a bad tooth and sterilise the abscess in the root canal; they just suffered and died.

@Karen Hopkins (the author) - suppose it's all true and the world is getting noticably warmer. Isn't that a wonderful thing if you live in Siberia? Why do Americans have more right to a convenient climate than Russians or Chinese? Rising seas would give Australia back its ancient inland seas, which would be an ecological and economic bonanza.

[Norge]

10:36 AM on 01/08/2012

Rattlers and side winders on the move. I believe they will manage ok and if they are unable to slither
they will probably develop a form or other of feet and legs. There is a specie on the east coast which has done the transition from slithering to ............without even being disruped in their daily persuits
of the wealth of the earth. They really should be studied and researched.

[Deep Thinking Man]

07:34 PM on 12/12/2011

our biggest mistake is forgetting the knowing of how to live with Nature !!!!!!...before columbus and his goons, and later, the puritans invaded, the Indigneous Peoples had learned how. they used animal sounds to communicate, took only what food they needed and nothing more, and used dead wood for their fires, in short, they were/are the "Care-Takers" !!!!! when all of these fools came, the Indigneous Peoples were considered "ignorant savages".

all destruction of plants and animals, plus greed, and averice have contributed to the situation faced now !!!!!...folks...we must get back to our roots, growing our own foods etc. !!!!!!...we also need to remove excessive, ridiculous laws from our existance !!!!!

[Linus521]

08:28 PM on 12/12/2011

Yes, Deep Thinker, Today, social scientists maintain, small scale hunting and gathering was the most successful lifestyle for mankind. Yes, you are so correct about the Native Americans, the finest ecologists, who did magnificently without dead planet concrete, metals, energies, cars, jobs and bosses. This lifestyle afforded almost twice the leisure, free time, and they lived and played in paradise with their loved ones.

The small scale hunting and gathering Californians didn't even possess hunting weapons. When the white man showed up to massacre them into veritable extinction, they thought the white man was insane because they filthied up Earth's waters, cut down thousand year old oak trees whose trunks were the width of a compact car and shot and butchered everything that moved.

Shell mounds unearthed in CA revealed the people experienced no epidemics, major wars or famines for thousands of years. They had more variety of vegetables than modern supermarkets. They didn't believe they had all these rights because the gods had made the Earth, the Earth was sacred and not theirs to hurt or destroy...because it belonged to the gods. They understood the waters, valleys and mountains needed to last always. And, this nation genocided twice as many Native Americans as Hitler killed Jewish. The real Americans are my favorite people.

[Deep Thinking Man]

09:16 PM on 12/12/2011

Linus...i've got a feeling that we're all going to have to re-learn how to go back to Nature to sustain ourselves...we need and must let Nature breathe...we must use Her breath to power our homes, and share her fluids, water, with us !!!!!...we must go back to basics to survive !!!!!...if we do not do this...She will withhold her bounty and we will be no more as a civilization because we have abused her so badly !!!!!!!!

you are correct my friend...and you always are !!!!!!!

[MarissaA]

07:42 AM on 12/13/2011

The only reason people lived this way, and most other societies throughout history haven't, is because their major religions teach women that they belong to men. Women had no rights in European civilizations, and they are still considered property of men all over the world today, five hundred years after Cortes slaughtered the Aztecs (with the help of disease). The first Women's Rights Convention was held in Seneca Falls NY, in 1848 by women associated with indigenous people (the Haudenosee, or Iroquois Confederacy), the Seneca, a civilized nation that practiced gender equality. They were known as 'matriarchal' because they afforded women rights to vote, to divorce (and throw a worthless lover or husband out of their home, and she kept the kids), to own property, to have a say in sending warriors off to battle (75% of the mothers in the tribe had to say yes). Contrary to public opinion, matriarchy is not the opposite of patriarchy. These are things some of us are still fighting for, like the thousands of women who have to take their kids and run from abusive husbands, living in poverty and misery for the rest of their lives.

[secondcoming]

08:42 PM on 08/10/2012

living with nature in north america has never been easy even for the indigenous people.. particularly in the plains.. many of these people adapted to nature but they didn't alway win, entire tribes would be wiped out during droughts and harsh winters and it would take years for another group to replace them. if you research some of this fascinating history you will find some coastal tribes - california - Oregon _ Washington _ were able to maintain a presence for thousands of years,, in fact some still live in the area of their ancestors today. the same goes for native people in meso america and south america.. even the people who lived in the southwest, utah, arizona, new mexico resided in their areas for thousand of years juggling with the delicate balance of nature... and their respect for it. their religion. their religion is still foreign to us.. we don't give any of this a thought and it'll take a long time for modern humans to get it because they can work around it... but there will be a time when they won't be able to.. there will be a time when we will learn just how many thousands have died this summer from heat related illnesses alone. the media never gives the story the way it really is.

