Hotter Climates and Lizard Extinctions: A Surprising Connection

このQ&Aのポイント
  • Lizard disappearances in protected areas cannot be attributed to habitat destruction, according to a study. Instead, it appears that hotter sites near the equator or at low altitudes are more likely to experience lizards disappearing.
  • Researchers conducted an experiment in the Yucatan Peninsula, setting out a fake lizard and monitoring its temperature. They found that warmer spring temperatures led to a decrease in lizards' foraging activity and decreased reproductive success.
  • The extinction of lizards could have unforeseen ecological consequences, as they are important insect eaters and prey for other animals. However, predicting the extent of these effects is challenging.
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

和訳をお願します^^;

Lizard disappearances in the areas the team studied can’t be due to habitat destruction because they’re occurring where habitat has been protected. Rather, hotter sites close to the equator or at low altitudes are most likely to lose their lizards. To see how hotter climates damaged the reptiles, Sinervo’s team created a dummy lizard, set it out in the sun at sites in the Yucatan Peninsula where Sceloporus is found and where it had gone extinct, and monitored its temperature. Like all organisms, lizards must avoid overheating and keep their body temperature within a certain range to survive. The problem, the team found, seems to be warmer springtimes, rather than higher maximum temperatures at midday or in midsummer. Higher temperatures in spring mean that the animals spend less of the breeding season out foraging and more time in the shade. “That is the time of year that females need the maximum amount of food,” says Huey. “If the temperature gets higher in the spring, then the lizards restrict their activity. They simply may not have enough active time to catch enough food.” Underfed females do not have the resources needed to make young, causing populations to crash. The ecological consequences of lizard extinctions are unknown. “If Barry’s right or even close to right,” Huey says, “the world as we know it will be very different. Lizards are primarily insect eaters. So if a population goes extinct, that will affect the insects living there. Lizards are also prey for many snakes, birds, mammals and some other lizards. But how serious those 〔effects〕 will be is going to be very difficult to predict.” よろしくお願いしますorz

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)
回答No.1

チームが研究した地域でのトカゲの消失は生息地破壊によるものではありません。なぜなら(消失は)生息地が守られてきた場所でも起きているからです。 むしろ、赤道に近いより高温の場所や低地が、そこで生息するトカゲを最も失う可能性が高いのです。 より高温の気候がどのように爬虫類にダメージを与えるかを理解する為に、シネルヴォのチームは人造のトカゲを作製し、それを、ハリトカゲ属が発見されそして絶滅したユカタン半島の複数の場所で日の当たる場所に配置し、その温度を測定しました。 すべての有機体同様、トカゲは生き残る為に過熱を避け彼らの体温を一定の範囲内に保つ必要があります。 チームが発見したところ、白昼や真夏のより暑い最高気温よりもむしろより暖かい春期が問題であるようです。 春の気温上昇は動物が繁殖期の食糧探しをせず、日陰でより長い時間を過ごすことを意味します。 「それはメスが年間で一番多くの餌を必要とする時期なのです。」とヒュイは言います。 「もし春の気温が高くなれば、トカゲは活動を制限します。彼らはただ単に十分な食糧を確保する為に必要な活動期間を持っていないのでしょう。」 十分な餌にありついていないメスは子供を作る資質を持ち合わせず、それが個体数を崩壊させる原因となります。 トカゲ絶滅の生態学的因果関係は不明です。 「もしバリーが正解か、正解に近づいているとしたら」ヒュイは言います、「我々が知っている世界はまったく違ったものとなります。トカゲは昆虫を主食としています。ですからもし1つの個体群が絶滅したら、それはそこに生息している昆虫に影響を与えます。トカゲはまた多くのヘビ類、鳥類、哺乳類そして他のいくつかのトカゲ類の餌食でもあります。しかしこれらの影響がどれほど深刻になるかは予測が非常に困難になるでしょう。」

NEKOTA1
質問者

お礼

ありがとうございます おかげさまで訳完成しました^^

関連するQ&A

  • 和訳お願いします^^;

    By using a model lizard, they measured the temperature that real lizards encountered in their environment throughout the year. They found that warmer temperatures in the spring meant that lizards had to spend more time in that season searching for shade instead of searching for food. Female lizards that cannot obtain enough food in the springtime are unable to reproduce, and the local population soon crashes. Global warming is thus apparently causing sun-basking lizards, animals that we would normally expect to welcome warmer weather, to vanish from the Earth.

