ArticlePDF Available

The overkill model and its impact on environmental research (open access -



Research on human‐environment interactions that informs ecological practices and guides conservation and restoration has become increasingly interdisciplinary over the last few decades. Fueled in part by the debate over defining a start date for the Anthropocene, historical disciplines like archeology, paleontology, geology, and history are playing an important role in understanding long‐term anthropogenic impacts on the planet. Pleistocene overkill, the notion that humans overhunted megafauna near the end of the Pleistocene in the Americas, Australia, and beyond, is used as prime example of the impact that humans can have on the planet. However, the importance of the overkill model for explaining human–environment interactions and anthropogenic impacts appears to differ across disciplines. There is still considerable debate, particularly within archeology, about the extent to which people may have been the cause of these extinctions. To evaluate how different disciplines interpret and use the overkill model, we conducted a citation analysis of selected works of the main proponent of the overkill model, Paul Martin. We examined the ideas and arguments for which Martin's overkill publications were cited and how they differed between archeologists and ecologists. Archeologists cite overkill as one in a combination of causal mechanisms for the extinctions. In contrast, ecologists are more likely to accept that humans caused the extinctions. Aspects of the overkill argument are also treated as established ecological processes. For some ecologists, overkill provides an analog for modern‐day human impacts and supports the argument that humans have “always” been somewhat selfish overconsumers. The Pleistocene rewilding and de‐extinction movements are built upon these perspectives. The use of overkill in ecological publications suggests that despite increasing interdisciplinarity, communication with disciplines outside of ecology is not always reciprocal or even.
Ecology a nd Evolution . 201 8 ;1–1 4 .    
Research on human impacts on the environment, whether study-
ing greenhouse gas emissions, overharvesting fisheries, or
deforestation of rain forests, has grown significantly over the last
40 years. The growing number of new journals focusing on the
Anthropocene (e.g., Anthropocene, Anthropocene Review, Elementa)
reflects this increase in interest. An important area of discussion
DOI: 10.100 2/ece3.43 93
The overkill model and its impact on environmental research
Lisa Nagaoka1| Torben Rick2| Steve Wolverton1
This is an op en access article under t he terms of t he Creat ive Commons Attr ibutio n License , which pe rmits u se, dist ributi on and rep roduc tion in any m edium,
provide d the orig inal work is proper ly cited.
© 2018 The Aut hors. Ecology an d Evolutionpu blishedbyJohnWiley&SonsLtd.
1Depar tment of G eography and the
Environment, University of North Texas,
De nton , Texas
2Depar tmentofA nthrop ology,Smithsonian
Histor y,Washington,Dist rictofColumbia
Lisa Nag aoka, D epartment of Ge ography
and the Env ironment, Unive rsity of North
Tex as , Dent on , Texa s.
Research on human- environment interactions that informs ecological practices and
guides conservation and restoration has become increasingly interdisciplinary over
the last few decades. Fueled in part by the debate over defining a start date for the
Anthropocene, historical disciplines like archeology, paleontology, geology, and his-
tory are playing an important role in understanding long- term anthropogenic impacts
on the planet. Pleistocene overkill, the notion that humans overhunted megafauna
near the end of the Pleistocene in the Americas, Australia, and beyond, is used as
prime example of the impact that humans can have on the planet. However, the im-
portance of the overkill model for explaining human–environment interactions and
anthropogenic impacts appears to differ across disciplines. There is still considerable
debate, particularly within archeology, about the extent to which people may have
been the cause of these extinctions. To evaluate how different disciplines interpret
and use the overkill model, we conducted a citation analysis of selected works of the
tween archeologist s and ecologists. A rcheologists cite over kill as one in a combination
of causal mechanisms for the extinctions. In contrast, ecologists are more likely to
accept that humans caused the extinctions. Aspects of the overkill argument are also
treated as established ecological processes. For some ecologists, overkill provides an
analog for modern- day human impacts and supports the argument that humans have
“always” been somewhat selfish overconsumers. The Pleistocene rewilding and de-
extinction movements are built upon these perspectives. The use of overkill in eco-
logical publications suggests that despite increasing interdisciplinarity, communication
with disciplines outside of ecology is not always reciprocal or even.
citation analysis, communication, conservation, human impacts, interdisciplinarity, megafauna
extinctions, Pleistocene overkill
   NAGAOKA et Al .
revolves ar ound how far back hu mans have been having a si gnificant
2013a;Smith& Zeder,2013). Itisthe subjectof notonlydefining
the boundaries of the Anthropocene and other concepts such as
theSix thExtinction,butunderstandingthenatureoftherelation-
ship between humans and the environment . It is into this discussion
of how long people have been having a significant impact on the
environment that the overkill explanation for Pleistocene megafau-
nal extinctions plays a role.
leobiologist, developed the overkill hypothesis, in which human
hunting was proposed to have caused the extinction of the mega-
fauna that roamed North America during the Pleistocene. During
thelast50years,thehypothesishasbeenextended toincludeall
anthropogenic factors and has been applied to human colonization
2005; Martin,1984).Recently,overkill (Pleistocene or other wise)
has been used as a prime example in ecological or conser vation
studies stating that humans have profound impact s on the en-
vironment and have been doing so for millennia (Donlan, 2007;
Donlan etal., 2006; Sherkow & Greely, 2013; Svenning etal.,
2016). However, among researchers studying the extinction of
Pleistocene megafauna (many archeologists and paleobiologists),
the cause of the extinctions and the validity of overkill as an expla-
nation are still being debated. Thus, what is a subject of debate (the
cause of the terminal Pleistocene megafauna extinctions) to some
is being used as a prime example of anthropogenic environmental
ties of researchers view the role of overkill in megafaunal extinc-
tions so differently?
In this paper, we summarize the overkill hypothesis and the
debate about the cause of the late Pleistocene megafaunal extinc-
tions. Wethendelveinto problemsof cross-disciplinary commu-
nication by conducting a citation analysis of cited works of Paul
overkill is interpreted and used differently by archeologist s and
ecologists. For many ecologists, overkill holds significant meaning
for the relationship between humans and the environment that
has consequencesfor conservation. While a number of import-
ant studies have been conducted by archeologists, ecologists,
and Quaternary scientists since Martin’s research, including re-
cent studies by ecologists that support climate/multidisciplinary
2013, 2017; Nogues-Bravo, Rodiguez, Hortal, Batra, & Araujo,
2008) and others that support human impact s (Bartlett et al.,
is not to review that extensive literature, but instead is to focus
on interdisciplinary communication, particularly through citation
oftheseminalworksonoverkillbyMar tin. Ifenvironmentaland
anthropological scientists are to study the Anthropocene to-
gether, researchers face a challenge to improve interdisciplinary
By the end of the Pleistocene, a suite of 37 genera of large- bodied
mammalsbecameextinc tinNorthAmerica(Grayson,2015;Meltzer,
2015). There a re two main competin g hypotheses to explain the
extinction of these megafauna that are based on the timing of the
extinctions and either the arrival of people to the Americas or cli-
mate change at the end of the Pleistocene. Research evaluating
these hypotheses has involved investigators from archeology to the
ily a paleontological subject of research, believed to be caused by
warming climate that occurred during deglaciation in the transi-
tion from the late Pleistocene to early Holocene. There was little
evidence that people interacted with megafauna let alone that they
lived in the same places at the same time. However, with the advent
of radiocarbon dating, the arrival of people in North America was
documented back to the Late Pleistocene (Haynes, 1964). Thus, a
temporal association was est ablished between people and mega-
fauna. M artin arg ued that if pe ople were pre sent in the Am ericas
alongside the megafauna, then they could have been a factor in their
extinction. Asan alternative explanation to climatechange,Martin
(1958,1967a,1973) proposed the overkill hypothesis in which hu-
mans hunted the megafauna to extinction.
While the t iming of both clim ate change and hum an coloniza-
tion overlaps with megafaunal extinction, the mechanisms for how
climate change was able to cause extinction in this context were un-
clear.In particular, Martin (1967a)questioned why megafaunahad
survived multiple interglacial periods during the Pleistocene only to
go extinct at the end of the last glacial period. On the other hand,
with the rise of environmentalism in the 1960s, the mechanism for
Martin’s overkill model was intuitive and self-evident (Grayson,
2001:41;Grayson& Meltzer,2003:590).Itwaseasytoconceptual-
ize how people could have caused an extinction event because the
impact s of (and protests against) human- caused environmental deg-
expanded the overkill model beyond North American Pleistocene
extinctions to explain mass extinc tions globally as a function of
human colonization: wherever peoplego,speciesgo ex tinct.Since
then, the model has grown considerably outside of archeology and
paleontology and is often used as evidence for the harm that people
can perpetrate on the environment.
The mechanism for how people were able to cause the extinc-
tions thr ough hunting makes s everal key assumpt ions. When the
argument is teased apart, it is easier to evaluate whether or not
overkill adequately explains the extinctions. The first two assump-
tions use the “island analogy” (Nagaoka, 2012). First, the mechanisms
for extinction of continental megafauna are similar to those that impact
island fauna. In his explanation for overkill, Martin (1967a, 1984,
1990) described many prehistoric and historic examples of extinc-
tion of island species following human colonization in places such
as Madagascar, New Zealand, Hawaii, and other Pacificislands as
Island fauna often evolves in the context of low predation pressure
resulting in traits such as flightlessness and ground- nesting in birds,
and naïve behavior in general. These traits along with high ende-
mism and small populations make island species more vulnerable
to predation and environmental perturbations, and thus extinction.
While it is widelyrecognized thatthecircumstances for islandex-
tinctions can dif fer from those on continents, these island examples
demonstrated that people could and did cause extinctions, which
planted the seeds for the process of anthropogenic extinctions in
other contexts.
To bolster the analogy between naïve island fauna and continen-
tal Pleis tocene mega fauna, Mar tin develop ed the secon d assump-
tion: continental megafauna were vulnerable to extinction like island
fauna because humans are superpredators. Continental megafauna
coexisted with a large predator guild and thus had evolved a suite of
predator defenses. However, if humans were hyper- efficient preda-
tors, then megafauna could be naïve to their specific type of preda-
tion. People were so ef ficient at hunting that the megafauna went
extinct before they could develop an appropriate predator response
(Martin,1973).Indeed,theBlitzkriegversion ofoverkill haspeople
hunting me gafauna in a w ave across Nor th Ameri ca (Mosiman n &
degree of human hunting efficiency nor the absence of predator re-
sponse has yet to be evaluated or demonstrated.
