Cited by 109Geology and Paleoclimatology ResearchClimate variability and modelsPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology

Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: the first human-induced global warming?

Doughty, Christopher E., Wolf, Adam, Field, Christopher B.·2010·Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract

A large increase in Betula during a narrow 1000 year window, ∼13,800 years before present (YBP) in Alaska and Yukon corresponded in time with the extinction of mammoths and the arrival of humans. Pollen data indicate the increase in Betula during this time was widespread across Siberia and Beringia. We hypothesize that Betula increased due to a combination of a warming climate and reduced herbivory following the extinction of the Pleistocene mega herbivores. The rapid increase in Betula modified land surface albedo which climate‐model simulations indicate would cause an average net warming of ∼0.021°C per percent increase in high latitude (53–73°N) Betula cover. We hypothesize that the extinction of mammoths increased Betula cover, which would have warmed Siberia and Beringia by on average 0.2°C, but regionally by up to 1°C. If humans were partially responsible for the extinction of the mammoths, then human influences on global climate predate the origin of agriculture.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2010gl043985

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many environmental scholars have used the Anthropocene designation to characterize socio-environmental relationships that significantly predate both the Industrial Revolution and the Great Acceleration.

    “Unsurprisingly many environmental scholars have thus used the Anthropocene designation to characterize socio-environmental relationships that significantly predate both the Industrial Revolution and the Great Acceleration (Doughty et al., 2010; Certini and Scalenghe, 2011; Smith and Zeder, 2013; Beach et al., 2015; Lewis and Maslin, 2015; Boivin et al., 2016; Wagreich and Draganits, 2018).”

    From A practical solution: the Anthropocene is a geological event, not a formal epoch (2022) · cites this paper as Doughty et al., 2010

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 109

Authors
Doughty, C. E., Wolf, A., & Field, C. B.
Affiliations
Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
Venue
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2010-08
Volume
37
Issue
15
ISSN
  • 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8007
OpenAlex
W1659598892
Cited by
109
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Keywords
Pleistocene megafauna extinction, mammoth extinction, herbivory, surface albedo, climate feedbacks, Beringia, Siberia, pollen record, climate modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review