Birds and Bats Downsized Bugs

Insect size tracked with atmospheric oxygen levels, until hungry birds and bats hit the scene. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the day of the dinosaur, insects had wingspans of nearly two-and-a-half feet. So why are today’s bugs so puny? According to researchers at U.C. Santa Cruz, we may have birds and bats to thank. Their conclusions appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Matthew E. Clapham and Jered A. Karr, "Environmental and biotic controls on the evolutionary history of insect body size"]

If you ever sat through a high school biology course, you might remember hearing that insects are limited in size by their ability to utilize oxygen. The bigger you get, the harder it is to get O2 to your tissues. And bugs don’t have lungs to help.

To test the oxygen connection, researchers turned to fossils. They charted the wingspan of more than 10,000 fossilized insects and found that for the first 150 million years of bug evolution size tracked closely with atmospheric oxygen levels: the more O2, the bigger the bugs.


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.


But then insects started shrinking, even though oxygen continued to rise. This wave of reduction happens to coincide with the emergence of anatomical features that made birds more agile airborne predators. And insects got even smaller about 60 million years ago, when bats hit the scene.

Being little makes you harder to catch—which may have given bugs with teeny wings an evolutionary leg up.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

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.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe