April 18, 2012
How Eggs Shaped Dinosaur Evolution
![]()

Did egg-laying spell doom for non-avian dinosaurs, such as this crispy Troodon at the San Diego Natural History Museum? Photo by the author.
How did dinosaurs come to rule the Mesozoic world? No one knows for sure, but the way dinosaurs reproduced probably had something to do with it. Dinosaurs grew fast, started mating before they hit skeletal maturity, and laid clutches of multiple eggs—a life history that may have allowed dinosaurs to rapidly proliferate and diversify. And egg laying itself may have been critical to why many dinosaurs were able to attain gigantic sizes. By laying clutches of small eggs, dinosaurs may have been able to sidestep biological constraints that have limited the size of mammals.
But there was a catch. Consider a large dinosaur, such as Diplodocus. Infant Diplodocus hatched out of eggs roughly the size of a large grapefruit, and if they were lucky, the dinosaurs grew to be more than 80 feet long as adults. And the little sauropods were not just small copies of adults. Like many other dinosaurs, individual Diplodocus changed drastically during their lives, and young dinosaurs may have preferred different habitats and food sources from those of more mature individuals. As outlined by Daryl Codron and co-authors in a new Biology Letters paper, this peculiar life history may have been a consequence of laying eggs.
Codron’s group created a virtual dinosaur assemblage to see how intensely dinosaurs might have competed with one another as they grew. If all dinosaurs started off relatively small, then the largest species had to pass through a series of size classes and change their ecological role as they matured. This ramped up the pressure on young dinosaurs. Juvenile dinosaurs had to contend with other juveniles as well as dinosaurs that topped out at smaller sizes. In a diverse Late Jurassic ecosystem, for example, young Allosaurus, Torvosaurus and Ceratosaurus not only had to compete with one another, but also with smaller carnivores like Ornitholestes, Coelurus, Marshosaurus and Stokesosaurus. Dinosaurs would have faced the most competition at small size classes, and this may have driven some dinosaur lineages to become large.
The new paper also suggests that dinosaur life history may have played a role in the demise of the non-avian species. Competition at smaller size classes, Codron and colleagues suggest, drove dinosaurs to become bigger and bigger, and this created a lack of species that were small at maturity. Mammals and avian dinosaurs occupied those niches. This could have made dinosaurs more vulnerable to the intense pressures of the end-Cretaceous extinction. If the catastrophe targeted large animals, but was less severe among small animals, then non-avian dinosaurs would have been doomed. The big dinosaurs disappeared, and there were no small non-avian dinosaurs left to quickly proliferate in the aftermath.
As John Hutchinson pointed out in a Nature news story about this research, however, we’re going to need a lot more testing to see if this hypothesis holds up. The conclusion is based on a virtual model of ecosystems that we can’t study directly, and mass extinctions are frustratingly complicated phenomena.
Of course, a new dinosaur extinction scenario is irresistible journalist bait. Various news sources picked up the extinction hook (promoted in the paper’s press release) and pointed to the fact that dinosaurs laid eggs as the seeds of their undoing. But this isn’t quite right. After all, turtles, crocodylians and birds all laid eggs, too, and they survived. And mammals did not survive the end-Cretaceous extinction unscathed—several mammalian lineages disappeared or took major hits during the catastrophe. Likewise, not all dinosaurs alive during the final days of the Cretaceous were huge. Titans like Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops and Edmontosaurus are the most famous end-Cretaceous dinosaurs, but in western North America alone, there were also relatively small ceratopians, oviraptorosaurs and troodontid dinosaurs that topped out at about six feet in length. Were these dinosaurs still too big to survive? Was the threshold even lower? If it was, then the reason why medium-sized animals such as crocodylians survived, and why some mammals disappeared, becomes even more complicated. Why non-avian dinosaurs perished, and why so many other lineages survived, remains a mystery.
References:
Codron, D., Carbone, C., Muller, D., & Clauss, M. (2012). Ontogenetic niche shifts in dinosaurs influenced size, diversity and extinction in terrestrial vertebrates Biology Letters DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0240
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI






















“In a diverse Late Jurassic ecosystem, for example, young Allosaurus, Torvosaurus and Ceratosaurus not only had to compete with one another, but also with smaller carnivores like Ornitholestes, Coelurus, Marshosaurus and Stokesosaurus.”
Sounds iffy, especially given that, as indicated by Bakker & Bir 2004 (which Codron et al. didn’t cite), Allosaurus & probably Ceratosaurus brought food to their young.
There’s really no direct evidence for Bakker’s assertion, although it seems reasonable.
But this is not in conflict with Brian’s original statement. There’s plenty of time between being a hatchling that is cared for by an adult, and being a sub-adult/adult. During these few years, you’re on your own, but still one among many small carnivores.
… and the difference between “iffy” and “probably” is..? Hey, I don’t know nuthin’, but I know they both aren’t allowed in court. Just sayin’.
@220mya
Have you read Bakker & Bir 2004? I ask b/c the evidence “for Bakker’s assertion” is very good. If not, “Dino Family Values” ( http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jun/cover ) is a very good summation of said evidence.
It seems to me like clutching at straws. Egg-laying didn’t prevent the dinosaurs from thriving for 180 million years give or take a few, and there were catastrophic events at several periods through the mesosoic. I am incredibly suspicious of any ‘silver bullet’ explanation for the KT extinctions.
@’Dr’. S Beckmann, BS
“Iffy” = “Doubtful.”
“Probably” = “Most likely”.
Most lineages of avian dinosaurs also became extinct as well as non-avian dinosaurs…. the therapod dinos (of the avian) like the raptors obviously went extinct.
Egg laying became a burden only after surface gravity was increasing on Pangea (see ‘The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction’ on http://www.dinoextinct.com). This increase in surface gravity thinned out the dinosaur population enough to allow mammals to increase in size and compete with dinosaurs.
The extinction of the dinosaurs was not due to an asteroid impact but by the combined effort of mammals and increasing surface gravitation.
Thanks for this well-reasoned posting outlining the key strengths and weaknesses of this paper.
“Gravity killed the dinosaurs”. Wow, it’s been a few years since I came across this particular piece of nonsense. You wouldn’t happen be a fan of Timecube would you?
Why, how about this: ‘Avian’ Dinosaurs could Fly to ‘other places’, and find ‘other surecs of food’ that way, and they thus had acquired enough Beneficial Mutations to a Survive The Catastrophe via Aplication of the Superior Predation-Scavanging Skill-set inherent to Mother Natures like ol’ ‘Gene Modification Therapy’……
Yeah-yay, I sayeth unto you….Dharma, are the Sutras of Guru Darwin Rinpoche….ying and yang, as posed, in his inelucutabe prose, upon the Very Grandest of Scales!
Yeah-ya, Breathren, I say – Halitosis!
Is there a print-friendly version of this?