Climate change drives (micro)evolution in Finland

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


For want of snow, the tawny owl of Finland has become more brown in the past half-century, according to new research published February 22 in Nature Communications. Finnish researchers scored tawny owls (Strix aluco)—a raptor common to all of Europe—on the color of their plumage, specifically how brown (dark) or gray (pale) their feathers were. (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.)

Since the owls do not seem to show a sexual preference for either darker or lighter feathers, the main driving force for any change in plumage would be natural selection, in this case, most likely, whether a dark or a light coat helped in catching more voles, the raptor's primary food. Over the course of the study led by bird ecologist Patrik Karell of the University of Helsinki—from 1981 to 2008—the brown owls started to increase in numbers.


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.


More specifically, more brown owls survived Finnish winters. The reason? Unknown for sure, but Finnish winters have become milder in recent decades thanks to climate change—with much less snow. Less snow means less chance of brown owls standing out against a white landscape as they stalk their prey—or falling prey to the dread Bubo bubo (the eagle owl). Or it may be that the brown coloration is also tied to the owl's physiology, like the strength of its immune system or how much food it needs to eat.

In fact, since at least 1961, the proportion of brown tawny owls caught by ornithologists throughout Finland has increased, adding more circumstantial evidence in support of the finding.

At the same time, there is no direct evidence yet to support any of those possible explanations for why brown owls would do any better than gray owls, even in milder winters, as the researchers admit. In fact, browner and grayer owls have roughly the same level of survival through winter these days (an improvement for the browns and stasis for the grays).

Nevertheless, the Finnish tawny owl may join a relatively short list of animals that have been shown to have evolved in response to human-induced changes to the environment. There is the famous peppered moth of the U.K., which flipped from light-colored to dark-colored as a result of the discoloration of its habitat by coal soot in the 19th century and then back again towards the end of the 20th century as those conditions cleared up. More recently, the bottom-dwelling tomcod in the Hudson River have rapidly evolved a resistance to polychlorinated biphenyls—better known as PCBs and once used in electrical equipment—that were dumped in the river by General Electric in the middle decades of the 20th century. And a wide range of animals and plants are changing behaviors or range—and potentially ultimately their very genetics—in response to the changing climate as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning.

But the more biologists look, the more often the human scientists are finding that our own species is directing evolution for other species, albeit unwittingly.

Image: Courtesy of Dick Forsman

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