Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


May 1, 2012

New Wrinkle to the Story of the Last Dinosaurs

Small coelurosaurs like this Troodon appear to have maintained stable levels of disparity during the last 12 million years of the Cretaceous. Image courtesy AMNH/J. Brougham.

Why did the non-avian dinosaurs become extinct? There’s no shortage of ideas, but no one really knows. And even though paleontologists have narrowed them down to a short list of extinction triggers—including an asteroid strike, massive volcanic outpouring, sea level changes and climate alterations—how these events translated into the extinction of entire clades of organisms remains hotly debated.

One of the most contentious questions is whether dinosaurs thrived right until the end of the Cretaceous, or whether they were already declining before the lights went out. Based on species counts, mostly from the roughly 66-million-year-old rock of western North America’s Hell Creek Formation, it might seem that dinosaurs were not quite as diverse as they were in the same area 10 million years earlier. But detecting this decline depends on how species are identified and counted—a quirk affected by how we distinguish dinosaurs and other organisms known only from fossils. If we recognize that Triceratops and Torosaurus were separate dinosaur genera, for example, there were two big ceratopsids present in western North America at the end of the Cretaceous. But if we start from the position that the dinosaurs we call Torosaurus were really the skeletally mature form of Triceratops, then ceratopsid diversity is cut in half. And even the best circumstances, the fossil record is an imperfect catalog of prehistoric life that we are only sampling a few pieces from. Determining diversity by taking species counts is not as simple as it sounds.

In a Nature Communications paper published today, paleontologists Stephen Brusatte, Richard Butler, Albert Prieto-Márquez and Mark Norell take a different approach. Rather than track species and genera, the researchers followed trends in morphological disparity—how the forms of dinosaurs varied across seven major groups, both globally and regionally. Differences in form translate to differences in lifestyle and behavior, mostly avoiding tangled taxonomic arguments, and this technique gauges how many forms of dinosaurs were present at a given time. This is a proxy to detect which groups of dinosaurs might have been thriving and which were declining over time.

Disparity trends in four dinosaur groups during the final 12 million years of the Cretaceous (North American species only). Time (from 77-65 million years ago) is shown on the x axis. The y axis shows the disparity metric: sum of variances derived from anatomical character databases. The error bars indicate whether comparisons between time intervals are significant or not (overlap of error bars means non-significance, no overlap means significance). Overall, the large-bodied bulk-feeding ceratopsids and hadrosauroids underwent a marked long-term decline, but the carnivorous coelurosaurs and small herbivorous pachycephalosaurs were stable. (AMNH/S. Brusatte)

Brusatte and co-authors tracked disparity trends among ankylosaurs, sauropods, hadrosauroids, ceratopsids, pachycephalosaurids, tyrannosauroids and non-avian coelurosaurs during the last 12 million years of the Cretaceous (from the Late Campanian age to the Maastrichtian). There was no simple pattern that held true for all dinosaurs—some groups stayed the same while others declined. The heavily armored ankylosaurs, dome-headed pachycephalosaurs, formidable tyrannosaurs and small, feathery coelurosaurs didn’t seem to show any major changes in disparity over this span. And the massive, long-necked sauropods showed a very slight increase in disparity from the Campanian to the Maastrichtian. Both locally and globally, these dinosaur groups were not dwindling away.

The shovel-beaked hadrosaurs and horned ceratopsids showed different trends. Horned dinosaurs suffered a significant drop in disparity between the Campanian and the Maastrichtian, at least partially attributable to the disappearance of an entire ceratopsid subgroup. During the Campanian, both centrosaurines (like Centrosaurus) and chasmosaurines (like Chasmosaurus) roamed North America, but by the Maastrichtian, only the chasmosaurines were left. And while hadrosaur disparity dipped slightly from a global perspective, the pattern differed between continents. In Asia, hadrosaurs appear to show very slight increases in disparity, but North American hadrosaurs suffered a sharp decline across the 12-million-year study range. What was true for North American dinosaurs was not necessarily true for the rest of the world.

