Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?

BACKGROUND:The southern African tick shell, Nassarius kraussianus (Dunker, 1846), has been identified as being the earliest known ornamental object used by human beings. Shell beads dated from approximately 75,000 years ago (Pleistocene era) were found in a cave located on South Africa's south...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peter R Teske, Isabelle Papadopoulos, Christopher D McQuaid, Brent K Newman, Nigel P Barker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2007-07-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000614
id doaj-d8df9425cf0746e6b21ee06a4eb5d06c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d8df9425cf0746e6b21ee06a4eb5d06c2021-03-03T19:55:54ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032007-07-0127e61410.1371/journal.pone.0000614Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?Peter R TeskeIsabelle PapadopoulosChristopher D McQuaidBrent K NewmanNigel P BarkerBACKGROUND:The southern African tick shell, Nassarius kraussianus (Dunker, 1846), has been identified as being the earliest known ornamental object used by human beings. Shell beads dated from approximately 75,000 years ago (Pleistocene era) were found in a cave located on South Africa's south coast. Beads made from N. kraussianus shells have also been found in deposits in this region dating from the beginning of the Holocene era (<10,000 years ago). These younger shells were significantly smaller, a phenomenon that has been attributed to a change in human preference. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We investigated two alternative hypotheses explaining the difference in shell size: a) N. kraussianus comprises at least two genetic lineages that differ in size; b) the difference in shell size is due to phenotypic plasticity and is a function of environmental conditions. To test these hypotheses, we first reconstructed the species' phylogeographic history, and second, we measured the shell sizes of extant individuals throughout South Africa. Although two genetic lineages were identified, the sharing of haplotypes between these suggests that there is no genetic basis for the size differences. Extant individuals from the cool temperate west coast had significantly larger shells than populations in the remainder of the country, suggesting that N. kraussianus grows to a larger size in colder water. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE:The decrease in fossil shell size from Pleistocene to Holocene was likely due to increased temperatures as a result of climate change at the beginning of the present interglacial period. We hypothesise that the sizes of N. kraussianus fossil shells can therefore serve as indicators of the climatic conditions that were prevalent in a particular region at the time when they were deposited. Moreover, N. kraussianus could serve as a biomonitor to study the impacts of future climate change on coastal biota in southern Africa.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000614
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Peter R Teske
Isabelle Papadopoulos
Christopher D McQuaid
Brent K Newman
Nigel P Barker
spellingShingle Peter R Teske
Isabelle Papadopoulos
Christopher D McQuaid
Brent K Newman
Nigel P Barker
Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
PLoS ONE
author_facet Peter R Teske
Isabelle Papadopoulos
Christopher D McQuaid
Brent K Newman
Nigel P Barker
author_sort Peter R Teske
title Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
title_short Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
title_full Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
title_fullStr Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
title_full_unstemmed Climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
title_sort climate change, genetics or human choice: why were the shells of mankind's earliest ornament larger in the pleistocene than in the holocene?
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2007-07-01
description BACKGROUND:The southern African tick shell, Nassarius kraussianus (Dunker, 1846), has been identified as being the earliest known ornamental object used by human beings. Shell beads dated from approximately 75,000 years ago (Pleistocene era) were found in a cave located on South Africa's south coast. Beads made from N. kraussianus shells have also been found in deposits in this region dating from the beginning of the Holocene era (<10,000 years ago). These younger shells were significantly smaller, a phenomenon that has been attributed to a change in human preference. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We investigated two alternative hypotheses explaining the difference in shell size: a) N. kraussianus comprises at least two genetic lineages that differ in size; b) the difference in shell size is due to phenotypic plasticity and is a function of environmental conditions. To test these hypotheses, we first reconstructed the species' phylogeographic history, and second, we measured the shell sizes of extant individuals throughout South Africa. Although two genetic lineages were identified, the sharing of haplotypes between these suggests that there is no genetic basis for the size differences. Extant individuals from the cool temperate west coast had significantly larger shells than populations in the remainder of the country, suggesting that N. kraussianus grows to a larger size in colder water. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE:The decrease in fossil shell size from Pleistocene to Holocene was likely due to increased temperatures as a result of climate change at the beginning of the present interglacial period. We hypothesise that the sizes of N. kraussianus fossil shells can therefore serve as indicators of the climatic conditions that were prevalent in a particular region at the time when they were deposited. Moreover, N. kraussianus could serve as a biomonitor to study the impacts of future climate change on coastal biota in southern Africa.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000614
work_keys_str_mv AT peterrteske climatechangegeneticsorhumanchoicewhyweretheshellsofmankindsearliestornamentlargerinthepleistocenethanintheholocene
AT isabellepapadopoulos climatechangegeneticsorhumanchoicewhyweretheshellsofmankindsearliestornamentlargerinthepleistocenethanintheholocene
AT christopherdmcquaid climatechangegeneticsorhumanchoicewhyweretheshellsofmankindsearliestornamentlargerinthepleistocenethanintheholocene
AT brentknewman climatechangegeneticsorhumanchoicewhyweretheshellsofmankindsearliestornamentlargerinthepleistocenethanintheholocene
AT nigelpbarker climatechangegeneticsorhumanchoicewhyweretheshellsofmankindsearliestornamentlargerinthepleistocenethanintheholocene
_version_ 1714824991418089472