[TheBlueCoyote]

04:23 AM on 12/12/2011

The problem with so many global-warming deniers is that they don't have enough imagination to see past their prejudices. All they see in a temperature rise is a minor adjustment in their personal comfort. They don't realize that when the rattlers move north it will cause an immediate rise in rodent populations (for example). When I lived in Santa Fe a rise in rodent populations a few years ago caused a rise in cases of bubonic plague. Bubonic plague has a significant affect on your personal comfort level.

[SevenUPtheUNCOOLA]

02:13 PM on 12/11/2011

if the polar bear story is true (i couldnt look at it because the cover photo was too heart wrenching to even glance at the article) i predict polar bears will become extinct within 25 years. this, due to "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever you want to call it. it gets hotter every year and a species that depends on ice to skate to the food source cant survive for long if the ice doesnt occur when it should.

[pixeloid]

10:32 PM on 12/11/2011

Tigers are expected to become extinct within 10 years, but that's not related to global warming. That's plain, old fashioned, human greed, stupidity, and carelessness.

[SevenUPtheUNCOOLA]

11:16 AM on 12/12/2011

for every species that becomes extinct there is greed, stupidity and carelessness behind it. we live by the fallacy that mother nature will provide forever. but she can't keep up with our voracious appetite. we chop everything down, we dig everything up, we kill everything that gets in the way of 'technology' and some day when we are down to our last hamburger, we shouldnt wonder why there is nothing left of nature.

[atexasdem]

02:30 AM on 12/11/2011

Something not being discussed in regards to climate change is it's effect on our food supplies. The US has massive, highly mechanized agricultural areas capable of feeding an ever larger world population. We have a distribution system in place to carry this food around the world. Farming however is dependent on weather. If rains don't fall or unusual freezing happens crops don't grow. Even ideal growing conditions shift either north or south those factory farms that feed us will fail. Imagine the effect of having to move the massive farms of the plains states 500 miles north or south in an attempt to rebuild our agricultural systems. It would take time and the cost would be devastating. Meanwhile to need for food continues.
It's easy to make light of climate change until you realize how weather patterns effect food production. With world population growing can we really afford to ignore this?

[EdRea]

07:03 AM on 12/11/2011

Well stated.
People are concerned about windmills and solar panels ruining the scenery of the landscape. The don't think about the fact that the beloved countryside, the farm and wilderness lands, is likely to end up prey of desertification.

[atexasdem]

09:03 AM on 12/11/2011

An "ultra" conservative west Texas rancher friend of mine thought they were ugly too. Ignoring the fact that many of his cattle watering trough pumps ran on windmills. Then he found out they would pay him $750 a month for every windmill they put on his land. Now he says they're are the most beautiful thing he's ever seen.

[julieintx]

10:14 AM on 12/11/2011

I'm worried about wind turbines grinding up birds and endangered and bats, and destroying endangered grouse habitat.

[Roadrun]

08:04 AM on 12/11/2011

Okay, so now move yourself to one of several very real places where many more than a billion people depend on glacier melt to supply rivers which provide them with nearly every important aspect of life. There are 3 of those rivers, take your pick, Yangtze, Mekong, Ganges.

Now imagine those glaciers are disappearing.

[motoGpifupleez]

11:55 PM on 12/10/2011

Darn those Liberal Rattlesnakes. They're just doing this to boost Al Gore's book sales.

[HorsemanM1]

09:09 PM on 12/10/2011

I used to believe in Global Warming then I moved over to Global Cooling again ( in 1973 I was down with the coming Ice Age ) Now I accept Climate Change and Know America is B A D !

[Roadrun]

08:07 AM on 12/11/2011

If physics and nature were only about believing.

[Abnormal Wrench]

10:53 AM on 12/11/2011

That is the problem when you base your knowledge of science on flashy media articles.

[HorsemanM1]

09:05 PM on 12/10/2011

Can we pin those " Last Three Ice Ages " on the Rupublicans some how ?

[Abnormal Wrench]

10:55 AM on 12/11/2011

Ice ages existed at some point, therefore...?

That is much like saying "car accidents happen all the time, therefore me falling asleep behind the wheel didn't cause the accident.

[HowthCastle]

11:19 AM on 12/12/2011

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: It is true that my client's wife is dead. It is also true that he put two bullets into her forehead. But my aunt Dora died of the whooping cough. Nobody was shooting at her. My client is innocent!

[kelly hodgson]

05:42 PM on 12/10/2011

There are more than 30 species of rattlesnack that range from southern Canada all the way down to Argentina. They reproduce quite rapidly for a large snake, usually producing from 9-16 young as often as twice a year. Although the range of individual snakes is small, overall it seems unlikely that most species can be outpaced by tiny temperature increases or decreases. In fact, warmer temperatures would probably affect rattler populations positively.