  • 和訳をお願いします

    By 2080, global warming could result in one-fifth of the world’s lizard species becoming extinct, a global study has found. Even under the most optimistic scenarios for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, the analysis by an international team shows that one-fifth of the globe’s lizard populations, corresponding to 6% of all lizard species, may go extinct by 2050. “We’ve committed ourselves to that,” says Barry Sinervo, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led the study. He and his colleagues found that climate change has already driven 12% of the populations of Mexico’s colourful Sceloporus lizards extinct since 1975. If emissions continue at current levels, he predicts that by 2080, 39% of the world’s lizard populations will have vanished, corresponding to a 20% loss in species. The study is published in Science this week. It’s a stunning finding, says Raymond Huey, an evolutionary physiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who wasn’t part of the study team. “Lizards are animals that should be very tolerant of climate warming,” he says. よろしくお願いします^^;

  • 次の英文を和訳してほしいです。

    From the time that life first appeared on Earth, species have gone extinct. Extinction is a natural part of evolution. Species that are best at adapting to their environment survive. Other species are unable to adapt quickly enough – so they die off. So, why do endangered species get so much attention today? One reason is much of the extinction happening these days is unnatural. The leading reason for a species to become endangered is loss of habitat. As humans cut down forests for farmland, expand cities, or pollute waterways, to name a few ways that habitat is destroyed, animals, plants, and insects find it harder and harder to survive. Thus, the effect of humans on the natural world is causing species to become endangered, and, ultimately, go extinct. Another leading reason for a species to become endangered is climate change. For example, the lizards in this article could probably adapt to a gradual change in temperature. However, the rapid change in the climate, and the consequent decrease in lizard birthrate, threaten to doom many lizard species. If human activity is a major reason for climate change, then it would seem that we are changing our world far too rapidly for species to naturally adapt. Humans are highly adaptable, but most species need a lot of time to get used to changing conditions.

  • 翻訳お願いします^^;

    Evolutionary biologists such as Dr. Barry Sinervo research the origin of species and how they adapt to their environments. Dr. Sinervo specializes in lizard species. His team went to various sites where a particular lizard species lives. He and his team were investigating the effect of the lizard’s colorful appearance on its evolution. Unfortunately, the lizard species they were looking for turned out to be hard to find. Thus, the focus of their research changed from “how did the lizard’s appearance help it survive and evolve?” to “why is this species going extinct?” Habitat destruction is the most common reason for species to disappear from the Earth. However, the lizards were living in protected areas which were untouched by human activity. Thus, the team investigated alternative explanations for the disappearance of the lizards.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    We pass to the account of the creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed that in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of Genesis, one being comprised in the first chapter and the first three verses of the second, the other commencing at the fourth verse of the second chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically certain that it were useless to ignore it. But even those who may be inclined to contest the fact that we have here the productions of two different writers, will admit that the account beginning at the first verse of the first chapter, and ending at the third verse of the second, is a complete whole in itself. And to this narrative, in order not to complicate the subject unnecessarily, we intend to confine ourselves. It will sufficient for our purpose to enquire, whether this account can be shown to be in accordance with our astronomical and geological knowledge. And for the right understanding of it the whole must be set out, so that the various parts may be taken in connexion with one another.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Now in this necessarily ejective method of enquiry, what is the kind of activities that we are entitled to regard as indicative of mind ? I certainly do not so regard the flowing of a river or the blowing of a wind. Why ? First, because the subjects are too remote in kind from my own organism to admit of my drawing any reasonable analogy between them and it; and, secondly, because the activities which they present are invariably of the same kind under the same circumstances : they therefore offer no evidence of that which I deem the distinctive character of my own mind as such — Consciousness. In other words, two conditions require to he satisfied before we even begin to imagine that observable activities are indicative of mind ; the activities must be dis played by a living organism, and they must be of a kind to suggest the presence of consciousness. What then is to be taken as the criterion of consciousness ? Subjectively, no criterion is either needful or possible ; for to me, individually, nothing can be more ultimate than my own consciousness, and, therefore, my consciousness cannot admit of any criterion having a claim to a higher certainty. But, ejectively, some such criterion is required, and as my consciousness cannot come within the territory of a foreign consciousness, I can only appreciate the latter through the agency of ambassadors — these ambassadors being, as I have now so frequently said, the observable activities of an organism. The next question, therefore, is, What activities of an organism are to be taken as indicative of consciousness ? The answer that comes most readily is, — All activities that are indicative of Choice; wherever wo see a living organism apparently exerting inten tional choice, we may infer that it is conscious choice, and, therefore, that the organism has a mind. But physiology shows that this answer will not do ; for, while not disputing whether there is any mind without the power of conscious choice, physiology, as we shall see in the next chapter, is very firm in denying that all apparent choice is due to mind.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It is refreshing to return to the often-echoed remark, that it could not have been the object of a Divine revelation to instruct mankind in physical science, man having had faculties bestowed upon him to enable him to acquire this knowledge by himself. This is in fact pretty generally admitted; but in the application of the doctrine, writers play at fast and loose with it according to circumstances. Thus an inspired writer may be permitted to allude to the phenomena of nature according to the vulgar view of such things, without impeachment of his better knowledge; but if he speaks of the same phenomena assertively, we are bound to suppose that things are as he represents them, however much our knowledge of nature may be disposed to recalcitrate. But if we find a difficulty in admitting that such misrepresentations can find a place in revelation, the difficulty lies in our having previously assumed what a Divine revelation ought to be. If God made use of imperfectly informed men to lay the foundations of that higher knowledge for which the human race was destined, is it wonderful that they should have committed themselves to assertions not in accordance with facts, although they may have believed them to be true? On what grounds has the popular notion of Divine revelation been built up? Is it not plain that the plan of Providence for the education of man is a progressive one, and as imperfect men have been used as the agents for teaching mankind, is it not to be expected that their teachings should be partial and, to some extent, erroneous? Admitted, as it is, that physical science is not what the Hebrew writers, for the most part, profess to convey, at any rate, that it is not on account of the communication of such knowledge that we attach any value to their writings, why should we hesitate to recognise their fallibility on this head?

