iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Dinosaur Extinction Didn't Come Abruptly For All Species, Study Says

Posted: 05/ 2/2012 8:38 am Updated: 05/ 2/2012 8:38 am

Dinosaur Extinction
Tyrannosaurus rex is part of the carnivorous groups of dinosaurs that, according to new research, maintained a stable level of biodiversity leading up to the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.

By: Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience Contributor
Published: 05/01/2012 11:04 AM EDT on LiveScience

Some dinosaur species were declining long before the 150-million-year-long Age of Dinosaurs ended, scientists find.

Apparently large herbivores such as Triceratops and the duck-billed dinosaurs saw a long-term decline before the catastrophe, but carnivores and other plant-eaters, such as giant sauropods, did not, researchers said. Why some dinosaurs were on their way out while others still thrived just before "the end" may have to do with their locations — whether they lived in North America or Asia, for instance.

The demise of all dinosaurs except birds came about 65 million years ago, when researchers think a giant meteor collided with Earth. Still, it was unclear if mass extinctions started gradually before the impact, perhaps due to volcanoes or other forces.

Dinosaur diversity

To explore this question further, vertebrate paleontologist Stephen Brusatte at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and his colleagues investigated seven major dinosaur groups during the end of the Cretaceous, encompassing nearly 150 species. Specifically, they analyzed the variability of the anatomy and body plans within those groups. Groups that show increasing diversity might have flourished in their environments and evolved into more species, while decreasing variability might be a warning sign of extinction in the long term.

"People often think of dinosaurs as being monolithic — we say, 'The dinosaurs did this, and the dinosaurs did that,'" said researcher Richard Butler of Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich. "But dinosaurs were hugely diverse. There were hundreds of species living in the Late Cretaceous, and these differed enormously in diet, shape and size. Different groups were probably evolving in different ways and the results of our study show that very clearly."

The scientists found that biodiversity of large herbivores, including the duck-billed hadrosaur dinosaurs and horned ceratopsid dinosaurs such as Triceratops, seemingly experienced a long-term decline during the last 12 million years of the Age of Dinosaurs. In contrast, a number of other dinosaurs stayed relatively stable or even may have slightly increased in biodiversity, including carnivores such as tyrannosaurs, mid-size herbivores such as the armored ankylosaurs and bone-headed pachycephalosaurs, and truly enormous herbivores, such as sauropods, that gulped their food whole.

The picture of dinosaur biodiversity grows even more complex if one takes different locations into account. Although hadrosaurs apparently declined in North America, their diversity was increasing in Asia during the late Cretaceous. (The Cretaceous Period, which lasted from about 145 million to 65 million years ago, was the last part of the Age of Dinosaurs.) [Dinosaur Detective: Find Out What You Really Know]

"Few issues in the history of paleontology have fueled as much research and popular fascination as the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs," Brusatte said. "Did sudden volcanic eruptions or an asteroid impact strike down dinosaurs during their prime? We found that it was probably much more complex than that, and maybe not the sudden catastrophe that is often portrayed."

Location matters

A number of factors in North America might have influenced the evolution of dinosaurs there as compared with other continents, including mountain formation and extreme fluctuations in size and sea level of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half.

"The mountain-building and changes in the sea would have meant the land area in North America was constantly growing and shrinking, and so it would make sense that animals living on that land would change in an evolutionary sense as well," Brusatte told LiveScience. "It also makes sense that you would see declines in large plant-eaters such as hadrosaurs and ceratopsids first. They were distant relatives, but ecologically they were both doing similar things — they were essentially at the bottom of the food chain, the major dinosaur in terms of the landscape, much more common than other dinosaurs, so it would make sense they would be affected first by any change in the environment."

The researchers note that just because some dinosaur groups might have been in decline before their end "does not automatically mean that dinosaurs were doomed to extinction," said researcher Mark Norell, chair of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History. "Dinosaur diversity fluctuated throughout the Mesozoic, and small increases or decreases between two or three time intervals may not be noteworthy within the context of the entire 150-million-year history of the group." 

Future research will focus on finding more dinosaurs of this age in other parts of the world. "That should help make the picture of the time right before the extinction clearer," Brusatte said.

 The scientists detailed their findings online May 1 in the journal Nature Communications.

Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.    

