DNA Evidence Weighs In on Ice Age Extinction Debate

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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.

The end of the Pleistocene epoch brought with it widespread extinctions of large mammals, such as saber-toothed cats and mammoths. Ancient bison, too, were threatened with elimination, but they managed to survive. The two leading theories of what caused the precipitous population drop focus on environmental shifts and pressure from human hunters. A genetic analysis published in the current issue of the journal Science lends support to the hypothesis that climate change was the culprit.

Beth Shapiro of Oxford University and her colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 352 bison fossils recovered from eastern and western Beringia (the landmass that includes Alaska, Canada and Siberia), North America, China and Russia. In addition, the scientists performed radiocarbon dating on 220 of the samples. They determined that the genetic diversity of the bison population dropped off drastically around 37,000 years ago. ¿The timing of this decline correlates with environmental changes associated with the onset of the last glacial cycle,¿ the team reports, ¿whereas archaeological evidence does not support the presence of large populations of humans in eastern Beringia until more than 15,000 years later.¿

The authors suggest that their findings will help inform the debate about end-Pleistocene megafauna extinctions because ¿they offer the first evidence of the initial decline of a population, rather than simply the resulting extinction event.¿ The researchers do not rule out human intervention entirely, however, because some disputed archaeological evidence suggests a low number of humans may have been present at the time. Future studies with more samples from around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, they say, should help clarify the course of extinction events.

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