New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Big Mammals Evolved Thanks to More Oxygen

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A newly compiled comprehensive record of Earth¿s atmospheric oxygen shows a large peak 50 million years ago. The abundance of oxygen, which came on the heels of the dinosaur decline, could have fueled not only the evolution of giant, placental mammals such as the 10-foot sloth but also large-brained creatures, including humans.

The data come from deep-sea sediment cores dating to 205 million years ago that contain inorganic carbon-rich minerals as well as the organic remains of single celled marine phytoplankton. These organisms generated oxygen through photosynthesis and in the process, left behind a chemical signature by changing the ratio of the two stable isotopes of carbon--carbon 13 and carbon 12--in the sediments.

By comparing the amount of carbon 13 in the inorganic particles with the absence of carbon 13 in the organic matter, scientists can estimate how much oxygen was present in the atmosphere at that time. Paul Falkowski and his team at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey analyzed such evidence as well as related data published earlier by a German team, and concluded that oxygen levels have essentially doubled over the last 205 million years.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


At the beginning of this time period, the atmosphere contained only 10 percent oxygen by volume. And mammals, which appeared around 190 million years ago, were tiny, weighing in at about two grams. Around 50 million years ago, in contrast, oxygen levels in the atmosphere measured 23 percent--2 percent higher than today. "It's exactly at this time, when we look at the fossil record, that we see the extreme radiation of large orders of new placental mammals," Falkowski says.

In general, mammals require large amounts of oxygen just to move and to metabolize their food. Mammalian brains also burn about one third of the total calories consumed. And mammal mothers use up about 60 percent of the oxygen in their blood before it gets to the placenta. More oxygen in the air would have contributed to better conditions in the womb.

Since the mammalian heyday, oxygen levels have dropped to about 21 percent, a reduction that may have been caused by great fires that burned over the earth about 10 million years ago, destroying large swaths of oxygen-producing vegetation. A paper detailing these findings appears in the current issue of Science.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe