EGU Blogs

Geology

Macroecology – scaling the time barrier

April 7, 2014

If there was ever an overdue discussion in palaeontology, it was how we reconcile the differences in time scales when looking at different periods in our history. This is becoming increasingly more important as scientific research is being asked to have demonstrably greater ‘impact’ in terms of some social, economic, or environmental relevance, and for palaeobiologists and palaeoecologists, this means having some sort of notable effect on our changing world.

The day kicked off with Andy Purvis summarising what we actually mean by macroecology – I mean, it’s an impressive sounding term, but what is it scientifically? It’s actually varied quite a bit in time, with new tools and datasets meaning that our analyses have diversified and become more intricate, with the ability to answer and ask new questions about how species and populations diversify and change through time, especially with respect to the environment.

[Read More]

Double-whammy signifies the demise of the dinosaurs

March 12, 2014

The meteoric impact that wiped out the non-bird-line dinosaurs is an iconic image of life and death on Earth. It signifies a point in time when life changed forever. It took from us animals that we will never see again.

But was it just a single strike that created these winds of permanent change? The crater from Chicxulub in Mexico is the scapegoat for taking dinosaurs from us, but did it have a partner in crime?

Weighing in at about 180km in diameter, the Chicxulub impact was enormous. Imagine that hitting today – it would be the size of many small countries and islands, and devastate humanity.

[Read More]

That’s no cloud..

February 2, 2014

Science is a deadly serious subject. Well, actually, no it’s not. In the slightest. Scientists are actually pretty fun people, despite their common depictions, and sometimes they have been known to publish smile-inducing articles.

Take one Radagast the Brown of Bristol University (UK). This may or may not be a pseudonym, but either way he’s published a cool paper late last year on the climate of Middle Earth. It’s free to access here, and well worth a look. Not only is it a fun read, but also shows how fantasy and science can cross over some times, and possibly help to reach new audiences by conveying aspects of science in novel ways. I don’t want to give any of the results away, so if you’re into you hobbitses, elvses, and general circulation models, then it’s well worth a read!

What do we know about the origin of flowering plants?

October 15, 2013

bioThis is a guest post by Dan Peppe.  He is an Assistant Professor in the Geology Department at Baylor University.  His research interests are focused on reconstructing ancient climates and ecosystems in North America and East Africa and on developing new and improved palaeoclimate and palaeoecological proxies using methods in paleobotany, sedimentary geology, and paleomagnetism.  More information about Dan and his research can be found on his website: www.danielpeppe.com.  He also tweets about his research and other interests on his Twitter account (@danpeppe). 

Over the last couple of weeks several blogs and news outlet have reported that a new study published in Frontiers in Plant Science (Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt, 2013) shows that new fossil pollen push back the origin of flowering plants (angiosperms) by 100 million years to the early Triassic (e.g., LiveScience, BBC, ScienceDaily). The headlines and articles lead a reader to assume that there was new evidence showing that angiosperms were present in the Triassic (252-201 million years ago, Ma).  However, the new study actually suggests something quite different that adds to a growing body of evidence pertaining to a larger narrative about the evolution of plants and the evolution of angiosperms.

Fossil charcoalified floras from a Late Cretaceous (Santonian, 86 – 83 Ma) in central Georgia showing amazing 3D preservation and anatomical detail. Images were taken using a scanning electron microscope and are considerably magnified (A magnified X50, B X100, C X20). Flower images are from Figure 4 of Crane et al. (2004).

Fossil charcoalified floras from a Late Cretaceous (Santonian, 86 – 83 Ma) in central Georgia showing amazing 3D preservation and anatomical detail. Images were taken using a scanning electron microscope and are considerably magnified (A magnified X50, B X100, C X20). Flower images are from Figure 4 of Crane et al. (2004).

  [Read More]