Book Review: The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (Henry Holt
& Company, 2014)
This was a fair to good book, mainly a history of mass
extinctions and of extinction in general. Kolbert is a writer at The New Yorker and has written about
environmental and science topics. I moved this up on my review list since the
author just gave a talk about the book at the local university.
She begins with the recent evolutionary success of humans
who have managed to vastly increase their population in the past 100 years and
vastly affect their environments and planet to the point where we are directly
influencing an unprecedented acceleration of the rate of extinction of many
species, mainly through habitat loss. Humans began causing extinctions
thousands of years ago by hunting animals to extinction, including isolated
island species, especially flightless birds, and very likely megafauna as well.
When we discovered and developed fossil fuels and subsequent technologies we
expanded our population which also expanded human-caused extinctions.
The first chapter is about the Panamanian golden frogs, once
extremely populous, now disappearing. She travels to the area to observe
efforts to keep the frogs from going extinct. Frog and amphibian extinctions in
general have been accelerated recently, even though some have been present on
Earth for hundreds of millions of years and several made it through all of the
previous mass extinctions. A fungus in the chytrid family, known as Bd for
short, is the culprit killing the Panamanian golden frogs.
She talks about what is known as the ‘background extinction
rate’ which is the normal rate of extinction for a class of organisms. For
example, the current background extinction rate for mammals is 0.25 per million
species-years, or roughly one lost mammalian species every 700 years. In
contrast, mass extinctions cause substantial biodiversity losses rapidly and
globally. They happen close enough in time to be called events, although an
event may last hundreds of thousands of years. Mass extinctions often mark the
boundaries of geologic periods. The Big Five mass extinctions were: 1) End of
Ordovician, 2) End of Devonian, 3) End of Permian, 4) Late Triassic, and 5) End
of Cretaceous. According to paleontologist David Raup: the history of life
consists of “long periods of boredom interrupted occasionally by panic.” There
have been many lesser extinction events as well. Amphibian background
extinction rates have not been calculated due to a dearth of amphibian fossils,
but it is thought to be less than that for mammals. However, in recent times,
most herpetologists have seen several extinctions of amphibian species. In
fact, now they are considered the world’s most endangered class of animals,
possibly as much as 45,000 times the background extinction rate! Many reef-building
corals, fresh-water mollusks, sharks and rays, and mammals are also endangered.
The Bd fungus was thought to have been introduced by
importing frogs from other places that were less affected by it. Introduction
of invasive species and new diseases is another result of human travel. Humans
have managed to globally re-shuffle species, both purposely and accidentally,
on an unprecedented scale.
Oddly, humans did not understand that species went extinct
until fossils were interpreted by paleontologists. There were theories and
ideas about fossils, often referred to the flood of Noah in Genesis. In the late
1700’s the French naturalist Nicolas-Frederic Cuvier interpreted Mastodon
fossils from America as remnants from an extinct species. The author visits a
paleontology museum in Paris that houses Cuvier’s specimens and sketches. It
was Cuvier who established extinction as fact, she notes. He found many fossils
in nearby gypsum quarries. The discovery and reconstruction of the bones of the
Ohio mastodon by others would cement Cuvier’s idea of extinction. In 1812
Cuvier published a four-volume compendium on animal fossils. Cuvier was also
involved in early study and identification of dinosaur fossils. Cuvier’s
success (perhaps modest by modern standards) was based on his keen knowledge of
anatomy. His senior colleague Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who asserted that there
was a force pushing beings toward complexity (an idea that later merged into Darwin’s
evolution) opposed his idea of extinction.
Cuvier believed extinctions were caused by catastrophic
events that happened very quickly. Not much later this idea would become known as
‘catastrophism’ and it was the basis of early geological theory in the early-mid
1800’s until Charles Lyell appeared on the scene. Lyell observed rock layers
and concluded that geologic processes like sedimentation and erosion were very
gradual over long periods of time. He also thought extinction was a gradual
process. Darwin read his books as a young college student at 22 as he traveled
on his famous voyage to Galapagos Islands and beyond to the South Pacific. He
experienced a horrific earthquake while in Chile and measured the local ground uplift
with surveying instruments to eight feet. These and other experiences convinced
him of the truth of Lyell’s ideas as Lyell also talked about uplift and
subsidence, noting that over long periods of time accumulated uplifts could
make mountains. Darwin noticed that coral reefs and atolls were a result of the
interplay between biology and geology in that sea shelves subsided (dropped)
and reefs moved accordingly to waters of shallow depths. He presented the idea
to Lyell who was delighted and revised his idea of reefs which erroneously
thought underwater volcanoes were the underlying source. Lyell was wrong about
other things – ie. catastrophes and destructive events do have a place in
geology. Darwin’s key idea of natural selection was also rooted in Lyell’s
‘gradualism’ and followed Lyell’s famous principle that “the present is the key
to the past.”