Also, most rattler species can withstand cold temperatures for some time.

Most recipes for rattlesnake are southwestern U.S. recipes and involve peppers and beans. There are, however, several delicious pasta recipes for rattlesnake. The most difficult problem with using rattlesnake meat is, like many types of fish, removing it from the bone. Since snake meat is less flaky than fish meat the easiest method is to skin the snake, then boil it until the meat is cooked and slides off the bone easily. There are also some excellent recipes for grilled and roasted rattlesnake.

[Jim Milks]

07:09 PM on 12/10/2011

" it seems unlikely that most species can be outpaced by tiny temperatur e increases or decreases. In fact, warmer temperatur es would probably affect rattler population s positively."

Read the study under discussion. It addresses those points specifically–and shows that you're absolutely wrong.

Lawing and Polly 2011: http://bit.ly/t3SCgK

[kelly hodgson]

09:06 PM on 12/10/2011

I have read it and perhaps you should too. The study uses "phylogenetically-informed climate envelope models". Computer models. These models depend on "oxygen isotope modeling" of past climate. Now we have computer models built on other computer models.

They then use this rather shaky structure to make predictions about one clade of rattlesnakes and what might happen to them if the shaky, model-driven predictions of the IPCC turn out to be true.

In engineering this is called a SWAG.

BTW, there is an excellent recipe for rattlesnake shish kebob, with onion, red and green pepper wedges and chunks of rattlesnake meat. Tarragon and basil in a garlic butter sauce are a great marinade.

Cheers

[eaarth2]

05:27 PM on 12/10/2011

These snakes in Connecticut- the eastern timber rattler, have a small population. they are considered endangered and protected.

[trumphent]

05:07 PM on 12/10/2011

The rattlesnake was an interesting choice of species. It can migrate, although slowly. The cardinal is already migrating annually nearly from pole to pole. Other species are trapped and have nowhere to go.

[Totto]

04:24 PM on 12/10/2011

For the climate change deniers: http://climate.nasa.gov/

[HorsemanM1]

09:07 PM on 12/10/2011

I used to be a Global Warming denier ! What now ?

[Totto]

09:59 PM on 12/10/2011

Well, don't pee in your pants. There ain't much we can do about it now, since China and India would refuse.

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

04:19 PM on 12/10/2011

This article points up one of the nastier facets of global warming: Vermin reproduce much faster than their predators. If it wasn't for snakes, hawks, owls, and other killers, the rodent populations would multiply beyond the carrying capacity of the land, causing famines and epidemics. Maybe we will need to give them a hand, moving them north past obstacles to movement in the case of land animals, or providing nesting boxes in suitable habitats in the case of birds.

[Linus521]

08:46 PM on 12/12/2011

Correct, Sunwyn, however, only snakes and their slender bodies can slide down into a rat hole, right? Aren't rodents vectors of human diseases. I hope I used vector correctly. Didn't rats spawn the plague?

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

05:04 AM on 12/16/2011

Many rodent carry bubonic plague, in this country it is endemic in ground squirrels and marmots all over the west.

[old soil guy]

03:41 PM on 12/10/2011

Rattlesnakes, and most snakes, eat a lot of rodents. We need all the natural diversity we can get to keep some balance in our natural systems. When the planet starts extensive extinctions from climate change humans are going to be so screwed. Maybe the WalMart heirs will open up their self sufficient compounds to help. And rattlesnakes live in colder climates as well. Lots of them in Montana.

[K-Hoff45]

07:31 PM on 12/10/2011

now if only there was a control on humans... oh wait, ourselves

[HorsemanM1]

09:39 PM on 12/10/2011

a fence

[janalyce]

08:34 PM on 12/10/2011

We also need to consider this: human migration.

Right now, here in Texas, most reservoirs are at 60% capacity or worse. If the spring rains are light and the summer next year is like this years, we may start running out of water. What then?

People will start moving north. By the thousands. By the tens of thousands. By the hundreds of thousands, like the Okies heading west to California during the time of the Dust Bowl. Think of the implications of that.

And please, don't tell me it can't happen. One supercilious twit proclaimed, when I brought this up, that there was no problem because we have enough natural gas in Texas to power huge desalinazation plants. "No one will die of this drought, " was this idiot's view. (Even though people have already died here because of this drought.)

Uh-huh. And how many decades will it take to build such plants? To run thousands of miles of pipeline to distribute such water? And how will that be paid for?

We have no time left. No time left. We must get to work on global warming NOW or we will regret it for the rest of our lives...and so will our children.

[Meditating]

11:09 PM on 12/10/2011

Not too many months ago I read, exclusive of start-up costs, it costs about $3 per gallon to produce desalinated water.

[julieintx]

10:08 AM on 12/11/2011

I have a hard time believing that anything going on in Durban right now is going to make it rain in TX.