Elephants Evolve Smaller Tusks Due to Poaching

5 years ago Nature

A species’ evolution has long been thought to take thousands of years to produce seemingly minor changes.

africanelephant

It appears that in at least one case, however, evolution is occurring at what seems like jet speed. In the last 150 years, the world’s elephant population has evolved much smaller tusks.

The average size of an African elephant’s tusks has gone down by half in the last century and a half. Indian elephants have undergone a similar tusk size reduction.

Experts believe the rapid evolution of the massive land mammals is due to poaching. Zoologists from Oxford University suggest that ivory poachers, who go for the largest males with the largest tusks, have caused the breeding behaviors of the animals to change rapidly in a short time.

The largest male African elephants have the largest tusks. These tusks are extremely important in elephant behavior, with the largest tusks usually resulting in more successful intimidation of smaller males or winning fights for female elephants. But when the largest animals are killed, it changes the breeding patterns of the animals. In short, without the largest males for competition, the smaller males with their smaller tusks will breed more successfully, and their offspring will have smaller tusks.

Study co-author Iain Douglas Hamilton of Save the Elephants said in the Telegraph: "What appears to be the case is that average tusk sizes have decreased greatly since the mid-19th century. The data comes from the trade statistics and from records of hunters around Africa who find that large trophies are very much harder to find. While some of this may be due to an absence of older animals, it is possible there has been a genetic selection pressure against large tusk size that outweighs their usefulness in contests with other males in winning females."

Source: Telegraph

If you want to find out all the latest interesting environmental news, why not subcribe to our RSS feed, we'll even throw in a free album.

Cool Links From Around the Web

Comments

Old Comments

Amanda says

Apr 1st, 2008 at 12am
derick, that really is just very ignorant. you can't even label it as a genetic deletion, because no one has shown what the difference in the genotype codes for larger or smaller tusks. "degraded DNA" is non-functional and won't code for anything. and degradation of a compound is simply completely irrelevant to the point you are failing to prove. evolution is recognized as any shift the genome and the phenotype. the elephants are ADVANCING evolutionarily because the trait of having smaller tusks is more FIT. take a biology class before you throw absurd claims around.

kam says

Feb 29th, 2008 at 12am
derick, you just dont get it. evolution doesnt necessarly mean better. evolution is defined as the change in a gene pool over time. THIS IS STILL EVOLUTION. you are using terms in their wrong context. get over it. THIS IS EVOLUTION. plain and simple. god some people really piss me off sometimes trying to sound like they know it all.

kam says

Feb 29th, 2008 at 12am
PS.. just so you realise. degradation applies to a CHEMICAL COMPOUND. yes, elephants are totally classed as "chemical compounds"...jesus dude. know what you are talking about before you say something. u cant take terms applying to one thing and slap it into another. fool

Derick D. says

Feb 25th, 2008 at 12am
Deletion isn't evolution, it's degradation: deg·ra·da·tion: change of a chemical compound to a less complex compound (Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary) These elephants now have a degraded DNA, not evolved DNA.

William says

Jan 30th, 2008 at 12am
If evolution means a gain in genetic information
All evolution requires is changes in DNA (deletion, insertion, mutation, etc.) and there is no such thing as devolution so this can't be a "step backward".
As progressives, we totally believe everything evolution scientists say!
In general, I prefer people trusting mainstream scientists over other sources. Scientists can be wrong but science works.

Jeff says

Jan 23rd, 2008 at 12am
Some clarifications of the discussion of evolution here: 1) Not all evolution is selection, or adventageous. There's also evolution due to "genetic drift", which most often happens due to a sampling error in small populations. This can be explicitly counter to selection, as inferior genotypes may become more prevalent. 2) Mutation is not a form of evolution. It forms the genetic variation that is required for natural selection to take place. So, the longer- and shorter-tusked elephants have different DNA due to mutations in the past. Selection, in this case due to human activities, is making the shorter-tusked elephants more abundant in the population

Derick D. says

Jan 23rd, 2008 at 12am
This is interesting. Everyone here seems to think that an overall loss of genetic information equals an advancement (or evolution) in elephant DNA. If evolution means a gain in genetic information (for how could a pig-sized mammal with a stubby nose become an elephant without gaining entirely new genes), how does the loss of long-tusk DNA equal an evolutionary gain? If the long-tusks are completely eliminated from the gene pool, we will still have only elephants, and furthermore, we will have genetically less-complex ones. The engine of evolution is to gain new genetic material and these elephants are being pushed a step backward. This looks to be nothing more than an unplanned breeding technique, similar to those employed by farmers or animal breeders. These techniques produce a certain sub-species, but always at the cost (loss) of genetic information, not a gain. This article sounds like propaganda to me: "Look! Nature solved the problem of poachers with EVOLUTION! As progressives, we totally believe everything evolution scientists say! We can go back to sleep now!"

fritz think says

Jan 22nd, 2008 at 12am
Natural Selection is part of the Theory of Evolution. There are two major components to Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation. Evolutionary process is speeding up in many cases. If the species survives human forced near extinction, it will most likely be to highly accelerated Natural Selection as a part of Evolution.

TJ says

Jan 22nd, 2008 at 12am
Mistere, all evolution is selection of some sort. Selection promoted by the desire of poachers is not natural. The presented case of larger-tusked males intimidating smaller ones and thus successfully breeding is natural. Evolution is a change from one state to another. The state of average tusk size for the general population of elephants is decreasing rapidly, therefore evolution has been sped up by the interference of man.

Kim says

Jan 22nd, 2008 at 12am
"Selection promoted by the desire of poachers is not natural." I have to disagree with that. Man is part of nature -- the pressure applied by the poaching is no different than any other environmental pressure. In no way do I mean to imply that poaching is right. Merely that man is just as much a part of nature as the rest of the planet.