A third assumption relates to the empirical requirements of
the model. Archeological data are particularly important for eval-
uating the overkill hypothesis because the test implications are
not just that people coexisted with the megafauna, but that they
directly interacted with the megafauna in such a way as to cause
extinction. Thus, stone tools embedded in megafauna bones reflect
hunting, cut marks reflect butchering, and (potentially) burnt bone
suggests cooking. Empirically, however, there is little archeological
evidence for these types of direct association between people and
megafauna, let alone that human predation had a significant im-
pact on megafaunal populations. The megafauna that humans are
directly associated with are limited to five (mammoths, mastodons,
gomphotheres, camels, horses) rather than all 37 genera, with mam-
mothasthemostcommontaxon(Grayson&Meltzer,2002;Melt zer,
2015).Andonlya small numberofsites, 15–26(theveracityofthe
association is debated among archeologists), have been identified as
showing evidence for a direct association between stone artifacts
and remai ns of extinc t megafauna (e.g ., Meltzer, 2015; Surove ll &
The paucity of archeological evidence for interaction between
people and megafauna has been called the “associational critique”
(Grayson,1984a;Meltzer,1986). But ithasbeen deftlyhandled by
Martin(1973,1984)andothers(Fiedel&Haynes, 2004;Surovell&
Grund, 2012), who assume that there is a small sample of sites with
evidence of association only because the extinction process was so
rapid that the remains were not buried and thus did not preserve. The
absence of evidence, specifically the absence of association, is used
as evidence for overkill. Requiring evidence of association is consid-
Critics have countered this explanation in several ways. Arguing
that the “absence of evidence is evidence” is not a scientific means
to evaluate a hypothesis. If there is a paucity of data, then other
alternative means should be found to test the hypothesis. Even if
the absence of association between people and megafauna was a
valid measure, it could be used to both suppor t both the overkill and
climate hypotheses. If climate change was the major cause of mega-
faunal ex tinction, then a paucity of sites with association would not
contradict expectations. However, it is more important for overkill
to demonstrate that the lack of sites is a result of poor preservation
of sites and remains. Interestingly, there are many paleontological
sites from the Late Pleistocenewith mammoth (Agenbroad, 2005;
Widga etal ., 2017) and other ext inct megafaun a (Meltzer, 2015).
The higher proportion of remains in paleontological contexts com-
pared to archeological ones suggests that megafaunal mortality may
be better explained by natural rather than anthropogenic causes.
The alternative argument is that preservation in archeological con-
texts is less likely than in paleontologic al ones. But this has not been
Whatispart icularl ys tar tlingabou ta dv oc atingthatasso ci at io n
should not be a requirement for evaluating overkill is that this is
a foundational concept for historical disciplines, such as archeol-
ogy, geology, and paleontology. Association is used to argue that
spatial relationships between fossils and artifacts within depos-
its reflect past events and behaviors. Thus, to argue that demon-
strating association is not necessary or that it is too onerous of a
requirement is to argue that these disciplines are not necessary
for understanding these extinc tions. This is unfortunate given that
archeology is the only one of these three historical disciplines that
can provide evidence of direct interaction between humans and
When overk ill was introduced , the model appea red to have
a clear mechanism for how megafaunal extinction occurred.
However, the reality is that the argument uses a series of untested
assertions about human–environment interactions. Thus, the best
evidence for overkill is the temporal association between mega-
faunal extinctions and human colonization. Unfortunately, the
extinctions also co- occur with climate change at the end of the
Pleistocene. Further compounding the problem is that archeology
over the last few decades has continued to demonstrate that many
of the earliest peoples in the Americas had broad spectrum diets
focused on small game, aquatic resources, and a variety of foods
other studies demonstrate that many megafauna species were
extin ct prior to huma n arrival (Bo ulanger & Lyman, 2014; Lima -
Ribeiro&Diniz-Filho,2013).Givent hatcausesforthePleistoce ne
extinctions are unresolved, it is interesting to see that the overkill
model features prominently in the ecological and conservation
   NAGAOKA et Al .
The use and relevance of ove rkill as the cause of t he Pleistocene ex-
the literature on overkill has become polarized between perspec-
tives of proponents and critics of overkill (e.g.,Fiedel & Haynes,
2004;Grayson & Melt zer,20 03, 2004). Thus,itmayappear that
there is a debate for or against overkill. However, the average ar-
cheologist is not representedin such black and whiteterms. We
surveyed archeologists about what killed the megafauna during a
poster sessionat the annualmeetingofthe SocietyforAmerican
Archaeology in 2012 (n = 91). Eighty- two percent believed that the
extinctions were caused by multiple variables with climate change
as the only single cause identified (Figure 1). In a separate but simi-
lar survey of 112 archeologists, 63% of archeologists identified a
combinat ion of factor s caused t he extinc tions (W heat, 2012). In
our survey, respondents who believed there were multiple causes
for the extinctions were asked to identif y which causes were in-
volved in the extinctions. Most respondents identified climate
change more often as one of the causes, with human impacts
either directly through hunting or indirectly through landscape
change as the other factor (Figure 2). To archeologists, overkill is
not the dominant explanation for the extinctions.
Yet, outside of archeology, overkill as the prime mover for the
extinctions seems to have taken on a different trajectory. As arche-
ologist s, it is surprising to encounter publications in which overkill
explains megafaunal extinctions and is used as an example of human
impact s in general. For example, a recent popular science book and
New York Times 10 Best Books of 2014 use the overkill model as
If…people were to blame [for the extinctions] – and
it seems increasingly likely that they were – then the
import is almost disturbing. It would mean that the
current extinction event began all the way back in the
middle of the last ice age. It would mean that man was
a killer – to use the term of ar t an “overkiller” – pretty
much right from the st art
Kolbert (2014: 229–230)
FIGURE1 Archeologists’responses
to the prompt, “The main cause of
megafaunal extinctions in North America
is” (n = 91)
FIGURE2 The causes for megafaunal
extinction identified as playing a role
by archeologists who believe that the
extinctions were multicausal
this quote d escribes Pa ul Martin’s overk ill model. Th e lack of direc t
archeological evidence is never discussed.
To evaluate how the overkill literature is being used dif ferently
by different communities of researchers, we conducted a citation
analysis of j ournal arti cles that cite four of P aul Martin’s pub lica-
tions on overkill. His 1967 book chapter, “Prehistoric overkill” and
his 1973 Science article “The discovery of America,” are the first full
descriptions of the overkill model. In 1984, he coedited the book,
Quaternary Extinctions, with Richard Klein, which reviews extinc-
book entitled “Pleistocene overkill: The global model” that brings
together his perspective on overkill as the cause for megafaunal ex-
tinctions worldwide.
Weused thecitedreference searchinThompsonReuters’Web
of Science d atabase to fin d articles t hat cited these f our publica-
tions. The articles spanned from 2015 whentheanalysis was orig-
inally done and 1995, the earliest extent of the Web of Science
database at the time. We then categorized the publications into
groups—archeology, Quaternary, ecology, and other. The other cat-
egory consisted of publications in fields such as philosophy, law, or
sociology. For this study, we focus on archeological, Quaternary, and
ecological publications. They differ in the subject matter and time
depth. Archeological publications were those written by archeolo-
gists on human prehistory or paleoecology. Quaternary publications
represent paleontological, historical biogeography, or paleoecologi-
cal publications that generally focus on evolutionary processes re-
lated to a specific taxon. Ecological publications are neoecological
studies that study taxa in contemporary contexts or that presented
research related to conservation.
these three areas of research. Authors in each research area tended
to cite different publications when referring to overkill (Table 1). Of
the three groups, Mar tin’spublications tendtobecited the mostin
Quaternary publications. Archeologist s cite Mar tin’s earlier publica-
tions, particularly his 1973 article, probably because it discusses the
relationship between human colonization and overkill. In contrast,
withinecologicalpublications,Mar tin’slaterworksarecited.
different types of publications, we analyzed the text associated with
each cit ation. We evaluated t he citations on ly for the 1984 publi-
cations because they represent more recent thought and also have
more even coverage across all three categories of research. Of the
388 references, copies of 378 articles were obtained. Of those, 363
were categorized as archeological, Quaternary, or ecological. The re-
maining fifteen articles were in social sciences and humanities pub-
licatio ns. For each pu blication , the text ass ociated with t he Marti n
citation was recorded. Each use of the citation was then categorized
based on the claim it was used to support. Citation examples are pre-
sented below.
All three research areas cite Martin’s work as evidence that
either a large number of species went extinct at the end of the
Pleistocene or that the cause of the extinction is being debated
(Table 2). However, about one- third of the ecological publications,
or five or six times the archeological or Quaternar y publications, use
Martin’sworkasevidencetosupporttheclaimthathumansare di-
rectly responsible for the extinctions (i.e., human predation) or that
humans are capable of causing great damage to the environment,
including extinctions. For example:
“There may be a variet y of situations in nature, of
course, in which consumers or consumer popula-
tions are not controlled by predation. For instance,
before the late Pleistocene overkill of large mammals
in Australia and North and South America (Martin
&Klein, 1984),most of theearth’secosystemscon-
tained megaherbivore species whose adult members,
liketoday’s elephants, weretoolargetobekilled by
the largest predators.
TABLE1 ThepercentageofcitationsforfourofPaulMartin’spublicationsbypublicationtype
Reference No. citations % Archeology % Quaternary % Ecolog y % Other
Mar tin(1967a) 87 34 45 17 4
Martin(1973) 117 43 31 12 14
Martin(1984) 213 26 46 26 2
MartinandKlein(1984) 175 14 47 33 6
TABLE2 ThepercentageoftimesMartin(1984)andMartin&
Klein (1984) were cited within the three types of publications, and
the claim for which the publications were cited
Publication type
(n = 74)
(n = 143)
(n = 148)
Cause of
64.9 58.7 20.9
Large- scale
10.8 21.0 23.0
Humans killed off
the megafauna
6.8 4.9 32.4
Extinctions linked
to human
8.1 7. 0 16.9
   NAGAOKA et Al .
In addition, a number of articles claim that there is “growing con-
sensus” or increasing or mounting evidence that humans caused
the ext inctions (e.g., B londel, 20 08; Kodric-B rown & Brown, 2007 ).