“Compared with previous studies that focused on species richness or faunal abundance,” Brusatte and colleagues write, “these disparity calculations paint a more nuanced picture of the final 12 million years of dinosaur history.” The idea that dinosaurs, as a whole, were either thriving or declining is a false dichotomy. The last twelve million years were clearly a time of flux—especially in North America, where some dinosaur groups stayed stable but the largest, most abundant herbivores were not as varied as their predecessors had been.

That sauropod dinosaurs increased in disparity at the end of the Cretaceous is especially noteworthy. When I was a kid, sauropods were often cast as Jurassic titans that were replaced by dinosaurs with superior plant-shearing abilities, such as certaopsids and hadrosaurs. Yet sauropods hung on, and as the horned and shovel-beaked dinosaurs declined, sauropods might have again been expanding. We will never know what would have happened had the Cretaceous extinction been canceled. Although, if the non-avian dinosaurs had been given a reprieve from extinction, we almost certainly wouldn’t have evolved to ponder what happened so long ago.

As this study points out, it is a mistake to think of dinosaurs as a monolithic group. The pressures behind dinosaur evolution, and the reasons for their extinction, varied from group to group and place to place. The more we learn about them, the more complex their history becomes. And there’s still much we don’t know. To date, most of what we think we understand about the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs comes from western North America—relatively accessible sites that record the transition from the last days of the dinosaurs to a world dominated by mammals. These sites, no matter how well we study them, can only be a small part of what was a global extinction, and what we find in North America may not be representative of the rest of the planet. “It may be,” Brusatte and collaborators write, “that the North American record represents a local anomaly,” with “extreme fluctuations of the inland Western Interior Sea, mountain building, and proposed biogeographic provincialism” influencing dinosaur evolution in a unique way not seen on other continents.

If we want to understand the evolution and extinction of the last dinosaurs, we need to take a more refined, localized approach and not think of dinosaurs as a uniform group. For as much ink has been spilled about dinosaur evolution and extinction, we are still only beginning to piece together a picture of what the final days of the Cretaceous were like.

Reference:

Brusatte, S., Butler, R., Prieto-Márquez, A., & Norell, M. (2012). Dinosaur morphological diversity and the end-Cretaceous extinction Nature Communications, 3 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1815



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

17 Comments »

  1. sparcboy says:

    “One of the most contentions questions…”
    Shouldn’t that be ‘contentious’?

    “That sauropod dinosaurs increased in disparity at towards the end of the Cretaceous…”
    “at” or “towards”, but not both.

  2. Laura Helmuth says:

    Thanks very much, Sparcboy–you’re a good editor! I fixed those typos.

  3. BJ Nicholls says:

    For this paper, one can’t even see the paywall price without registering first.

    I’m no statistician, but I often wonder if the relatively tiny sample universe for dinosaur fossils is large enough to make a survey like this meaningful — except as a snapshot of what’s in collections at this moment.

  4. Kevin says:

    Love that Troodon reconstruction.

  5. Laura Peterson says:

    At any given time there will be species on the rise and species in decline. And even extremely successful species like modern Homo sapiens have gone through MINISCULE bottlenecks. Finding one or even a few examples of species in decline only informs on one species, it’s not proof of a large-scale pattern.

  6. Chris Noto says:

    I find it particularly interesting that smaller taxa, both carnivore and herbivore, maintained greater disparity/diversity (what the relationship between disparity and diversity is is still debatable). This fits well with ecological theory when studying environments under stress: megafauna are almost always affected first and more strongly. What about sauropods? It could be that their more generalized feeding habits insulated them from some of the ecological/climate changes occurring at the very end of the Cretaceous, whereas the ceratopsians and hadrosaurs were more specialized and suffered as a result. In any case, I’m very pleased to see a more nuanced approach to questions of mass extinctions and large-scale, global changes. This approach will no doubt be useful in studying other periods of massive faunal turnover.

