The researchers found that many species of fruit fly appear to be constrained by an evolutionary straitjacket and can't adapt to predicted climate change-related temperature increases. Image: Bbski/Wikimedia

Many species of fruit fly lack the ability to adapt effectively to predicted increases in global temperatures and may face extinction in the near future, according to new research.

In a recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from Monash University, The University of Melbourne and Danish collaborators showed that many species of fruit flies appear to be constrained within an evolutionary straitjacket and can’t readily adapt to climate change-related temperature increases.

Dr Vanessa Kellermann from Monash University’s School of Biological Sciences said current projections predict a 3ºC increase in mean annual temperature in the next century and even greater increases in extremes.

“Given our findings, these expected increases pose a major threat to biodiversity in the near future. Particularly as Drosophila or fruit fly findings are often more broadly applicable,” Dr Kellermann said.

By examining nearly 100 species of fruit fly from around the world, the researchers showed that species had evolved to the temperature extremes and humidity of their environments. However, they had very little flexibility in being able to change their levels of heat resistance and seem unable to adapt to increased temperatures in the future.

High heat resistance is a feature of only some branches of the phylogeny – the tree that shows how species are related through evolution – of Drosophila. Other branches had very limited ability to change their levels of heat resistance; even when flies native to cooler areas grew up in a warm environment, their heat tolerance was not significantly altered.

“The problem is that only a handful of species have adapted to hot environments while most species have not and it seems very difficult to switch once you are stuck on a phylogenetic branch,” Dr Kellermann said.

The researchers looked at species’ prospects for dealing with projected temperature increases in the near future.

“If a species can only withstand temperatures of 36ºC and the maximum temperature of the environment is already 36ºC, an increase of even 1ºC would already put this species over the edge towards extinction,” Dr Kellermann said.

Using this method, the researchers identified at-risk species and found that most tropical and mid-latitude species fell into this category.

“Without rapid adaptation, which now seems very unlikely, a lot of species may fall over under even a mild increase in temperature,” Dr Kellermann said.

Source: ScienceAlert

You might also like:

  • Anonymous

    -If you don’t think fear mongering the voter’s children with
    CO2 death threats will cost Obama the White House, think again.

    -Science only agrees it might happen, not will happen as
    there isn’t one single IPCC warning without “maybes”.

    -We are at the brink and the edge of unstoppable warming and
    science still won’t say it “WILL” happen, only could and might and probably and….-Help
    my planet is on fire maybe?

    *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of
    demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by
    corporations.

    *Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of
    the Unions addresses.

    *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.

    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change
    denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists
    warning us of unstoppable warming (death).

    -Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE, journalism and
    progressivism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK
    MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world
    education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

  • JustinCase

    What is your point?

    Science frequently speaks in probabilities rather than certainties — particularly when dealing with new theories, complex systems, and outcomes that are dependent upon variables that interact in ways that are not fully understood. Given what we presently know and don’t know about climate change, saying that a certain outcome “may” result is much more responsible than saying it “will” happen.

    Heck, you cannot say with certainty that crossing the street without looking both ways “will” cause you to get run over, but the chances are high enough — and the potential outcome devastating enough — that I’ll bet you do look both ways.

    As for government action, even the most well-meaning politicians are abound by the limits of what is politically possible. Obama doesn’t talk about climate change these days because the opposition party will oppose anything he proposes simply because he proposed it. Instead, he’s taken steps that do not require opposition support, such as new air pollution rules by the EPA and increased fuel mileage standards.

    More importantly, politicians typically won’t make tough choices against monied interests unless the public forces them to do so. If you want to see government action on climate change, join those working to see that politicians who support such measures are elected.

    Of course, the public isn’t likely to elect those officials unless media outlets such as this site continue to stress the importance of addressing climate change.

    The fact that proper measures haven’t yet been taken to mitigate climate change does not mean that those who support such measures have “allowed” them not to be realized. It simply means that there is much work to be done.

    Finally, if you think that conditions in the developing world are being ignored by those who support action on climate change, you might want to learn a bit more about the predicted, devastating effects that climate change is likely foist upon the developing world. Certainly, current carbon trading schemes are not perfect, and in some cases do cause problems in developing nations. But if carbon trading is what we have to work with, better to refine how those schemes work than to abandon them and replace them with nothing.