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW SCIENCE

By: Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience Contributor Published: 05/01/2012 11:04 AM EDT on LiveScience Some dinosaur species were declining long before the 150-million-year-long Age of Dinosaurs ended, ...
By: Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience Contributor Published: 05/01/2012 11:04 AM EDT on LiveScience Some dinosaur species were declining long before the 150-million-year-long Age of Dinosaurs ended, ...
Filed by David Freeman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 436
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
06:25 PM on 05/09/2012
This all makes sense but the headline is misleading.. The bird stuff is common knowledge but is addressed wrong, but the good news is it wasn't dinosaur farts that did them in!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:04 AM on 05/07/2012
From the header, I got the idea that perhaps scientists had found evidence that dinosaurs died out gradually after the asteroid impact of 65 million years ago, instead of rapidly, but that is not what the article is about. Too bad.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
06:36 PM on 05/06/2012
The demise of all dinosaurs except birds came about 65 million years ago, when researchers think a giant meteor collided with Earth. Still, it was unclear if mass extinctions started gradually before the impact, perhaps due to volcanoes or other forces. -- From the article

I am so annoyed by this whole "birds are dinosaurs" meme, which flies in the face of logic, common sense, and the accepted principles of usage, that I'm "restarting" this discussion, the original of which took a thread all the way to point at which no Reply was possible!

Look. If birds are dinosaurs because they belong to the clade dinosauria, then mammals are cynodonts, since cynodontia is the clade (orginating in the late Permian) to which mammalia belong. What I am arguing against is what I consider this kind of evolutionary misspeaking. The fact that birds belong to the clade dinosauria does not make THEM dinosaurs; it only means that they evolved FROM a type of dinosaur, the theropod, just as the fact that mammals evolved from a type of cynodont does not make them cynodonts. Thus the "birds are dinosaurs" meme is a perfect example of abstract theory fallaciously trumping common sense, logic, and accepted usage....
08:06 PM on 05/06/2012
I too am tired of the birds are dinosaurs meme. By that standard people are nothing more than monkeys.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
02:52 PM on 05/07/2012
I tried that line of argument before. Actually, it does work because clades are essentially defined by the common ancestor of various groups of species. Thus there are clades within clades. I thought, however, that I would go back to the same "level" of clade as dinosauria for birds, and that turns out to be cynodontia for mammals.

But yeah, if you want to say a group of species (like aves or birds) IS its ancestral clade, then human beings are, I think, hominins which includes a whole bunch of bipedal apes....
"
photo
hauruck
Bitten by a radioactive Welshman
09:56 PM on 05/08/2012
Are we not men???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
08:09 PM on 05/06/2012
The Cynodont clade does include mammals. Mammals are a derived type of cynodont.

The "abstract theory" is not that birds are dinosaurs, that is purely a matter of relationship. What is abstract is the notion that there is some sort of dividing line where one stops being a bird and starts being a dinosaur, or stops being a cynodont and starts being a mammal. How do you define that point? What particular species can be called the first true "mammal" or "bird"? It's a gradual process, and the line is artificial. What isn't artificial is evolutionary history.

Anyway, like it or not, it's how paleontologists classify things now. Maybe you should go to one of the sites where they hang out and ask them why they have abandoned "common sense". Science has never run off of common sense, anyway, as common sense is often wrong.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
02:44 PM on 05/07/2012
I think this points up the limitations of the whole modern "clade" system vs. the classical Linnaean system. Clades have the advantage of capturing the evolutionary sequences of various classes of organism but the big disadvantage that I just pointed out, which is that you end up calling birds dinosaurs. (But scientists tend to be tone deaf in these matters anyway, as witness the whole "dwarf planet" business with Pluto....)
10:25 AM on 05/06/2012
Dinosaurs died out from a combined perfect storm of giant asteroid, volcanic activity, disease and climate change. Not all on the same day.

Some reports indicate that if you took an Immu, similiar to an ostrich, and changed the beak gene to teeth, the short tail gene to a long tail, and the feather gene to scales, you would end up with something similiar to a rapturer. Not something you would like running around the neighborhood.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
07:24 PM on 05/06/2012
There are some rapturers in my neighborhood and I definitely don't like them around!...
photo
Cori527
Gay democrat agnostic vegetarian!
04:42 PM on 05/08/2012
LOL
edtheengineer
Retired engineer with 40 years experience.
06:36 PM on 05/09/2012
Those rapturers are following the lead of their Mayan brothers and are preparing for the end of 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Korey
Atheism is a personal relationship with reality
12:54 AM on 05/06/2012
Everybody knows the way extinction time lines work.
Time lines are in layers as follows - Big dinosaurs, snails,smaller dinosaurs, trees, bugs, fish, everything else in the great flood, First born Egyptians, wooly mammoths.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
12:37 AM on 05/06/2012
The demise of all dinosaurs except birds came about 65 million years ago, when researchers think a giant meteor collided with Earth. Still, it was unclear if mass extinctions started gradually before the impact, perhaps due to volcanoes or other forces. -- From the story

I can't tell you how absurd this whole "birds are dinosaurs" business strikes me as. It makes nonsense of biological classification and is simply false on the face of it. I understand that evolutionary biologists are trying to out-clever themselves here and inject a bit of "poetry" into the subject but many of them seem to be taking the notion literally.

