Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity

Jonathan L. Payne, Alison G. Boyer, James H. Brown, Seth Finnegan, Michał Kowalewski, Richard A. Krause Jr., S. Kathleen Lyons, Craig R. McClain, Daniel W. McShea, Philip M. Novack-Gottshall, Felisa A. Smith, Jennifer A. Stempien, and Steve C. Wang
  1. aDepartment of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 320, Stanford, CA 94305;
  2. bDepartment of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131;
  3. cDepartment of Geosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061;
  4. dMuseum für Naturkunde der Humboldt–Universität zu Berlin, D-10115, Berlin, Germany;
  5. eDepartment of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560;
  6. fMonterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, CA 95039;
  7. gDepartment of Biology, Box 90338, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708;
  8. hDepartment of Geosciences, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118;
  9. iDepartment of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; and
  10. jDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Swarthmore College, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS January 6, 2009 106 (1) 24-27; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806314106
Jonathan L. Payne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jlpayne@stanford.edu
Alison G. Boyer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James H. Brown
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Seth Finnegan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michał Kowalewski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard A. Krause Jr.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Kathleen Lyons
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Craig R. McClain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel W. McShea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip M. Novack-Gottshall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Felisa A. Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer A. Stempien
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steve C. Wang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by James W. Valentine, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved November 14, 2008 (received for review July 1, 2008)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The maximum size of organisms has increased enormously since the initial appearance of life >3.5 billion years ago (Gya), but the pattern and timing of this size increase is poorly known. Consequently, controls underlying the size spectrum of the global biota have been difficult to evaluate. Our period-level compilation of the largest known fossil organisms demonstrates that maximum size increased by 16 orders of magnitude since life first appeared in the fossil record. The great majority of the increase is accounted for by 2 discrete steps of approximately equal magnitude: the first in the middle of the Paleoproterozoic Era (≈1.9 Gya) and the second during the late Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic eras (0.6–0.45 Gya). Each size step required a major innovation in organismal complexity—first the eukaryotic cell and later eukaryotic multicellularity. These size steps coincide with, or slightly postdate, increases in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen, suggesting latent evolutionary potential was realized soon after environmental limitations were removed.

  • body size
  • Cambrian
  • oxygen
  • Precambrian
  • trend

Footnotes

  • 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jlpayne{at}stanford.edu
  • Author contributions: J.L.P., A.G.B., J.H.B., S.F., M.K., R.A.K., S.K.L., C.R.M., D.W.M., P.M.N.-G., F.A.S., J.A.S., and S.C.W. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0806314106/DCSupplemental.

  • Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

  • © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity
Jonathan L. Payne, Alison G. Boyer, James H. Brown, Seth Finnegan, Michał Kowalewski, Richard A. Krause, S. Kathleen Lyons, Craig R. McClain, Daniel W. McShea, Philip M. Novack-Gottshall, Felisa A. Smith, Jennifer A. Stempien, Steve C. Wang
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2009, 106 (1) 24-27; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0806314106

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity
Jonathan L. Payne, Alison G. Boyer, James H. Brown, Seth Finnegan, Michał Kowalewski, Richard A. Krause, S. Kathleen Lyons, Craig R. McClain, Daniel W. McShea, Philip M. Novack-Gottshall, Felisa A. Smith, Jennifer A. Stempien, Steve C. Wang
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2009, 106 (1) 24-27; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0806314106
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Geology
  • Biological Sciences
  • Evolution
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 106 (1)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Data and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490