Cited by 115Space Science and Extraterrestrial LifeEarth Systems and Cosmic EvolutionOrigins and Evolution of Life

The Case for a Gaian Bottleneck: The Biology of Habitability

Chopra, Aditya, Lineweaver, Charles H.·2016·Astrobiology

Abstract

The prerequisites and ingredients for life seem to be abundantly available in the Universe. However, the Universe does not seem to be teeming with life. The most common explanation for this is a low probability for the emergence of life (an emergence bottleneck), notionally due to the intricacies of the molecular recipe. Here, we present an alternative Gaian bottleneck explanation: If life emerges on a planet, it only rarely evolves quickly enough to regulate greenhouse gases and albedo, thereby maintaining surface temperatures compatible with liquid water and habitability. Such a Gaian bottleneck suggests that (i) extinction is the cosmic default for most life that has ever emerged on the surfaces of wet rocky planets in the Universe and (ii) rocky planets need to be inhabited to remain habitable. In the Gaian bottleneck model, the maintenance of planetary habitability is a property more associated with an unusually rapid evolution of biological regulation of surface volatiles than with the luminosity and distance to the host star.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/ast.2015.1387

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • These effects and other factors could greatly diminish the likelihood of development of multicellular complex life.

    “These effects as well as other factors (including biological and chemical bottlenecks, asteroid bombardments, among others), as recently discussed by Chopra & Lineweaver (2016) and references therein, could greatly diminish the likelihood of development of multicellular complex life.”

    From ABOUT EXOBIOLOGY: THE CASE FOR DWARF K STARS (2016) · cites this paper as Chopra & Lineweaver (2016)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chopra, A., & Lineweaver, C. H.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Astrobiology
Published
2016-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
7-22
ISSN
  • 1531-1074 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8070
OpenAlex
W2267142438
Cited by
115
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Astrobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian National University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Earth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Origins and Evolution of Life
Keywords
habitability, surface temperature, liquid water, extinction, evolution of life, origin of life
MeSH terms
Carbonates, Extraterrestrial Environment, Models, Theoretical, Time Factors, Water, Planets, Silicates, Exobiology, Extinction, Biological

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