She visits a museum in Iceland that houses the last known
specimen of the great auk, an extinct bird, large and flightless, last known
from the mid-1800’s. Once numbering in the millions, the bird is one of many
species of animals wiped out by humans for food. Darwin also acknowledged
human-caused extinction, which in some cases could be directly observed as
hunted species became more and more rare.
Next, she considers the ammonites and the work of the
Alvarez’s (Luis and his son Walter) in determining their demise was caused by
an asteroid impact that defines the end-Cretaceous mass extinction, the
stratigraphic boundary being known as the K-T boundary. Paleontologists went
around the world looking for the K-T boundary contact in outcrops and
successive rock layers before and after, Geochemists got involved looking for
evidence of asteroid impact minerals, mainly irridium. Finally, the impact
crater was actually found at the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. It was not the
impact itself that caused the ammonite extinction, wrote the Alvarez’s, but likely
the dust which blocked out the sun which killed plants and animals. This is the
event that wiped out the dinosaurs. Living things near the impact were simply
vaporized. The atmosphere was altered and the ocean chemistry. Species that
could live in deeper ocean water had better survival rates. Ammonites can be
seen very well in the fossil record to decrease in variety and in amount but in
this case the seemingly gradual was really precipitated by a single event. The
end-Cretaceous (K-T) mass extinction is thus far the only one (probably “the”
only one) confirmed to be from an impact event.
Next, she considers a history of the science of extinction
in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm shifts” in his historical/psychological study
of scientific revolutions. The first paradigm shift was acknowledging
extinction which happened with Cuvier and contemporaries in the 1800’s. Lyell’s
focus on the gradual was another shift. That idea held up until evidence for
asteroid impacts showed that mass extinctions could result from a single
catastrophic event. Of course, in reality both gradual and catastrophic
processes operate in geology with the catastrophic simply being much rarer than
the gradual.
She goes to Scotland where geologists are looking at graptolite
fossils at the end-Ordovician (444 million years ago) boundary defined by the
first major mass extinction. Life then was in the sea, having “exploded” in
variation in the previous age, the Cambrian. They are looking for the record in
the rocks where the sea went from habitable to inhabitable. After verification
of the impact explanation for triggering the end-Cretaceous mass extinction,
impact was a popular idea for other mass extinctions. However, lack of iridium
and other factors favor other explanations. The current theory in favor for the
end-Ordovician mass extinction is that of global cooling and glaciation of a previous
greenhouse climate. The glaciation dropped global sea levels drastically which
ruined sea life habitat and ocean chemistry changed drastically as well. This
dropped previously high CO2 levels which cooled the planet further. One idea
has it that it was the spread of mosses on the land that decreased CO2 levels
and triggered the process. She considers this idea, that it was plants that
caused the first major mass extinction. The end-Permian extinction also appears
to be a result of changes in climate. A
massive increase in atmospheric CO2 happened then, 252 million years ago. The
seas warmed. Reefs collapsed. Some scientists think the CO2 came from volcanos.
Some also think that the conditions eventually favored bacteria that produced
hydrogen sulfide and that this extended the die-off due to a poisoned
atmosphere.
She explores the notion that we have entered a new geologic
age informed by humans and the effects of their population growth and
technology. Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen termed it the Anthropocene. He noted
that humans have transformed between a third and a half of the land surface of
the earth, dammed and diverted most of the rivers, added excess nitrogen to the
biosphere through fertilization, overfished the oceans, and use half of the
world’s freshwater runoff. We have also altered the chemical composition of the
atmosphere and the ocean.
Next, she goes to an area in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the
coast of Italy where there is an active underwater volcano system that spews CO2
from vents on the ocean floor. Scientists there can study the effects of
increased ocean CO2 as one moves closer or further from the source. The extra
CO2 produced by humans is partially absorbed by the ocean and this lowers its
pH making it more acidic. Scientists there study the effects of more acidic
ocean on sea life, particularly life that makes calcium carbonate shells. Some
creatures are more adaptable than others, but few can live in the very low PH
waters very near the vents. The same is true of a globally acidified ocean –
some species will thrive and others suffer. The general prediction is of loss
of biodiversity. Ocean acidification was involved in the end-Permian and
end-Triassic extinctions and possibly the end-Cretaceous as well as the
Toarcian Turnover 183 million years ago in the early Jurassic. Shelled
organisms that use calcium carbonate, ie. calcifiers, need to adjust their
internal chemistry to the ocean chemistry. Typically, they do that through
evolution so the speed at which they can evolve will be a factor. There are no
calcifiers near the vents.