Consider this. If birds are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs were reptiles, that makes birds a type of reptile. I'm perfectly aware that birds evolved FROM dinosaurs but that does not make THEM dinosaurs any more than the fact that mammals also evolved from a different class of reptiles makes them members of that class of reptiles. Like I say, as a metaphor, it has a certain charm, but taking it literally is absurd....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
11:41 AM on 05/06/2012
Part 1:

First of all, mammals didn't evolve from reptiles. They evolved from basal tetrapods. Reptiles belong to the sauropsid branch, while mammals belong to the synapsid branch. The whole idea of "mammal-like reptiles" is outdated. Mammal ancestors are not reptiles; nothing in the mammal like was ever a reptile.

The problem is that in the past, they tried to cram everything into the already established linnaean taxonomy, which used living animals as it's basis. Since mammal ancestors had to be part of a group, they were "reptiles". Modern paleontology uses cladistics, which defines related groups into clades of animals with common ancestors. Reptiles and mammals are different clades, both part of a tetrapod clade, but mammals are completely different from the reptile clade; none of their ancestors are reptiles. Birds, however, evolved from therapod dinosaurs, and are therefore part of the dinosaur clade and the reptile clade. It's not about poetry, it's about having a classification system based on relationships, not on structural similarities seen by Linnaeus in the early 18th century.

"Reptiles" as used in the past, include groups that have different common ancestors or artificially exclude groups with the same common ancestors. To include "reptiles" into modern classification schemes, you have to basically make it a synonym for "saurapsid" and include birds, or you just have to relegate "reptile" into a non-scientific, common usage. Under modern classification, if birds evolved form dinosaurs, they are part of the dinosaur clade; they are a type of dinosaur.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
02:16 PM on 05/06/2012
OK, so since crocodiles also belong to the same "clade" as dinosaurs and birds, does that make them dinosaurs too? In that case, the sentence should read: “The demise of all dinosaurs except birds AND CROCODILES came about 65 million years ago, when researchers think a giant meteor collided with Earth. Still, it was unclear if mass extinctions started gradually before the impact, perhaps due to volcanoes or other forces."

Can you see the absurdity of this? Birds belong to the same "clade" as dinosaurs but the clade itself includes more classes than just dinosaurs. It includes birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles among others. So, no matter what classification system you use, it is still absurd to call birds dinosaurs. You might as well call them crocodiles too. (Unless you also want to call crocodiles dinosaurs -- which would actually make some sense....)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
11:41 AM on 05/06/2012
Part 2:

It may make nonsense or the old, linnaean biological classification, but that classification was invented with no regard to extinct species. It also created what has become an awkward, artificial hierarchy of classes and orders where you have to insert all sorts of sub-, infra- and other prefixes if you wish to include newly discovered relationships. Cladistics dispenses with that, and has the advantage of being based on testable hypothesis of relationships, and can be easily altered when new information changes how different species fit into the the tree of life.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
02:19 PM on 05/06/2012
See my response below....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dsws
No owning ideas. Limit only commercial use.
03:55 AM on 05/13/2012
The time it makes sense to use non-cladistic classification is when you have no clue how things are actually related, and you're putting together groupings so that you can talk about the organisms (or find fossils in drawers) without having to rearrange everything when your guesses change about what's related to what.
12:06 PM on 05/04/2012
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They live in the swamps.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ColoradoCool
Proud Liberal, Graduate Degree, Mother, Grandmothe
04:59 PM on 05/04/2012
Actually, they live among us. They're called "Republicans".
photo
bryanzth
Honest to Goodness USA Patriot!
08:08 AM on 05/05/2012
No, they are in my backyard, picking out grubs from the lawn, eating bread crumbs and old cookies. Every so often, a rather brutal one of these grabs a pigeon or a dove and makes a snack of it. Then, some very fast ones dive in for a bath in the basin there, and then quickly surges into the trees.