  7. CC says:

    Talking about global changes and the effects on species, there is another paper coming out which also takes an interesting approach:

    http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2012/04/palms-reveal-significance-of-climate.html

  8. Chad in AK says:

    Everything becomes simple and clear when you understand that all planetary bodies and moons are growing and increasing in mass. The Earth has a (possibily periodic) growth that increases gravity. There were no big oceans early in dinosaur history. The Earth was much smaller with much less gravity, and that is what enabled the big dinosaurs to be fast, and that is also what killed them off first as gravity increased. The evidence for planetary body and moon growth can be easily seen in all the crusts on the surface. I can’t believe scientists ignore this. It is so obvious.

  9. Barbara Land says:

    At the risk of being politically incorrect, or unscientific; They all died out during the flood of Noah’s time. That’s why some had food in their mouths. And why all kinds of animals who normally wouldn’t be found together were often found together; in caves & trenches, etc.

  10. acson005 says:

    It has been for quite sometimes accepted that the Dinosaurs were killed off by a massive impact in the gulf of Mexico but in the absence of Charcoal near and far from ground zero at the time of impact definitely ruled out any burning that we have been shown over and over in animations of the hellfire that killed the Dinos. We have not even found any charred Dinosaur bones of any kind. The scientific community will have to grow away from their obsession with the impact theory if they want to find the scientific truth. How about an alien virus…? It will only take few years if not months to kill them off if aliens of the human kind decided to colonize earth.

  11. Vrahno says:

    Why does this study seem to attract K/Pg extinction theorists? I came across another article on another site discussing the same study, and it had some weirdo making a speech in the comment section about how the mammals ate the dinosaurs, thereby driving them to extinction…

  12. Richard says:

    All I can say is who cares except those making their living by writing about it !!!

  13. Neal W. Welsh says:

    Here we go with another infusion of opinion from the ignorati and irrationalista in which a reach for biblical answers to scientific questions occurs. No wonder we rank something like 14th in the world arena of the educated. The last dinosaur died out at least 64 millions of years before the first humanoid ever made an appearance. The Bible is not a scientific treatise but is a compendium of religious folklore infused with mysticism. This is hardly a tool for rational scientific investigation. That’s it. No more explanation is required.

  14. Catherine Moore says:

    The asteroid impact had nothing to do with fire and burning and everything to do with a vast amount of dust kicked up into the atmosphere. The debris took years, or even decades, to drop out of the atmosphere and resulted in far less sunlight reaching the surface. No sunlight -> no plants. No plants -> no food. Less sunlight will also make the temperature drop dramatically; those organisms who are cold-intolerant will suffer more than those who are more flexible. The big animals will drop out first. The smaller ones will be able to get by on what they can scrounge from scavenging and the smaller degree of plants that manage to pull through the darkness. There will also be a seedbank in the dirt that will survive a few years and sprout when conditions improve. The trick is getting through the dark days.

  15. Aaron in NM says:

    It’s interesting that hadrosaurs & ceratopsians were declining while tyrannosaurs held steady. I remember learning that the primary prey of tyrannosaurs were probably hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. This was admittedly a long time ago (when I was a kid back in the 80s-90s), and science may have changed. But, is it possible that even though species diversity was decreasing, the absolute numbers of individual dinosaurs didn’t decline? For a modern example, European settlers in America encountered only one large grazing herbivore species (bison), but their numbers were in the millions.

  16. Dan in MO says:

    Thanks for the story from a geologist and dinophile. Hooray! Logic is not dead.

  17. Annibale bocca says:

    Number and localisation of specimen considered are statistically insufficent for a conclusive theory. In a distressing environment small animals can survive more easily than big ones. (almost) total extinction takes time and is gradual even if the primary case is unique. Primary effects will sometimes become cause of secondary effects, and so on.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement