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.
Conventional wisdom used to be that the life span of a creature was roughly proportional to its body mass and heart rate—the big, slow elephant outlives the quick, small mouse. New research, however, presents a more complicated picture. Bats and birds, for instance, are small but tend to live longer than many larger creatures. Moreover, when scientists look within particular species, size does not correlate well with longevity, although fast growth is often associated with shorter life. To some degree, resting metabolic rate does correlate, but for animals total energy expended over a lifetime may be the best indicator of all. Definitive answers in this field can be slow in coming, partly because the studies take a long time to do—a typical Galápagos tortoise, for instance, can outlast a scientist's career. And don't hold your breath for insights into the extreme life span of the bristlecone pine.
Credit: RECORD-HOLDER SOURCES: JOÃO PEDRO DE MAGALHÃES AnAge online database, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool; “PATENTED HARPOON PINS DOWN WHALE AGE,” BY AMANDA LEIGH HAAG, IN NATURE, PUBLISHED ONLINE JUNE 19, 2007 (whale); GUINNESSWORLDRECORDS.COM (dog and elephant); GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS 2010 (cat); THE TELEGRAPH; JANUARY 6, 2015 (parrot); Research and Graphic by Graphicacy
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