We are frankly scared. They sit on the wires, waiting. Waiting for something. We don't know what's gonna happen. Send help!

BZ.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
12:41 AM on 05/06/2012
Too bad Alfred Hitcock is dead -- "The Birds II - Revenge of the Dinos"...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rg9rts
Carpe Diem! This aint rehearsal
06:50 AM on 05/04/2012
Whatever the cause we now know they had FLEAS!!!~~(^..^)
01:47 AM on 05/04/2012
but I thought the earth was only 4000 years old? ... or 28,000 in dog years ...
photo
SonOfUgh
Your micro-bio is empty
11:39 AM on 05/04/2012
Dogs. Building civilisation before man came along. They really are our best friends.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:20 PM on 05/04/2012
Thats what the Cats want you to believe!
07:36 PM on 05/03/2012
DINOSAURS ? Their not dead; but thats just me trying to be conservative.
photo
SonOfUgh
Your micro-bio is empty
11:41 AM on 05/04/2012
The Dinosaurs problem was they got caught up in the whole Obama's Kenyan birth certificate thing and now they have been completely hidden by a massive government conspiracy. Only Orly Taitz and Sheriff Joe Arpaio can see them now.
05:52 PM on 05/03/2012
Science is fun. DO the Evolution!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvqoF-uhQnQ
03:55 PM on 05/03/2012
I told already how the dinossaurs disapear. They "disapear" graduallity while the earth slowdow and the gravity increase.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brettford
I don't have faith in faith
05:34 PM on 05/03/2012
hahahaha! ok then... I guess, that settles it once and for all. :P
Jesterband
the fastest swimmer
04:36 AM on 05/05/2012
And yet another indictment of our wonderful American schools.
photo
jf12
When I saw her I marveled greatly.
07:46 AM on 05/03/2012
Actually, the slightest bit of thought reveals that any particular groups' biodiversity *ought* to decrease as the organisms become fully adapted into stable niches. Hence, if and when conditions change and niches disappear, so too will those particularly well-adapted groups also disappear. It is the *lack* of adaptation that is robust to change, a well known effect.
Helloise
Healthy skeptic admires reason, trusts intuition
05:22 PM on 05/03/2012
Ah, I see a political parallel here on the right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rg9rts
Carpe Diem! This aint rehearsal
06:52 AM on 05/04/2012
Smarty Pants!~~(^..^)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
killerbee256
10:57 PM on 05/05/2012
There are ecomonic ones too.
tccat4
We all have a right to our opinion, like it or not
04:46 AM on 05/03/2012
I believe the fact that they didn't all go instinct by the huge asteroid..... doesn't seem to back up what we have been told.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
11:57 AM on 05/03/2012
And why would that be?
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
06:51 PM on 05/03/2012
There's really not any big disagreement. It has been clear for a long time that diversity in dinos was declining for a long time before the final blow: the asteroid impact that finished them off. There's not much doubt about either fact at this point in time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:06 AM on 05/03/2012
I can't get my head around the idea that ALL of the dinosaurs (except birds, which may or may not be living dinosaurs) went extinct at the same time, when mammals and reptiles did not. There were hundreds of species of dinosaurs, some of them very small, so why, if other types of animals lived through that period of upheaval, didn't at least some of the dinosaurs survive?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
12:05 PM on 05/03/2012
Most non-avian dinosaurs are pretty large. Mammals took up most of the ecological niches for small, warm-blooded animals. The non-dinosaur reptiles are all cold-blooded, which means they don't need much food and would could survive better in a low food environment. Dinosaurs, being large, and warm-blooded, needed a lot of food and were at a big disadvantage.

Not only dinosaurs died out. Pterosaurs, which had been displaced by birds in the niches for smaller flying animals, were all pretty large by then, and they didn't survive. And remember, a lot of reptiles, birds and mammals went extinct; it's just that enough survived to repopulate.
priceut
Enjoying the springtime of my senility.
09:18 PM on 05/04/2012
Maybe it comes down to fur, feathers, nocturnal lifestyle and quick reproductive cycles. All these attributes might favor those species in a scenario where the ozone layer was somehow disrupted. This is far from a theory, since I have no mechanism other than volcanism to explain what could disrupt the ozone, but it is a conjecture I've been wondering about. Lots of sea life also went extinct at this time and I wonder if some aquatic forms might have been more susceptible to increased doses of UV.