4.7 Article

Faunal record identifies Bering isthmus conditions as constraint to end-Pleistocene migration to the New World

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2167

关键词

ancient DNA; Beringia; Bering isthmus; Pleistocene; wapiti

资金

  1. NERC through the European Union [NE/G00269X/1]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council Arts and Humanities Research Council Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Dating Service [NF/2007/2/5]
  3. Marie Curie FP7 Framework [MC-ITN 215362 LeCHE]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G00269X/1, NE/G00188X/1, NRCF010002, NE/G005982/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [NE/G005982/1, NRCF010002, NE/G00269X/1, NE/G00188X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human colonization of the New World is generally believed to have entailed migrations from Siberia across the Bering isthmus. However, the limited archaeological record of these migrations means that details of the timing, cause and rate remain cryptic. Here, we have used a combination of ancient DNA, 14C dating, hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, and collagen sequencing to explore the colonization history of one of the few other large mammals to have successfully migrated into the Americas at this time: the North American elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis), also known as wapiti. We identify a long-term occupation of northeast Siberia, far beyond the species's current Old World distribution. Migration into North America occurred at the end of the last glaciation, while the northeast Siberian source population became extinct only within the last 500 years. This finding is congruent with a similar proposed delay in human colonization, inferred from modern human mitochondrial DNA, and suggestions that the Bering isthmus was not traversable during parts of the Late Pleistocene. Our data imply a fundamental constraint in crossing Beringia, placing limits on the age and mode of human settlement in the Americas, and further establish the utility of ancient DNA in palaeontological investigations of species histories.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据