Continuing with the effects of ocean acidification on
calcifiers she travels to the Great Barrier Reef region in the South Pacific. Corals
are a calcifying superorganism. Darwin was right that subsidence is a major
factor in reef building. She travels to One Tree island to observe the work of
atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira and others. Caldeira thinks that the coming
ocean acidification will surpass that of the last 300 million years. Thus,
coral reefs could be the most vulnerable of ecosystems. They are already being
affected. She explains pH and calcium carbonate saturation. The sea provides a
buffering effect on acidification but the amount of CO2 is increasing the
amount of carbonic acid to exceed the buffering effect. In the geologic record limestone-based
reefs have come and gone but those reefs consisted of different organisms, many
now extinct. Modern coral reefs face other threats too: overfishing that
increases algae which compete with the corals for nutrients, agricultural
runoff which also spurs algae growth, and siltation resulting from
deforestation. Increasing water temperatures cause the corals to lose their
colorization mechanisms. This is known as “coral bleaching” and can lead to the
death of reefs.
Next, she heads to the Andes in Peru where researchers are
studying the effects of climate on the region’s immense biodiversity through observing
plots of trees confined to very specific elevations based mainly on temperature.
These species are very specific in their requirements. Some species can move
upslope faster than others by projecting seeds but others can succumb more
easily to rising temperatures. The worry here is that many of the less
versatile species will go extinct. The logic is that since there is much
greater species variation in the tropics there will much more climate change
related extinction there. The trees also host other species of insects, etc.
that also have rather exacting condition requirements. One theory simply holds
that the tropics have more species precisely because those species are more
condition-specific. Another theory notes that it is the age of the tropics in
terms of less disruption over time than in temperate and polar zones. They have
had more time to diversify. New species are still being discovered in the
tropical regions. Species do migrate but if the rate of climate change, mainly
increasing temperatures but also differing water conditions, exceeds the rate
of migration, some species won’t make it. She explains the species-area
relationship graph (S=cAz (z is a superscript – power). What humans change
mainly is A or area, changing the availability of certain types of land through
development and agriculture. One prediction is that by 2050 9-13% of species
will be committed to extinction under the minimum warming scenario and 21-32%
by the maximum warming scenario. Others disagree, saying species are better at
adaptation and moving. Most do not think that climate change and habitat destruction
will cause a major extinction like the big five but may approach some of the
minor ones. (Thus, the book’s title may be deceptive. Even the book’s subtitle
is questionable since extinction is quite natural as 99.5% of species once in
existence have gone extinct. A person asked this question at her talk and she
conceded that it may not have been the best subtitle). The tropics have other
threats: illegal logging, illegal ranching, and illegal mining. Some have noted
that in a warmer world, species’ overall biodiversity will eventually increase
rather than decrease as evidenced in the warm Eocene of 50 million years ago.
The problem now is that warming is happening much faster than species can keep
up.
Next, she moves s over to the Amazon in Brazil to observe
some of the “reserves” kept from development – patches or fragments of
rainforest. There she visits famed conservationist Tom Lovejoy who convinced
the Brazilian government to preserve parts of the area for scientific study.
The experiment started in the 1980’s. Here also, new species continue to be
discovered. The preserved plots are essentially islands among logged out areas.
Like the Andes experiment these areas are megadiverse and species are very
specific in actions and in conditions required for thriving. High species
diversity also means low population density and so species become isolated by
distance. Such populations are much more susceptible to extinction. She notes
that while primary forest is declining in the Amazon the amount of secondary
forest is growing so this may slow the high species extinction rate predicted
somewhat. Timbered forests will regrow if not further developed. There are so
many species in the tropics it is hard to count them, let alone count how many
have gone extinct.
Next, she considers what has been called the “New Pangaea,”
the globalization of species by virtue of human introduction, both deliberate
and accidental. Thus, the geographic distribution of some species has advanced
hugely. Here she focuses on the loss of bats in Eastern North America due to a
fungus that causes what is called “white-nosed syndrome.” This was first
observed in 2007 and is killing bats by the millions, especially when they
hibernate in caves and mine shafts in the winter. Ballast water of ships,
hitching rides on people and cargo in planes, and on people’s stuff and shoes
from car travel are some of the ways species expand their distribution.
Invasive species have become problematic in many places although some are more
problematic than others and some may also be beneficial, ie. introduced species
are not always invasive species but often are. Here she explores some of the
stories of introduced species. They often become invasive because in new areas
their usual predators may not be around. Introduced species can actually hunt
other species to extinction as happened with the brown tree snake accidentally
introduced from Papua New Guinea to Guam where it extinctified some birds and
bats. It merely did what humans do – succeeded at the expense of other species.
As in the story of the American chestnut tree succumbing to a fungus that was
common to Asian chestnut trees that the fungus evolved with, the fungus killing
American bats is not harmful to bats in Europe from where it was likely
introduced. The same is true of the chytrid fungus killing the Panamanian
frogs. Novelty can kill. She goes through a surprising list of species
introduced to North America: dandelions, honeybees, earthworms, queen-Anne’s
lace, burdock, plantain, etc. Currently, the emerald ash borer is a problem
here in Ohio – I have about 40 or 50 of these trees dying or dead within about
500 ft of my house. Some will fall a limb at a time or maybe from the base.
Others nearer will have to be cut down in the next few years. Zebra mussels and
Asian carp are aquatic species that have wreaked havoc. Of course, humans have
been introducing species from time immemorial as they travelled to new areas.
It is just in recent times the process has been vastly accelerated. This has
resulted in rises of ‘local diversity.’ While local diversity has been
increasing, global diversity has been decreasing.
Next, she visits the Cincinnati zoo which houses (not sure
if still there) a Sumatran rhinoceros named Suci. They are the oldest and
smallest of the five species of rhinos today but highly endangered. Some housed
at zoos are trying to be mated to reproduce. These are known as ‘captive
breeding’ programs. The Sumatran rhino, once common from Bhutan to Indonesia, is
a victim of habitat destruction and forest fragmentation. There are only a few
hundred left in the wild. In their case captive breeding efforts have made the
problem worse as many died faster in captivity. A few have been born in
captivity so there is some hope. Other rhinos have been overhunted for their
horns which are used as an aphrodisiac in Chinese medicine and apparently as a
party drug where they are powdered and snorted like cocaine.
While in Cincinnati she also visits the nearby museum at Big
Bone Lick where the old mastodon fossils that Cuvier interpreted were found.
She considers whether the North American megafauna were driven to extinction by
human hunters (the leading theory by far) or by climatic changes or possibly by
both. Similar losses of fauna occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar,
and other places. Of course, every loss coincided with the arrival and persistence
of humans in those areas. She shows through scientific evidence that pre-historic
humans almost certainly caused these extinctions. One issue with some of the
big megafauna is that they reproduce sparingly and have one baby at a time so
that even a small amount of them killed by humans could have a large effect on
their population in a relatively short period of time. Other simulations have
shown that the megafauna were very vulnerable to humans, that only a few
hundred humans could have wiped them out over a millennium.
Next, she visits Germany to consider the fate of our human deep
ancestors, the Neanderthal. The likelihood is that modern humans, homo sapiens,
simply killed off and inter-breeded with Neanderthals. Genetic projects are
underway to map the Neandertal genome, compare it to the genome of modern humans,
and find out where and possibly when they diverged. Apparently, it is a slow
process since getting DNA from Neanderthal bones is not easy. We now know that
Europeans and Asians share more Neanderthal DNA than Africans. All non-Africans
carry between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA. Only modern humans, not Neanderthals,
used projectiles and made it to Australia, Madagascar and other places (used
boats). Paabo, the researcher there in Germany, is a leading DNA-extracting
researcher in the realm of humans. He tried and failed to extract DNA from a
bone fragment from 17,000 year old homo
floresiensis, first discovered in 2004 in Indonesia and identified as a new
species. Then in 2010 the first bones of the Denisovans were discovered in a
cave in Siberia. Paabo named the species and was able to extract DNA from the finger
bone discovered. It was found that modern people from Papua New Guinea share 6%
DNA with Denisovans but that modern Siberians and Asians do not. This is likely
due to ancient migration patterns. The Neanderthals used tools, buried their
dead, and some think they made art and adorned themselves, but after living in Europe
for 100, 000 years there is little to show of their “culture.”
Finally, she explores the San Diego zoo, specifically the
place there where the DNA of extinct species is preserved. Here there are also very
endangered species. One is a rare male alala, or Hawaiian crow named Kinohi. These
crows can imitate human speech somewhat like parrots. They are trying to
extract his sperm to mate with the few female alalas left. She talked about him
in her talk.
Overall, this was a pretty good book and a nice overview of extinction
in general. Like I said before, I don’t think the title or the subtitle are
ideal since this may not become a “mass” extinction although the rate of extinction
has certainly accelerated significantly – and it is not at all unnatural. I
think she talked a bit much in her talk about the effects of climate change and
the current American political climate as being unhelpful. I would have rather explored
more about biology in general.