Interestingly,manyofthese articles citeMartin&Klein’s(1984)book
(Table 3), which is a general compendium about extinctions during
the Quaternary, including papers that suggest alternatives to overkill
(Grayson, 1984b; Kiltie, 1984). Authors are thus incorrectly citing the
book, p ossibly confus ing it with Mar tin’s chapter in th e book. Thus ,
while many of the publications in the archeological and Quaternary
categories suggest overkill as one potential explanation for megafau-
nal extinctions, a greater proportion of the ecological sample promotes
it as a likely cause and/or a well- founded process and cites either of
Because overkill is more commonly used within the neoeco-
logical literature as an example of anthropogenic impacts, the as-
sumptions of the model are also being used as if they are confirmed
ecological processes. For example, a small percentage (7%) of the
ecological articles cite the publications to support the idea that hu-
mans are hyper-efficient predators rendering continental fauna in ef-
fect, naïve. But only one of the archeological or Quaternary articles
uses the publications for the same purpose. The following quotes
illustrate how the assumption about humans as superpredators has
been used:
The late Pleistocene invasion of the Americas by hu-
mans might be the most recent case of an introduced
predator exerting large impacts on continental prey
(Barnosky, Koch, Feranec, Wing, & Shabel, 2004);
once again, however, it is likely that human impact
was magnif ied by the naivete′ of New World p rey
toward this novel predator archet ype (Wilson 1992;
Cox and Lima (2006)
Rather than having a continent of fearless ani-
mals waiting to be killed by an advancing wave of
hunters (e.g., Flannery 2001), it is more likely that
human hunters posed unique threats, and that
while not entirely predator naïve, the hunted ani-
mals did not have a sufficient antipredator behavior
to cope with these unique threats.
Blumstein (2006)
Interestingly, in both of these cases, the authors have brought up
thenaivete’ of Pleistocene megafauna becauseitisanexception not
seen elsewhere that they need to explain. Alternatively, the authors
couldhavearguedthattheroleofnaivete’inmegafaunalex tinctionis
an untested assumption.
The assumption that fauna were naïve to human hunting at initial
contact has also had an impact on studies on the historical biogeog-
rap hyofAfr ica.Afewoftheecologic alarticlesciteMartin’sp ublica-
tions to argue that Africa maintained a high diversit y of large- bodied
mammals following the Pleistocene because the fauna had evolved
this same claim in his 1967 article, Africa and Pleistocene overkill.
tion is the r esult of a fundame ntal differe nce in the spa-
tial dynamics of the extinction forces in Africa. Human
evolution in Africa allowed species there to adapt to
coexist with humans(Martin,1984).However,ashu-
mans expanded their range out of Africa and into the
other regions of the world they encountered animals
that were naive to their abilities and suffered extinc-
tions(Diamond,1984;Mar tin,1984).
These authors are arguing that the difference in biodiversity
across continents is partly a result of the distribution of humans.
Specifically,itis argued thatpost-Pleistocenespecies diversity
in Africa is greater because the fauna coevolved with humans
and thus was adapted to their superpredatory skills (Faith, 2014;
Wroe,Field, Fullagar,&Jermin, 2004).Thus, the biodiversityof
Africa is due to the fact that hunter–gatherers have not been
able to hunt species to ex tinction as they have elsewhere. As dis-
cussed above, the superpredatory skills of humans are linked to
the analogy between islands and continents. Continent al extinc-
tions are similar to island extinctions if people are superpreda-
tors and megafauna were naïve to their predatory skills. But if the
extinctions involved any other predator–prey relationship, would
extinctions of small, endemic, island populations be studied to-
gether with extinctions of widespread continental populations?
Indeed, if we exclude all island examples, the causes for conti-
nental megafaunal extinctions are diverse, often multicausal, and
have limited evidence for overkill (Barnosky et al., 2004).
Another ecological process that overkill seems to demonstrate
is that human colonization of new lands leads to faunal extinction.
Remember that island extinctions following human colonization were
colonization as a causal factor from islands to virgin lands in general
in this 1984 book chapter, such that the coincident timing of people
and extinction is proof that humans had a negative impact on fauna.
Colonization and hunting by aboriginal humans played
a major role in the extinction of the Pleistocene mega-
fauna in North America and other par ts of the world
TABLE3 Reference cited when supporting overkill in the
ecological literature
Citation %
Martin(1984) 52.1
MartinandKlein(1984) 47.9
The idea that human colonization had detrimental impacts on
fauna even shows up as an important fact in guidelines proposed to
promote conservation literacy.
Impacts of human colonization in ancient times:
Human societies have a long histor y of causing ex-
tinctions and major changes in ecosystems. (1) In the
1993) past, arrival of humans to new areas led to ex-
tinctions of other species and large- scale changes in
natural communities.
Unfortunately, the underlying idea behind this process is not
just that human colonization causes extinctions but that humans as
a species are inherently destructive. In the conservation and neo-
ecology literature, this idea has been used two ways. First is to use
the relationship to set up the argument that humans have been det-
rimental to the environment; thus, ecological reparations are required.
This thinking has led to proposals such as Pleistocene rewilding and
de-extinction(Donlan,2007;Donlan etal., 2006;Sherkow&Greely,
overkill to argue that North American fauna is depauperate because
humans caused the mass extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene.
Thus, it is argued that it is our moral and ethical responsibilit y to re-
populate the landsc ape with descendants, close relatives, or clones of
overkill model and particularly of Pleistocene Rewilding (Fernández,
Navarro, & Pereira, 2017; Lima-Ribeiro & Diniz-Filho, 2013, 2014,
2017;McCauley,Hardesty-Moore, Halpern,Young, &Seddon,2017;
Nogués-Bravo, Simberloff, Rahbek, & Sanders, 2016; Richmond,
McEntee, Hijmans, & Brashares, 2010; Rubenstein & Rubenstein,
2016). However, the overall trend in the citation analysis and liter-
ature we reviewed is that overkill is more likely to be treated as the
explanation for the extinctions such that support for overkill can be
found even in the argument of some critics of rewilding (Oliveira-
Sowhydothese researchcommunitiesdifferintheirperspectives
on overkill and megafaunal extinctions? One explanation is that the
archeological literature, which discusses the empirical research on
the role of people in the extinctions, is less likely to be accessed by
researchers publishing in the ecological literature. Recent bibliomet-
ric and citation analyses appear to support limited interaction be-
tween these two groups. For example, Rosvall and Bergstrom (2011)
analyzed citations from over 9 million articles across nearly 8,000
journals to understand connectivity and information networks
among academics. They identified four major clusters of research.
The physical sciences and the life sciences form the two largest
clusters of research. The third cluster of ecology and earth sciences
includes ecology, conservation biology, and Quaternary research.
Social sc iences, into whic h archeolog y falls, form th e fourth clu s-
ter. Thus, ecologists and Quaternary scientists may be more likely to
readandciteoneanother’sresearchthantheyare toreadandcite
archeological journal articles.
If archeologists are publishing about megafaunal extinctions
only in archeologic al journals, then ecologists may be less likely to
encounter these articles. Donald Graysonand David Meltzer are
prominent critics of overkill whose work is published predominantly
in archeological journals (Grayson, 1984a,b, 2001, 2007; Grayson
&Meltzer,2002, 2003, 200 4,2015;Meltzer,1986,2015;seealso
Wroe, Fiel d, & Grayson , 2006). Whil e they are comm only cited in
publications about the Pleistocene ex tinctions in the archeologi-
cal and Quaternar y literature, they are rarely cited in the neoeco-
logical literature (Table 4). Thus, researchers outside of the social
sciences may have been less likely to encounter information on the
importance of association and the paucity of evidence for associa-
tion between megafauna and humans. However, none of the pub-
lications by archeologists that support overkill that are published
in broaderscientific journals (e.g., Faith & Surovell, 2009;Haynes,
2007,2013; Surovell&Waguespack, 2008;Surovell,Waguespack,
& Branti ngham, 2005) te nd to be cited either. This su ggests that
cross- disciplinary communication, particularly from archeology to
ecology, is limited. Researchers publishing in the neoecologic al liter-
may not look to the archeological literature as an impor tant source
of information.
One solution would be for archeologists to publish their findings
in ecological journals. Currently, the peer- reviewed ecological litera-
ture in which archeologists assert that there are issues with the over-
lack of effort. In our experience, claims made by archeologists about
the data and underlying assumptions of overkill are downplayed by
some ecologists. Unfortunately, these issues are not being debated
in the ecological literature, but occur in discussions at conferences
and in reviews of grant proposals and publications (see Grayson and
Alroy, 2001 for a rare exception). Colleagues who are ecologists typ-
ically will cite papers by ecologists to question our claims. During the
peer review process for past research articles on this topic, we have
been often pointed toward ecological research that examines the
streng th of the correlation between the extinctions, climate change,
and human colonization at the regional or global scale (e.g., Bartlett
TABLE4 PercentageofpublicationscitingMartin(1984)that
also cite publications by Grayson
Archeology Quaternary Ecology
# of Grayson
39 40 6
1984 citations
56 98 56
% Grayson
69. 6 40.8 10.7
   NAGAOKA et Al .
etal., 2016; Pre scott, Wi lliams, Balm ford, Gree n, & Manica , 2012;
as evidence that ecologists do not suppor t overkill or the idea that
humans alone were responsible for the extinctions.
Our rebuttal to these assertions is twofold. First, the nature and
source of the human impact data in these studies is rarely questioned.
Reviewers may be surprised to lear n that the data on the magnitude of
human impact used in many of these models is directly derived from
overkill. They often rely on the assumption that human colonization
causes extinctions to model human impact rather than on empiric al
data. Thus, the evidence for climate change is contrasted against as-
sertions about human impacts to evaluate the strength of the cor-
relation between each factor and extinctions. These models further
strengthen rather than detract from our argument that the tenets of
overkill are deeply embedded in ecology and conservation biology.
Second , we find it curiou s that some rese archers app ear reti-
cent to accept arguments and data from archaeologists, particularly
given that our field of expertise is studying the interaction and im-
pact of human actions on species and ecosystems across time and
lent to archeological studies that assess the quality of evidence for
association between megafauna and humans during the terminal
Pleistocene. As archeologists, we take for granted that archeologi-
cal data are necessary for evaluating the role that humans may have
played in the extinction of the megafauna. The presence of mega-
faunal remains in archeological sites is required to demonstrate that
people interacted with megafauna, not just that they coexisted on
the continent at the same time. Archeological data are also needed
to demonstrate the nature of those interac tions that people hunted,
butchered, and ate megafauna. These data are necessary to under-
stand the magnitude of impac t that humans had on megafaunal pop-
ulations. As was mentioned earlier, these types of data are in short
supply. Only five of the 37 genera of extinct megafauna in North
America have direct evidence of association with ver y few archeo-
logical sites that exhibit convincing evidence that people commonly
sites dating to the early period of human occupation and contain-
ingremains ofthose five extinct taxaare paleontological(Meltzer,
between the extinct megafauna and people. In addition, the record
on the timing of the extinctions is variable indicating that some
megafauna went extinct before human arrival in North America
andsome persisted for a periodaf ter human colonization(Faith&
Surovell, 2009; Gr ayson, 2007; Grayson & Meltzer, 2002, 2003 ,
2004;Meltzer,2015). Weassume that ifthese data were incorpo-
rated into the models comparing the impact of climate change ver-
sus human colonization, the results would be substantially different.
Because of the variability in the timing of extinc tions across taxa
and in the evidence for interactions between humans and mega-
fauna species, archeologists have argued that unraveling the mech-
anisms for the extinctions will require a “Gleasonian” approach, in
which the extinction process is studied species by species (Grayson,
2007;Meltzer,2015;forspecies examples, seeHill,Hill, &Widga,
Thus, in terms of interdisciplinary communication, researchers
publishing in the ecological and archeological literature seem to
have knowin gly or unwittingl y settled into a s tatus quo. Mart in’s
work serves different purposes for those publishing in the different
research areas. Those using it to support claims about human–en-
vironment interactions and ecological processes that the overkill
model promotes may not recognize the shortcomings of the model
because information flow bet ween the various groups is limited.
Archeologists have the necessary datasets to evaluate the human
role in the extinctions and bring to the table a different but relevant
perspective. But bringing this perspective into the neoecological lit-
erature has been limited and challenging.
While communication about overkill between archeological and
neoecological research areas is limited, there is greater informa-
tion flow between Quaternary and neoecological publications.
However, like archeological publications, the Quaternary literature
does not promote overkill as the dominant explanation for the ex-
tinctions, but generally suggest s that more research is still needed
(Barnosky etal., 2004; Koch & Barnosky, 2006). Thus, favoring
the Quaternary literature over the archeological still does not ex-
plain why the use of overkill to characterize human–environment
interactions is still more prevalent in the ecological literature. In
addition, our study only focuses on publications citing Martin’s
publications and overkill specifically. But the ideas promoted
by overkill c an also be found i n articles t hat do not cite Mar tin
(e.g., Smith,Elliott Smith, Lyons, &Payne, 2018). Overtheyears,
Grayson andMeltzer (2003, 2004)haveargued that overkillper-
sists because it supports a particular philosophical perspective on
anthropogenic environmental impacts. Over several articles, they
have evaluated the history of the overkill model, particularly the
logic of the argumentation, as well as the empirical evidence for
mently that,
The overkill position has also, despite a clear lack of
empirical archaeological support, been adopted on
faith by an influential subset of ecologists and used to
support what are essentially political arguments.
…the overkill argument captured the popular imagi-
nation during a time of intense concern over our spe-
inextricably linked to modern times and to the homily
of ecological ruin.
Thus, they assert that overkill is used as evidence of the damage
that humans can do to the environment. If humans have been causing
mass extinctions for thousands of years, then they are and will always
be a destructive force and a significant threat to biodiversity.
While it is clearthat people are havingasignificant impacton
the environment today, it is another thing to extend this behavior
back into deep time, especially when there is considerable debate
on the topic (see Bartlett et al., 2016; Di Febbraro et al., 2017;
Sandom etal.,2014).However,thismonolithicviewof human–en-
vironment interactions is not uncommon in neoecological publica-
tions. It is linked to a viewpoint of humans as outside of nature, in
which dominion over nature is a pan- human trait. The recent de-
bate about the old versus new conservation has highlighted these
philosophical differences in how we view human’s placein nature
Marvier,2012;Marvier& Kareiva,2014;Miller,Soulé,&Terborgh,
ture, then the relationship between humans and the environment is
fixed, and the outcome is inevitable (ecological ruin). As such, nature
must be preserved and kept separate from humans if biodiversity
is to be maintained and the extinction threat minimized. Overkill
provides justification for this preservationist perspective. However,
overkill can be found even in public ations advocating for a more plu-
ral isticvie wofthehuman–naturedynam ics(e.g.,Ka reiva&Marv ier,
2011), suggesting that the notion of humans as a destructive force is
deeply embedded. If the use of overkill is motivated by a humans- as-
separate- from- nature worldview, what impact does it have on how
the public and the scientific community conceptualize human–envi-
the transition to the Anthropocene as an example of how overkill
influences views about anthropogenic impacts on the environment.
Specifically,overkillisusedtosuppor ttheperspectivethathuman
actions are monolithic in impact. This perspective leaves little room
for research that examines variability, sustainability or resilience.
The Anthropocene is both a potential new geologic period of
time and aperception abouthumans’ role within the environment
(see Crutzen, 2002).While geoscientistsareempirically evaluating
the Anthropocene as a potential new geologic epoch, a broader defi-
nition of the Anthropocene used beyond the geosciences has be-
come synonymous with the age when anthropogenic activities came
2013a). The concept has so widely captured the imagination and
interest of scholars that it has led to a plethora of recent ar ticles
and several new journals focusing on the Anthropocene as a period
of anthropogenic environmental impacts. It has become a powerful
interdisciplinary rallying point around which scholars from diverse
disciplines weigh in on human–environment issues like never before
(Ellis, 2018).
For both the geosciences’ and the broader version of the
Anthropocene, the start date is very important. But each approach
uses different criteria. For the geologic epoch, defining the lower
boundary has focused on empirically identif ying the markers that
can be used to differentiate the Anthropocene from the Holocene
willlikelybethestartdate(Zalasiewiczetal.,2015).Thus,the geo-
logic Anthropocene is recent and represents modern anthropogenic
In contrast, with the broader usage of the term Anthropocene,
the start date varies widely. But each is linked to historic turning
points s uch as industrial ization and Western e xploration and e x-
pansion, or major cultural developments such as the rise of civiliza-
tionsorthebeginningsofagriculture(Braje&Erlandson, 2013a,b;
Glikson, 2013; Ruddiman, 2013; Smith & Zeder, 2013; Steffen,
Grineva ld, Crutzen, & M cNeill, 2011). Unlike the geo logic epoch,
however, the broader use of the Anthropocene tends to focus on
similarities between the past and present rather than when the
impact s become markedly different. Thus, the farther back in time
the period extends, the more the issues of the present may be pro-
jected onto the past. While it may appear that the Anthropocene
represents the history of processes that led to modern- day environ-
mental impacts, it is often treated as a monolithic period of human
behavior and environmental impacts by humans before which ex-
isted a potentially pristine nature. The conceptual implications of
an Anthropocene with significant time depth are clearly illustrated
when overkill and megafaunal ex tinctions are used to define the be-
ginning of the period.
Human- c aused megafaunal extinc tions are used by some to argue
that initial human occupation of a place marks the beginning for the
Anth ro pocen e( Do ughty, Wolf,&F ield,2010).I ti sb ui ltof fofMartin’s
idea that human arrival has had a significant, impact on biodiversity
everywhere people migrate (Boivin et al., 2016). For example, given
overkill in North America, the impact of humans has been significant
and severe since the late Pleistocene when people arrived to the con-
tinent and overkilled the megafauna. Unfortunately, the logical ex-
tension of this argument is that humans are inherently destructive as
a species. Thus, it could also be argued that the Anthropocene should
extend back to the beginning of Homo sapiens as a species. This may
seem like an extreme or marginal view, but it is a relatively common,
implicit perception of humans when discussing environmental issues.
Forexample,E. O. Wilsonpresented justsucha scenario when dis-
cussing threats to biodiversity and human- caused extinctions.
‘Human hu nters help no species.’ That is a general
truth and the key to the whole melancholy situation.
As the human wave rolled over the last of the virgin
lands like a smothering blanket…., they were con-
strained by neither knowledge of endemicity nor any
ethic of conservation.
Wilson,E.O.(1992)The Diversity of Life,p.253
   NAGAOKA et Al .
When overk ill is used as a cau tionary t ale and a means to r ally
support for environmentalism, it portrays humans as a destructive
There are several important contradictory consequences for
this line of thought. Using overkill to establish an older benchmark
implies that prehistoric communities significantly altered the en-
vironment such that they should be classified as similar to that of
modern s ocieties. W hile the popul ar literature may h ighlight pre-
historic examples of societal collapse due to environmental degra-
dation (e.g., Diamond, 2011), much of the archeological record is
characterized by persistence rather than extirpation, with the mag-
nitude of anthropogenic impacts varying significantly across time
and context.
When theAnthropocene is extended back tothe evolutionary
beginning of humans, then humans are a destructive or invasive
species. Indeed, the blitzkrieg version of the overkill model portrays
people as locusts killing megafauna and eating their way across
North Americ a (Mosimann & Martin, 1975). The invasive species
analogy suggests that humans do not belong in any environment al
context and that they are separate from nature. By extension, at
no time in the evolutionary history of humans are they under the
purview of ecological or evolutionary processes. Unfor tunately, the
extreme, yet logical solution for healing the environment would be
to rid the planet of humans.
Extending the Anthropocene into deep time also ignores the
real factors that make modern anthropogenic impacts particularly
damaging—the combination of an exponentially increasing pop-
ulation, efficient and destructive extraction techniques, massive
consumption, and rapid technological innovation and knowledge
transmission. If humans have always been destructive, then study-
ing the historic or prehistoric past also provides no understanding of
how certain cultures were able to mitigate their impacts or in which
contexts the impacts were exacerbated or what tipping points might
have looked like.
In addition to unchanging human impacts across time, cross-
cultural diversit y in human interactions with the environment is
also ignored. Diversity in local ecological knowledge of people
in all areas of the world and across all times must be considered
uniform. Anthropogenic impacts are often structured as a choice
between being inherently destructive and “noble savages” who are
The well- documented occurrence of prehistorical
overkill in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand,
Madagascar,O ceania, and elsewhere shouldput us
on notice that premodern indigenous people have not
always been exemplary stewards of biotic resources.
Terborgh (2000)
When hum an–environment i nteractio ns are viewed as f ixed and
unchanging, studying resilience and sustainable practices of modern
peoples can offer no solutions. However, like any other organism,
humans can destroy, modify, enhance, or preserve depending on
context. And there is an extensive continuum of human–environment
interactions that range from extinctions to sustainable coexistence
Nolan and Ahmed 2014). Archeological research on long- term rela-
tionships between humans and the environment and modern studies
of local ecological knowledge (LEK) examine how cultural practices
and institutions can mitigate environmental impact and result in sus-
tainability and resilience. In essence, human (phenotypic) diversity is
devalued when overkill is used to support a human–nature dichtomy,
resulting in the view that the past is a clone of the present. As such, it
is easy to deny a role in environmental and conser vation discussions to
any research areas that study human–environment interactions across
time and space.
Thus, there are many reasons why overkill is problematic as a
source for ecological explanations. Overkill remains hotly contested,
and its use highlight s two problems for conservation and management.
First, conservation research is not maximizing its interdisciplinary po-
tential even though it has been touted as multidisciplinary from its in-
ception (Soulé,1985).Thecitationpatterns inthisstudy suggestthat
communication between researchers publishing on environmental re-
search in the ecological and social sciences literature may be limited.
However, archeology and other social science disciplines provide the
source data to the human side of human–environment relationships
(Briggsetal.,20 06;Erlandson& Braje,2013; Lane,2015; Rick,Kirch,
Erlandson, & Fit zpatrick, 2013). In addition, archeology also contrib-
utes to paleoecology in similar ways as paleontology (e.g., Grayson,
1993,2015; Lyman, 2012), but this areaof researchmaybelesswell
known simply because archeology is classified as a social science or
because of methodological differences between the disciplines.
Second,whenoverkill is used to extendlarge-scale anthropo-
genic impacts back into the deep past, it homogenizes these im-
pacts across time and space. Human impacts become monolithic
and always catastrophic. However, even if overkill is demonstrated
to have been the cause of Pleistocene megafauna extinctions,
there are alternative ways of using this information. These extinc-
tions could be used as one data point in millennia of different “ex-
periments” of humans interacting with the environment. Thus, the
focus would be on documenting the variability of anthropogenic
impacts to understand when human actions are more sustainable
versus more destructive. That some researchers default to treating
human actions as inherently destructive indicates a core belief that
humans are beyond nature and that nature, thus, needs to be pro-
tec ted(Callicott,C rowder,&Mumford ,1999).Thisisaninteresting
conundrum for environmental researchers. The logical extension
is that if human–environment interactions are uniform, then not
only were human impac ts similar in the past, but future restoration
and management are futile. If this belief is deeply embedded and
if overkill as an explanation for extinctions is disproven, then the
likelihood is that these researchers may look for another similar ex-
rather than shift the focus to understanding how people in their
diverse cultural, social, political, and historical contexts impact
Understanding Late Quaternary extinctions has long been an im-
portant, but often polarizing area of study and considerable debate
remains.Whileour focushas been onissues with theoverkillmodel,
particularly as they relate to interdisciplinary scientific communication,
there have also been important critiques levied against the climate
change model (see Bartlet t etal., 2016).Some researchers inarche-
ology, Quaternary sciences, and ecology are focused on multicausal
explanations for Late Quaternary extinctions, with humans often
seen as the final tipping point on already dwindling megafauna pop-
ulations (seeBarnosky etal., 20 04; Boulanger & Lyman, 2014;Braje
step for future research on Late Quaternary extinctions, particularly
as applied to conservation, as well as for researchers working on other
highly interdisciplinary topics will be for scholars to read, critically
evaluate, and cite material on the topic across the varied fields that are
investigating this important area of interdisciplinary study.
None declared.
L.N. collected and analyzed the data. All authors contributed to the
Lisa Nagaoka
Torben Rick
Agenb road, L. D. (20 05). North A merican Pr oboscidean s: Mammoths:
The state of Knowledge, 2003. Quaternary International, 126, 73–92.
Anderson, E. N. (2010). The Pursuit of Ecotopia: Lessons from indigenous
and traditional societies for the human ecology of our m odern world.
Autin, W. J. (2016). Multiple dichotomies of the Anthropocene.
The Anthropocene Review, 3, 218–230. https://doi.
org/10.117 7/20 53 0196166 46133
Ba r n osk y,A . D. , Ko c h ,P. L .,F era n e c,R . S ., W ing , S .L . ,&S h abe l ,A .B . (2 0 0 4 ).
Assessing the causes of Late Pleistocene extinctions on the conti-
nents. Science, 306,70–75.
Eriksson, A., … Manica, A. (2016). Robustness despite uncertainty:
Regional climate dat a reveal the dominant role of humans in explain-
ing global extinctions of Late Quaternary megafauna. Ecography, 39,
Blondel, J. (2008). On humans and wildlife in Mediterranean is-
lands. Journal of Biogeography, 35, 509–518. https://doi.
org /10.1111/j.1365 -2699.2007.01819.x
Blumstein, D. T. (2006). The multipredator hy pothesis and the evolu-
tionary persistence of antipredator behavior. Ethology, 112, 209–217.
Boivin, N. L., Zeder, M. A., Fuller, D. Q., Crowther, A., Larson, G .,
Erlandson,J. M.,…Petraglia,M.D.(2016).Ecologicalconsequences
of human niche construction: Examining long- term anthropogenic
shaping of global species distributions. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 638 8–6396.
htt ps:// /10.1073/p nas.152520 0113
Boulanger, M., & Lyman, R. (2014). Northeastern North American
Pleistocene megafauna chronologically overlapped minimally with
Paleoindians. Quaternary Science Reviews, 85, 35–46. https://doi.
Braje, T. J., & Erlandson, J. M. (2013a). Looking for ward, looking
back: Humans, anthropogenic change, and the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene, 4, 116–121.
plant extinctions: A late Pleistocene, Holocene, and Anthropocene
continuum. Anthropocene, 4, 14–23. ht tps://doi.o rg/10 .1016/j.
Briggs, J. M., Spielmann, K. A., Schaafsma, H., Kintigh, K. W.,
Kruse, M., Morehouse, K ., & Schollmeyer, K. (20 06). Why ecol-
ogy needs archaeologists and archaeology needs ecologists.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 180–188. https://doi.
Brown, J. H ., & McDonal d, W. (1997).H istorica l and cultur al persp ec-
tives on gr azing: Reply. Conservation Biology, 11, 270–272. https:// /10.10 46/j.1523-1739.1997.96308.x
Burney, D. A ., & Flanner y,T. F. (2005). Fi fty mille nnia of catas trophic
extinctions after human contact. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20,
Callicott,J.B.,Crowder,L .B., &Mumford,K .(1999).Currentnormative
concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology, 13, 22–35. htt ps:// /10.10 46/j.1523-1739.1999.97333.x
Cannon, M. D., & Meltzer, D. J. (200 4). Early Paleoindian foraging:
Examining the faunal evidence for large mammal specialization and
regional variability in prey choice. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23,
Canno n, M. D., & Meltze r, D. J. (200 8). Explainin g variabilit y in Early
Paleoindian foraging. Quaternary International, 191,5–17.https://doi.
org/doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2008.03.002
Channell, R., & Lomolino, M. V. (2000). Trajectories to extinction:
Spatial dynamics of the contraction of geographical ranges.
Journal of Biogeography, 27, 169–179. htt ps: //doi.o rg/10.10 46/j.
Cox, J.G., &Lima, S. L. (20 06).Naivete and an aquatic-terrestrialdi-
chotomy in the effec ts of introduced predator s. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution, 21, 674–680.
Crutzen, P.J. (2002).Geolog yofmankind.Nature, 41 5, 23. ht tps://doi.
Di Febbraro, M., Carotenuto, F., Castiglione, S., Russo, D., Loy, A.,
Survival and nichewidth in LatePleistocene megafauna. Journal of
Biogeography, 44, 2828–2838. ht tps://
Diamond, J. M. (2011).Collapse: How societie s choose to fail or succeed.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Dillehay,T.D.,G oodbred,S.,Pino,M.,VásquezSánchez,V.F.,Tham,T.R.,
Adovasio, J.,…Velchof f,N. (2017).Simple technologies anddiverse
food strategies of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene at Huaca
Prieta , Coastal Peru. Science Advances, 3, e1602778.
Doak, D. F., Bakke r,V. J., Gol dstein, B . E., & Hale, B . (2014a). What is
the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 77–81.
   NAGAOKA et Al .
Doak, D. F., Bakke r,V. J., Gol dstein, B. E ., & Hale, B. ( 2014b). Moving
forward with effective goals and methods for conser vation: A reply
toMarvier and Kareiva. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 132–133.
Donlan, C. J. (2007). Restoring America’s big, wild animals.
Scientific American, 296, 70–77. https://doi.or g/10.10 38/
Donlan , C. J., Berg er,J. , Bock, C. E ., Bock, J. H ., Burney, D. A., E stes,
J.A., … Greene, H.W.(20 06). Pleistocenerewilding: An optimistic
agenda for twenty- first century conservation. American Naturalist,
168, 660–681.
tween the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate the f irst
human induced global warming? Geophysical Research Letters, 37,
L15703.http s:// 04 3985
Ellis, E. (2018). The anthropocene: A very short introduction. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. ht tps://
actr ade/978 0198792987.001.00 01
Anthropocene, 4,1–7.
Erlandson, J. M., Rick, T. C., Br aje, T. J., Casperson, M., Culleton,
B., Fulfro st, B., … Wil lis, L. (2011). Pale ocoastal s eafaring, m ari-
time technologies, and coastal foraging on California’s Channel
Islands. Science, 331, 1181–1185.  https ://doi.or g/10 .1126/
continental Africa. Earth- Science Reviews, 128,105–121.https://doi.
Faith, J. T., & Surove ll, T.A . (2009). Syn chronous ex tinction of N orth
America’sPleistocenemammals.Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science s of the United States of Am erica, 106,2064120645.https://
Fernández,N.,Navarro,L.M.,&Pereira,H. M.(2017).Rewilding: Acall
for boosting ecological complexity in conservation. Conservation
Letter s, 10, 276–278.
andMeltzer ’s“Requiemforoverkill”.Journal of Archaeological Science,
31, 121–131.
Glikson, A. (2013). Fire and human evolution: The deep- time blue-
prints of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 3, 89–92. https://doi.
Grayson, D. K. (1984a). Archaeological associations with ex tinct
Pleistocene mammals in Nor th America. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 11, 213–221.
&R.G.Klein(Eds.),Quaternary extinctions(pp.807–823).Tucson,AZ:
University of Arizona.
Grayson, D. K. (1993). The desert’s past: A natural prehistory of the great
Grayson, D. K. (20 01). The archaeological record of human impacts on
animal populations. Journal of World Prehistory, 15, 1–67. https://doi.
org /10.1023/A :1011165119141
Grayson, D. K. (20 07). Deciphering North American Pleis tocene ex tinc-
tions. Journal of Anthropological Research, 63,185–213. https://doi.
org /10.3998/jar.05210 04.0 063.2 05
Grayso n, D. K. (2015). Giant sloths and sabertooth cates: Extinct mam-
mals and the archaeology of the ice age great basin.SaltLakeCity,UT:
University of Utah.
Grayso n, D. K., & Alr oy,J. (20 01). Did huma n hunting ca use mass ex-
tinction? Science, 294, 1459–1462. ht tps:// /10.11 26/
Grayson, D.K., & Meltzer, D.J. (2002).Clovis hunting and large mam-
mal extinction: A critical review of the evidence. Journal of World
Prehistory, 16,313–359.
Grayson,D.K ., & Meltzer,D. J. (2003). ArequiemforNorth American
overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 585–593. htt ps://doi.
Grayso n, D. K., & Melt zer,D. J . (2004). Nor th Ameri can overkill co n-
tinued? Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 133–136. ht tps://doi.
Grayson,D.K.,& Meltzer,D.J. (2015). Revisiting Paleoindian exploita-
tion of extinct North American mammals. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 56,177–193.
Haynes, C. V. (1964). Fluted projectile points: Their age and dis-
persion. Science, 145 , 1408–1413. /10.1126/
Haynes, G. (2007). A review of some attacks on the overkill hypothe-
sis, with special, attention to misrepresent ations and doubletalk.
Quaternary International, 169, 84 –94. ht tps ://
quaint.2006.07.0 02
Haynes,G.(2013).ExtinctionsinNor thAmerica’sLateGlaciallandscapes.
Quaternary International, 285, 89–98. https: //
Hill, M.E.,Hill, M. G., &Widga, C. C. (2008).Late Quaternary Bison
diminution on the Great Plains of North America: Evaluating the
role of human hunting versus climate change. Quaternary Science
Reviews, 27,1752–1771.https://doi.or g/10.1016/j.quascir ev.2008.
07. 0 0 2
Kareiv a, P. ( 2014).N ew conserva tion: Settin g the record str aight and
finding common ground. Conservation Biology, 28, 634–636. https://
doi .or g/10.1111/co bi.122 95
Kareiv a, P., & M arvier, M. (2011). Conservation science: Balancing the
needs of people and nature. Gre enwood Village, CO : Roberts and
Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science?
BioScience, 62,962–969. /10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
Kil tie,R .A .(198 4).Sea sonality,ges ta tio ntime,an dla rgemam malex tinc-
tions. InP.S.Martin &R.G .Klein(Eds.), Quaternary extinctions (pp.
Koch, P. L., & Barnosky, A. D. (2006). Late quaternar y extinctions:
State of the debate. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 37, 215–250.
and the conservation of desert springs. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 5,549–553.
Kolbert, E. (2014). The sixth extinction: A n unnatural history. New York,
NY: Henry Holt.
Lane, P.J. (2015).Archaeology in theageof theAnthropocene: A crit-
ical assessment of its scope and societal contributions. Journal of
Field Archaeology, 40, 4 85–498.
Lewis,S.L.,&Maslin,M .A.(2015).DefiningtheAnthropocene.Nature,
519,171–180.ht tps://
Lima-Ribeiro, M. S., &Diniz-Filho,J. A.F.(2013).Americanmegafaunal
extinctions and human arrival: Improved evaluation using a meta-
analytical approach. Quaternary International, 299, 38–52. https://
Lima-Ri beiro, M. S ., & Diniz-Filh o, J. A. F. (2014). Obstin ate overkill i n
Tasmania? The closest gaps do not probabilistically support human
involvement in megafaunal extinctions. Earth- Science Reviews, 135,
Lima-Ribeiro,M.S.,&Diniz-Filho,J.A .F.(2017).Climatechange,human
overkill, and the ex tinction of megafauna: A macroecological ap-
proach based on pattern- oriented modelling. Evolutionary Ecology
Research, 18, 9 7–1 21 .
Lyman, R. L . (2012). A warrant for applied palaeozoology. Biological
Reviews, 87, 513–525.
Martin, P. S. (1958). Pleistocene ecology and biogeography of North
America. In C. L. Hubbs (Ed.), Zoogeography (pp. 375–420).
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Martin,P.S.(1967a).Prehistoricoverkill.InP.S.Martin & H. E. Wright
(Eds.), Pleistocene extinctions, pp. 75–120. New Haven, C T: Yale
University Press.
Martin, P. S. (1967b). Africa and Pleistocene overkill. Nature, 212,
339–3 42.
Marti n, P.S. (1973). The di scovery of Am erica. Science, 179, 969–974.
& R. G. K lein (Eds.), Quaternary extinctions (pp. 354–4 03). Tucson,
Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 82, 187–201.
Martin, P.S., & Klein, R.G. (1984). Quaternary extinctions: A prehistoric
revolution.Tucson,A Z:UniversityofArizonaPress.
Marvier, M., & Kareiva, P. (2014). The evidence and values underly-
ing ‘newconser vation’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 131–132.
McCau ley,D. J ., Hardesty- Moore, M., Hal pern, B. S., Young, H . S., &
Seddon,P.(2017).Amammothunder taking:Harnessinginsightfrom
functional ecology to shape de- extinction priority setting. Functional
Ecology, 31,1003–1011.
Meltzer, D. J. (1986). Pleistocene overkill and the associational cri-
tique. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13, 5160. https://doi.
Meltzer,D.J. (2015). Pleistoceneoverkilland NorthAmericanmamma-
lian extinctions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44,33–53. https://
Miller,B.,Soulé,M.E.,& Terborgh,J.(2014).‘Newconservation’orsur-
render to development? Animal Conservation, 17, 509–515.ht tps://
American Scientist, 63, 303–316.
Nagaoka, L. (2012). The overkill hypothesis and conservation biology. In
S. Wolverton & R. L.Lyman (Eds.), Conservation biology and applied
paleozoology(pp.110–138).Tucson,A Z:UniversityofArizonaPress.
Nogues-Bravo, D., Rodiguez, J., Hortal, J., Batra, P., & Araujo, M. B.
(2008). Climate change, humans, and the extinction of the woolly
mammoth. Plos Biology, 6,685–692.
Nogués- Bravo, D., Simbe rloff, D., Rahb ek, C., & Sa nders, N. J . (2016).
RewildingisthenewPandora’sboxin conser vation.Current Biolog y,
26,R87–R91. 44
Oliveir a-Santos, L . G. R., & Fern andez, F. A. S. (2 010). Pleistoce ne re-
wilding, Frankenstein ecosystems, and an alternative conservation
agenda. Conservation Biology, 24,4–5.
Penn, D. J., & Mysterud, I. (2017). Introduc tion: The evolutionary
roots of o ur ecologic al crisis. In D. J. P enn & I. Myste rud (Eds.),
Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Perrin g, M. P.,St andish , R. J., Pric e, J. N., Cra ig, M. D., Eric kson, T. E.,
Ruthrof, K. X.,…Hobbs, R. J. (2015). Advances in restorationecol-
ogy: Rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere, 6,
Prescott,G.W.,Williams,D.R.,Balmford,A.,Green,R.E.,&Manic a,A .
(2012). Quantitative global analysis of the role of climate and people
in explaining late Quaternary megafaunal extinctions. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109,
4527–4531. .1113875109
Richmo nd, O. M. W., McEntee, J . P., H ijmans, R. J ., & Brashare s, J. S.
(2010). Is the climate right for Pleistocene rewilding? Using species
distribution models to ex trapolate climatic suitability for mammals
across continents. PLoS One, 5, e12899.
Rick, T. C., K irch, P. V., Erlandson, J. M., & Fitzpatr ick, S. M. (2013).
Archeology, deep history, and the human transformation of island
ecosystems. Anthropocene, 4, 33–45.
Rick,T.C.,Reeder-Myers, L.A .,Breitburg,D.,Lockwood,R.,Hofman,
C. A., Henkes, G ., … Hines, A. H. (2016). Millennial-scale sus-
tainability of the Chesapeake Bay Native American oys ter fish-
er y. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 113, 6568–6573.
Rosvall , M., & Bergs trom, C. T. (2011). Mul tilevel comp ression of ran -
dom walks on networks reveals hierarchical organization in large
integrated systems. PLoS One, 6, e18209. ht tps://doi.o rg/10.1371/
Rubenstein, D. R.,&Rubenstein, D. I. (2016).FromPleistocene to tro-
phicrewilding:Awolfinsheep’sclothing.Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, E1–E1.
htt ps:// /10.1073/p nas.1521757113
Ruddiman, W. F. (2013). The Anthropocene. Annual Review of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, 41, 45–68.
Sandom , C., Faurby, S., Sandel, B., & Svenning, J. (2014). Global late
Quaternary megafauna extinc tions linked to humans, not climate
change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281,20133254. https:// /10.1098/rsp b.2 013. 3254
Sherkow, J.S.,& Greely,H. T.(2013). What ifextinc tion isnotforever?
Science, 340,32–33.
Smith, F.A., Elliot tSmith,R.E.,Lyons,S. K., &Payne,J. L. (2018).Body
size downgr ading of mammals over the late Quaternar y. Science, 360,
Smith, B . D., & Zeder, M. A. (2013). T he onset of the Ant hropocene.
Anthropocene, 4, 8–13. /10.1016/j.
Soulé, M. (2013). The “New Conservation” Conservation Biology, 27,
Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35,
72 7–7 3 4 .
So u ,M. E., &Te rbo r gh ,J. (19 99).C on s erv i ng nat ure at reg io n al and co n -
tinental scales—a scientific program for North America. BioScience,
49,809–817.ht tps://
Steadman,D.W.,&Mar tin,P.S.(2003).ThelateQuaternaryextinctionand
future resurrection of birds on Pacific Islands. Earth Science Reviews,
61,133–147. /10.1016/S0012-8252(02)0 0116-2
Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The
Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society a- Mathematical Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 369, 842–867.
Surovell, T. A., & Grund, B. S. (2012). The associational critique of
Quaternary overkill and why it is largely irrelevant to the ex-
tinction debate. American Antiquity, 77, 672–687. https://doi.
org/10.7183/0 002-7316.77.4.672
Surovell, T. A., & Waguespack, N. M. (2008). How many elephant
kills are 14? Clovis mammoth and mastodon kills in context .
Quaternary International, 191 , 82–97. http s:// /10.1016/j.
quaint.20 07.12.001
Su rov ell ,T., Wa gue s pa c k,N .,&Br a nt i ngh am, P.J .( 2 005 ).G lob ala rch aeo -
logical evidence for proboscidean overkill. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 6231–6236.
htt ps:// /10.1073/p nas.0501947102
Svenning,J.-C .,Pedersen, P.B. M., Donlan,C. J., Ejrnæs,R., Faurby,S.,
Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research.
   NAGAOKA et Al .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Scien ces of the United States of
America, 113,898–906.
Terborgh, J. (2000). The fate of tropical forests: A matter of stew-
ardship. Conservation Biology, 14, 1358–1361. https://doi.
org /10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.0 0136.x
Trombulak, S. C., Omland, K. S.,Robinson, J. A., Lusk, J. J., Fleischner,
T. L., Brown, G ., & Domroese , M. (2004). Prin ciples of conser va-
tion biology: Recommended guidelines for conservation literacy
from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation
Biology. Conservation Biology, 18, 1180–1190. https://doi.
org /10.1111/j.1523-1739.200 4.01851. x
conservation. Human Ecology, 34,475–478.
Wheat, A. D. (2012). Survey of professional opinions regarding the
Peopling of the Americas. SA A Archaeological Record, 12, 1 0 –14 .