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    In one respect the theory of Hugh Miller agrees with that advocated by Dr. Buckland and Archdeacon Pratt. Both these theories divest the Mosaic narrative of real accordance with fact; both assume that appearances only, not facts, are described, and that in riddles, which would never have been suspected to be such, had we not arrived at the truth from other sources. It would be difficult for controversialists to cede more completely the point in dispute, or to admit more explicitly that the Mosaic narrative does not represent correctly the history of the universe up to the time of man. At the same time, the upholders of each theory see insuperable objections in details to that of their allies, and do not pretend to any firm faith in their own. How can it be otherwise when the task proposed is to evade the plain meaning of language, and to introduce obscurity into one of the simplest stories ever told, for the sake of making it accord with the complex system of the universe which modern science has unfolded? The spectacle of able and, we doubt not, conscientious writers engaged in attempting the impossible is painful and humiliating. They evidently do not breathe freely over their work, but shuffle and stumble over their difficulties in a piteous manner; nor are they themselves again until they return to the pure and open fields of science.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    In truth,however,if we refer to the plans of conciliation proposed,we find them at variance with each other and mutually destructive.The conciliators are not agreed among themselves,and each holds the views of the other to be untenable and unsafe, The ground is perpetually being shifted as the advance of geological science may require.The plain meaning of the Hebrew record is unscrupulously tampered with,in general the pith of the whole process lies in divesting the text of all meaning whatever.We are told that,Scripture not being designed to teach us natural philosophy,it is in vain to attempt to make out a cosmogony from its statements. If the first chapter of Genesis conveys to us no information concerning the origin of the world, it's statements can't indeed be contradicted by modern discovery.But it is absurd to call this harmony. Statements such as that above quoted are,we conceive, little calculated to be serviceable to the interests of theology ,still less to religion and morality .

  • 和訳をお願いします

    Sinervo wasn’t intending to study extinctions. Rather, he had planned to use a Eurasian lizard, Lacerta vivipara, to examine the role of coloration in lizard evolution. But when he went to sites in France, Italy, Slovenia and Hungary where Lacerta had been studied, the lizards weren’t always there. A few years later, he found that Mexico’s Sceloporus lizards were also vanishing. Concerned, he assembled a team to examine the issue globally. Studying reports of extinctions on five continents, the scientists concluded that the problem is widespread. “It’s happening really, really fast,” Sinervo says. “We’re seeing a massive extinction wave sweeping across the planet.” Huey warns that not seeing lizards doesn’t mean that they’re not there. They may just have been overlooked. “Populations go up and down,” he says. Still, he notes, Sceloporus is very conspicuous. “It would be hard to miss.” “These kinds of studies take a lot of work, and people have just recently started to do them,” says Anthony Barnosky, a palaeoecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming (Island Press, 2009). Of the handful of similar analyses, a 2008 study found population losses in amphibians living in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, and another found that small mammals in Yosemite National Park in California had tracked warming temperatures in the past century by shifting their range. よろしくお願いします^^;