Widga, C., Leng yel, S. N., Saun ders, J., Hodgin s, G., Walker, J. D., &
dynamicsintheNorthAmericanMidcontinent.Boreas, 46, 772–782.
https://doi. org/10.1111/b or.12 235
Wilson,E.O. (1992).T he diversity of life. New York, NY:WWNorton&
Wolverto n, S., Nola n, J. M., & Ah med, W. (2014). Ethnobi ology, polit i-
cal ecology, and conservation. Journal of Ethnobiology, 34,125–152.
Wolverton, S. (2010). Biodiversity let ter: The North American
Pleistocene overkill hypothesis and the re- wilding de-
bate. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 874–876. https://doi.
org /10.1111/j.1472-4 642. 2010 .0 06 86.x
Wroe, S., F ield, J., Fulla gar, R., & Jermi n, L. S. (20 04). Megaf aunal ex-
tinction in the late Quaternary and the global overkill hypothesis.
Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontolog y, 28, 291–331.
htt ps:// /10.1080/0311551040861928 6
Wroe, S., Field, J., & Grayson, D. K. (2006). Megafaunal extinction:
Climate, humans and assumptions. Trends in Ecolog y & Evolution, 21,
Zalasiewicz,J.,Waters,C.N .,Williams,M.,Barnosky,A.D.,Cearreta,A .,
A mid- twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal.
Quaternary International, 383, 196–203. /10.1016/j.
Zalasiewicz, J.,Williams,M., Smith,A.,Barry,T.L.,Coe,A.L.,Brown,P.
R.,…Stone,P.(2008).Arewenowlivingin theAnthropocene?G SA
Tod ay, 18 ,4–8.
How to cite this article:NagaokaL ,RickT,WolvertonS.The
overkill model and it s impact on environmental research. Ecol
Evol. 2018;00:1–14.
... In the 1960s, radiocarbon dating revealed that the North American extinctions had occurred at a time when humans were arriving to and dispersing throughout the continent. The seeming contemporaneity of North American large mammal disappearances and human appearance events led researchers to hypothesize causal linkages between them (Alroy, 2001;Martin, 1973;Mosimann & Martin, 1975;Nagaoka et al., 2018;Surovell & Waguespack, 2008). Evidence from the archaeological record suggests that some Late Pleistocene people may have hunted large mammals or scavenged their remains (Brunswig & Pitblado, 2007;Figgins, 1933;Grayson & Meltzer, 2002;Haury, 1956). ...
Full-text available
Toward the end of the Pleistocene, the world experienced a mass extinction of megafauna. In North America these included its proboscideans—the mammoths and mastodons. Researchers in conservation biology, paleontology, and archaeology have debated the role played by human predation in these extinctions. They point to traces of human butchery, such as cut marks and other bone surface modifications (BSM), as evidence of human-animal interactions—including predation and scavenging, between early Americans and proboscideans. However, others have challenged the validity of the butchery evidence observed on several proboscidean assemblages, largely due to questions of qualitative determination of the agent responsible for creating BSM. This study employs a statistical technique that relies on three-dimensional (3D) imaging data and 3D geometric morphometrics to determine the origin of the BSM observed on the skeletal remains of the Bowser Road mastodon (BR mastodon), excavated in Middletown, New York. These techniques have been shown to have high accuracy in identifying and distinguishing among different types of BSM. To better characterize the BSM on the BR mastodon, we compared them quantitatively to experimental BSM resulting from a stone tool chopping experiment using “Arnold,” the force-calibrated chopper. This study suggests that BSM on the BR mastodon are not consistent with the BSM generated by the experimental chopper. Future controlled experiments will compare other types of BSM to those on BR. This research contributes to continued efforts to decrease the uncertainty surrounding human-megafauna associations at the level of the archaeological site and faunal assemblage—specifically that of the BR mastodon assemblage. Consequently, we also contribute to the dialogue surrounding the character of the human-animal interactions between early Americans and Late Pleistocene megafauna, and the role of human foraging behavior in the latter’s extinction.
... As noted above, 'there is little archaeological evidence' for 'direct association between people and megafauna' (such as evidence of hunting, butchering, or cooking on bones). 72 Martin's thesis sought to explain the lack of evidence (and indeed, relied upon it), yet this twist has been extensively criticised. As Standing Rock Sioux historian Vine Deloria Jr. argued, 'If you can't test the thesis because there is no evidence, why does it still qualify as a thesis?' 73 Other criticisms are that human settlement of the Americas predates the Clovis culture and that there is decent evidence that many North American Pleistocene megafauna actually went extinct before human arrival. ...
The 2019–20 bushfires which ravaged Australia have intensified interest in Indigenous burning practices and their contribution to contemporary Australian land management. This recent interest builds upon a base established by Indigenous activism and well-circulated academic works which propose ‘Grand Unified Theories’ to explain the pre-European impact of Indigenous peoples upon environments. In this paper, I critique these theories as reliant upon binaries which either underemphasise or overemphasise impact. Just over a decade since its publication, it is timely to re-examine Bill Gammage’s The Biggest Estate on Earth and its influence upon policy and environments. Gammage’s model shares significant features with earlier popular works depicting Indigenous environmental impacts. Numerous theories incorporating ideas of overhunting have been proposed to explain the rough correlation of human arrival and the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna in Australia and North America. These Grand Unified Theories were shaped by similar tropes; they were all proposed with an eye to the present, and they have all influenced contemporary politics. I present an alternative model for conceptualising Indigenous environmental relationships that will work to advance understandings while minimising harmful repercussions and avoiding undermining Indigenous aspirations.
... It is hypothesized that during this period, human hunters were responsible for the massive extinction events and habitat destruction as they spread from Africa to other continents (Faith, 2014;Martin, 1967). However, the role played by humans in the late Pleistocene extinction events is still debated (Nagaoka et al., 2018). ...
Full-text available
Hunting wild African harlequin quails (Coturnix delegorguei delegorguei) using traditional methods in Western Kenya has been ongoing for generations, yet their genetic diversity and evolutionary history are largely unknown. In this study, the genetic variation and demographic history of wild African harlequin quails were assessed using a 347bp mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region fragment and 119,339 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) data. Genetic diversity analyses revealed that the genetic variation in wild African harlequin quails was predominantly among individuals than populations. Demographic analyses indicated a signal of rapid demographic expansion, and the estimated time since population expansion was found to be 150,000–350,000 years ago, corresponding to around the Pliocene–Pleistocene boundary. A gradual decline in their effective population size was also observed, which raised concerns about their conservation status. These results provide the first account of the genetic diversity of wild African harlequin quails of Siaya, thereby creating a helpful foundation in their biodiversity conservation.
... In the Americas, the late Pleistocene extinction of megafauna was severe and occurred at the same time of significant climate changes and human colonization, so the debate on the causes of extinction has been more controversial and persistent than in other continents. While the role of humans versus climate and other causes has been debated for almost 50 years in North America [14][15][16][17], few researchers, especially among archeologists, considered that humans had played a major role in South America until relatively recently (reviewed by [18]). This view has shifted in recent years, mainly due to paleoecological and paleontological studies increasingly assigning a possible major role to humans and concluding that more than one factor may be responsible for most extinctions [6,11,18]. ...
Full-text available
Humans arrived in the Patagonia region of southern South America in the late Pleistocene period, ca. 15,000 years ago. A few centuries later, during a period of rapid warming, the megafauna went extinct in Patagonia, as well as some smaller species, like the guanaco (Lama guanicoe), in the southern portion of the region. As in other regions, extinctions probably occurred due to a combination of effects of climate and direct and indirect impacts of humans on wildlife communities. We reviewed recent archeological and genetic-based discoveries about numbers and distributions of humans and wildlife and their early interactions and used them to draw lessons for current debates among managers and scientists. Recent discoveries, for example, help us understand (1) the population limitation mechanisms and other interactions involving guanacos, livestock, forage, predators, and scavengers; (2) the magnitude of wildlife movements and the need for landscape-level planning for conservation; (3) the importance of indirect effects of human activities on wildlife communities; and (4) the compounded effects of human activities and climate change on wildlife. We believe these lessons drawn from deep time and recent history can help define new priorities for research and management and inform our conservation vision for the 21st century, a period when dramatic climate change impacts will add challenges to a region subject to a century of overgrazing and other anthropogenic pressures.
... The most rapid Pleistocene mammal decline occurred at the end of the Pleistocene (roughly between fifty and ten thousand years ago) with the so-called Late Pleistocene-Holocene megafaunal extinction (LPHME), which involved terrestrial large mammals of all continents, causing the disappearance of nearly 90% of genera and 85% of species weighing more than 44 kg (88% of genera (14 genera) in Australia, 83% (48) in South America, 72% (28) in North America, 35% (4) in Eurasia, and 21% (7) in Africa) [60]. The cause of the late Quaternary extinctions has been a contentious matter and still remains a highly debated issue, e.g., [61][62][63][64][65][66][67] and references in those papers. Among the various hypotheses proposed to explain LPHME (overkilling, anthropogenic introduced diseases and predators, megadrought, extraterrestrial impacts, habitat loss, altered plant-animal equilibrium, and so on), the most debated are the two counterpoised hypotheses that consider climate changes and human hunting as the most likely drivers of this timetransgressive global extinction. ...
Full-text available
Extinction of species has been a recurrent phenomenon in the history of our planet, but it was generally outweighed in the course of quite a long geological time by the appearance of new species, except, especially, for the five geologically short times when the so-called “Big Five” mass extinctions occurred. Could the current decline in biodiversity be considered as a signal of an ongoing, human-driven sixth mass extinction? This note briefly examines some issues related to: (i) The hypothesized current extinction rate and the magnitude of contemporary global biodiversity loss; (ii) the challenges of comparing them to the background extinction rate and the magnitude of the past Big Five mass extinction events; (iii) briefly considering the effects of the main anthropogenic stressors on ecosystems, including the risk of the emergence of pandemic diseases. A comparison between the Pleistocene fauna dynamics with the present defaunation process and the cascading effects of recent anthropogenic actions on ecosystem structure and functioning suggests that habitat degradation, ecosystem fragmentation, and alien species introduction are important stressors increasing the negative impact on biodiversity exerted by anthropogenic-driven climate changes and their connected effects. In addition, anthropogenic ecological stressors such as urbanization, landscapes, and wildlife trade, creating new opportunities for virus transmission by augmenting human contact with wild species, are among the main factors triggering pandemic diseases.
Chapter 3: Reviews the history of wildlife management in North America, from American Indians through the development of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model in the late nineteenth century, and surveys the interplay between biology, ecology, markets, range, and population size of a dozen important types of wild animals. The key takeaway is that common pool problems, especially when combined with species-specific characteristics, like herding and flocking behaviors, that render human predation particularly inexpensive endanger wild game populations far more than the scientifically managed commercialization of their flesh does.KeywordsNorth American Wildlife Conservation ModelScientific wildlife managementGame animalsCauses of species extinctionCauses of local species extirpation/range reductionCommon pool problem
Ultrasocial argues that rather than environmental destruction and extreme inequality being due to human nature, they are the result of the adoption of agriculture by our ancestors. Human economy has become an ultrasocial superorganism (similar to an ant or termite colony), with the requirements of superorganism taking precedence over the individuals within it. Human society is now an autonomous, highly integrated network of technologies, institutions, and belief systems dedicated to the expansion of economic production. Recognizing this allows a radically new interpretation of free market and neoliberal ideology which - far from advocating personal freedom - leads to sacrificing the well-being of individuals for the benefit of the global market. Ultrasocial is a fascinating exploration of what this means for the future direction of the humanity: can we forge a better, more egalitarian, and sustainable future by changing this socio-economic - and ultimately destructive - path? Gowdy explores how this might be achieved.
Ultrasocial argues that rather than environmental destruction and extreme inequality being due to human nature, they are the result of the adoption of agriculture by our ancestors. Human economy has become an ultrasocial superorganism (similar to an ant or termite colony), with the requirements of superorganism taking precedence over the individuals within it. Human society is now an autonomous, highly integrated network of technologies, institutions, and belief systems dedicated to the expansion of economic production. Recognizing this allows a radically new interpretation of free market and neoliberal ideology which - far from advocating personal freedom - leads to sacrificing the well-being of individuals for the benefit of the global market. Ultrasocial is a fascinating exploration of what this means for the future direction of the humanity: can we forge a better, more egalitarian, and sustainable future by changing this socio-economic - and ultimately destructive - path? Gowdy explores how this might be achieved.
The Associational Critique posits that extinct megafauna are scarce in North American late Pleistocene archaeological contexts, contrary to expectations of the overkill hypothesis. In an analysis focusing on the period of overlap between humans and megafauna, we revealed that no such underrepresentation of extinct taxa in kill/scavenging sites exists. Instead, we found a single positive trend between paleontological and archaeological occurrences for all megafauna taxa—extinct and extant—a pattern that is consistent with expectations from the prey model of foraging theory (Wolfe and Broughton, 2020). Grayson et al. (2021), while agreeing that such equated timescales should be used, question certain aspects of our analysis and use new datasets to reaffirm the premise of the Associational Critique. However, their analysis is problematic, as they use different criteria to assemble archaeological records for extant and extinct megafauna—more strict for the latter, thereby inflating the archaeological abundance of extant taxa. More critically, by using archaeological and paleontological data that align in time and space, there is no logical warrant for their argument that extinct forms should be underrepresented in kill/scavenging contexts because they “had either already disappeared or were much reduced in abundance by the time people arrived on the landscape” (Grayson et al., 2021). Using archaeological datasets that were assembled using the same stringent criteria and further refined timescales, we again find no support for such an underrepresentation nor the Associational Critique.
Full-text available
Megafaunal loss Today, it is well known that human activities put larger animals at greater risk of extinction. Such targeting of the largest species is not new, however. Smith et al. show that biased loss of large-bodied mammal species from ecosystems is a signature of human impacts that has been following hominin migrations since the Pleistocene. If the current trend continues, terrestrial mammal body sizes will become smaller than they have been over the past 45 million years. Megafaunal mammals have a major impact on the structure of ecosystems, so their loss could be particularly damaging. Science , this issue p. 310
Full-text available
Humanity’s impact on the planet has been profound. From fire, intensive hunting, and agriculture, it has accelerated into rapid climate change, widespread pollution, plastic accumulation, species invasions, and the mass extinction of species—changes that have left a permanent mark in the geological record of the rocks. Yet the proposal for a new unit of geological time—the Anthropocene Epoch—has raised debate far beyond the scientific community. The Anthropocene has emerged as a powerful new narrative of the relationship between humans and nature. Anthropocene: A Very Short Introduction draws on the work of geologists, geographers, environmental scientists, archaeologists, and humanities scholars to explain the science and wider implications of the Anthropocene.
Full-text available
Rewilding has emerged as an audacious conservation approach aiming atrestoring wild species interactions and their regulation of ecosystem processesby focusing on the key role of species that have been extensively extirpated byhumans. Rewilding has gained increasing attention from scientists, conserva-tionists and the mass-media. Yet, it has raised highly divergent perspectives asto which ecological processes and species assemblages should be restored. Herewe argue that a pragmatic and immediate approach to rewilding unequivocallyfocused on preserving and restoring the structural and functional complexityof ecosystems must become a primary component of biodiversity conserva-tion. We propose a process-oriented formulation of the rewilding hypothesisas a general guide to assess the conservation benefits of reverting defaunation.Finally, we identify the need for a framework where the benefits, risks, andcosts of rewilding can be evaluated in relation to restoration baselines and theintensity of interventions required to achieve conservation goals.
Full-text available
Simple pebble tools, ephemeral cultural features, and the remains of maritime and terrestrial foods are present in undisturbed Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene deposits underneath a large human-made mound at Huaca Prieta and nearby sites on the Pacific coast of northern Peru. Radiocarbon ages indicate an intermittent human presence dated between ~15,000 and 8000 calendar years ago before the mound was built. The absence of fishhooks, harpoons, and bifacial stone tools suggests that technologies of gathering, trapping, clubbing, and exchange were used primarily to procure food resources along the shoreline and in estuarine wetlands and distant mountains. The stone artifacts are minimally worked unifacial stone tools characteristic of several areas of South America. Remains of avocado, bean, and possibly cultivated squash and chile pepper are also present, suggesting human transport and consumption. Our new findings emphasize an early coastal lifeway of diverse food procurement strategies that suggest detailed observation of resource availability in multiple environments and a knowledgeable economic organization, although technologies were simple and campsites were seemingly ephemeral and discontinuous. These findings raise questions about the pace of early human movement along some areas of the Pacific coast and the level of knowledge and technology required to exploit maritime and inland resources.
A fascinating study of the extinct Ice Age animals found in North America’s Great Basin.
Desert springs are fragile ecosystems that often harbor endemic species of fishes and other taxa. Historically, these springs experienced major disturbances from Pleistocene megafauna, aboriginal humans, and livestock. However, management practices to preserve and restore spring ecosystems and biota have led to the removal of livestock. We document changes in spring habitats and extinctions of fish populations due to management practices at two spring reserves: Ash Meadows in the southwestern United States and Dalhousie in central Australia. After springs were fenced and livestock removed, these ecosystems experienced increases in riparian vegetation, reduction of open-water habitat, and extinction of fish populations. Despite manual removal of vegetation to maintain open-water habitat, at least one pupfish population went extinct in Ash Meadows, and 18 populations, representing four of the five species native to desert springs in the Dalhousie reserve, also went extinct. To maintain the diversity of aquatic habitats and endemic biota, management of small desert springs must include substantial disturbance.
We sought to assess different megafaunal species responses to the intense climatic changes that characterized the end of the Quaternary. Eurasia. We used species distribution modelling, niche overlap tests and co-occurrence analysis to model climatic niche evolution and change in six different megafauna species, including three extinct (woolly mammoth, woolly rhino and steppe bison) and three extant (red deer, wolf and reindeer) species. Co-occurrence analysis indicates mammoth, rhino, reindeer and steppe bison to be significantly associated to each other in the fossil record in cold, arid environments. In contrast, red deer and wolf show no evidence for strong habitat requirements, although they both tended to be associated with more humid conditions than the other megafauna. Woolly mammoth and the woolly rhino were the best adapted to the cold, arid conditions dominating the Eurasian landscapes during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Extant species did not exhibit larger climatic niches than extinct species, but changed more from one period to the next than those of extinct species. Although they did not have wider climatic niches, and were the least adapted to cold climates, red deer and the wolf were able to withstand the harsh climatic conditions of the LGM. Conversely, the now extinct mammoth and woolly rhino did not survive the demise of the LGM environment. Although “cold-adapted”, reindeer survived the LGM by occupying a northerly distribution similar to today. Independent evidence indicates the steppe bison lineage might have survived in North America. Our data are consistent with a strong climatic control on the fate of late Quaternary megafauna species in Eurasia. We were unable to exclude a sizeable effect of human intervention by overhunting.
Background: The debate on Late Quaternary extinctions (LQE) has long been centred on the contrast between climatic and human-related explanations, with no consensus being reached. Here we propose a macroecological approach to study LQE that combines niche and demographic models to determine the ecological mechanisms behind the megafauna extinction. Question: Is the overkill hypothesis plausible and realistic when assessing the ecological mechanisms behind LQE? What is the range of population parameters for both human and now-extinct animals that is consistent with the actual extinction pattern? Features of model: Ecological niche models (ENMs) are used to assess climate impact on population viability, whereas density-dependent population models with reciprocal feedback between humans and their prey are used to simulate human hunting pressure. The feasibility of predicted extinction scenarios and explored parameter space is ordered based on a patternoriented modelling (POM) approach. We illustrate the usefulness of our framework using the extinct South American ground sloth Megatherium as an example. Methods: We built ENMs by using fossil occurrences records and palaeoclimatic simulations from the last glacial cycle and projected their predictions to the Holocene. Population modelling was based on 4000 random samples of ENM ensembles, from which prey density was estimated using a Gaussian central-peripheral abundance model. For each ensemble, a plausible range of demographic parameters (e.g. growth rate, carrying capacity, mortality of human population, meat consumption) was set across 100 random repetitions, giving 400,000 models simulating Megatherium's extinction dynamics. Results: The macroecological approach highlighted many plausible mechanistic extinction scenarios capable of reproducing a wide range of hypotheses about the LQE. Most models (51%) simulating a vigorous human population with unrealistic growth rates (rh > 1.3% per year) and intense over-exploitation of prey (individual meat-consumption-rate - CI > 100 g per day from one prey only) produced scenarios of rapid extinction as predicted by the overkill hypothesis. However, such overkill scenarios unrealistically predicted earlier extinction times than that observed for Megatherium. Moreover, the high human population growth required to simulate overkill scenarios was attained only recently after the industrial revolution, specifically in the mid-1900s, and it is therefore not applicable for Pleistocene hunter-gatherers. Conversely, although less frequent across simulations, models that correctly predicted the observed extinction time (16%) revealed plausible and empirically acceptable demographic parameters, encompassing low growth rates (rh < 0.70%) and mortality for the human population (mo < 0.60%), combined with moderate values of individual meat consumption (CI > 70 g) and geographical range collapse in Megatherium, which is produced by climate change. Conclusions: These findings, based on POM reasoning, highlight that unique mechanisms such as the overkill explanation for LQE, although feasible from model simulations, only occur with implausible parameter combinations and predict unrealistic extinction dynamics.