Why the Shape of Continents Mattered Across 500 Million Years of Climate Change
New fossil evidence shows how geography influenced who survived Earth’s climate shifts
When most people picture extinction, they imagine something dramatic. An asteroid. A volcano. Ice sheets spreading across continents.
Those events matter. But for decades, we paleontologists have been asking a quieter question. Why do some species survive these events while others disappear?
It turns out the answer is rarely about a single cause. Extinction is not random. It follows patterns. And those patterns tell us something important about how life responds to change.
Long before a new study by Dr. Malanoski and collaborators was published in the journal Science, scientists already knew that extinction risk depends on a few consistent factors. Species with small geographic ranges tend to be more vulnerable. If you only live in one region and that region changes, you have fewer options. Species with broad temperature tolerance also tend to do better during climate shifts. If you can survive in warm and cool waters, you are less tied to one narrow band of conditions.
There is another factor that has been harder to test directly: geography itself.
Not just where species live, but how the continents are arranged. Think about that for a moment. Imagine the coastline of a continent that runs mostly north to south. If ocean temperatures shift toward the poles, a species can move along that coastline and stay within similar habitat conditions. The path is relatively direct.
Now imagine a coastline that runs mostly east to west. If temperatures shift toward the poles, moving north or south may require traveling long distances along curved or enclosed coastal routes. Sometimes there may not even be a continuous path. Inland seas, islands, or convoluted shorelines can complicate movement.
The idea is simple. Climate zones shift mainly in latitude. If geography makes it hard to move north or south, tracking your preferred climate becomes harder.
For years, this idea made intuitive sense. Models suggested it could matter. But testing it across hundreds of millions of years required detailed fossil data and reconstructions of ancient continents.
Marine fossils offer a good opportunity for this kind of question. Shallow marine invertebrates such as brachiopods, mollusks, and corals are well preserved in the fossil record. We can track where they lived and when they disappeared. We also have increasingly detailed reconstructions of where continents and coastlines were located through time.
The larger scientific question has been this: did the shape of ancient coastlines consistently influence extinction risk, especially during times of rapid climate change?
A recent study in Science adds important evidence to this story. The authors analyzed nearly 13,000 genera of shallow marine invertebrates across the entire Phanerozoic, which covers the past 540 million years. That span includes the so called Big Five mass extinctions and many intervals of climate warming and cooling.
Instead of focusing on species traits alone, they created a measure of how difficult it would have been for a marine genus to shift its range north or south along coastlines. They calculated the distance required to move five, ten, or fifteen degrees of latitude from any given coastal location, based on the geometry of ancient shorelines.
In plain terms, they asked: how far would a species have to travel along the coast to keep up with climate change?
The results were consistent across different tectonic reconstructions and statistical approaches. Genera that required longer coastal travel to shift latitude had higher extinction risk. Those that could not easily move north or south were significantly more likely to disappear.
This pattern became even stronger during mass extinctions and hyperthermal events, which are periods of rapid global warming. During background intervals, long dispersal distances increased extinction risk by a moderate amount. During major crises, the increase in risk was much larger.
That amplification matters. It suggests that geography becomes especially important when environmental change is fast and intense. When conditions shift gradually, species may have more time to adapt or move. When change accelerates, barriers imposed by coastline shape become more limiting.
The study also places this pattern in historical context. During the Paleozoic era, large inland seas covered parts of continents, and many coastlines ran east to west. The analysis shows that the average distances required to shift latitude were higher during some of these intervals. That configuration may have contributed to elevated extinction rates in parts of the early Paleozoic, alongside other known stressors such as changes in oxygen levels and climate.
It is important to be clear about scale. Coastline geometry was not the strongest predictor of extinction. Geographic range size still played a larger role. Thermal tolerance and temperature change also mattered. But coastline configuration consistently added explanatory power. It was not noise.
Why does this matter beyond reconstructing ancient patterns?
Because modern conservation science often assumes that connectivity influences resilience. We already know that fragmented habitats make it harder for species to shift ranges. This fossil evidence shows that the principle operates over deep time. The physical arrangement of land and sea influences the ability of species to track environmental change.
As someone who has spent years mapping fossil occurrences onto ancient continents, I find this result satisfying for a simple reason. It connects physical geography and biology in a measurable way. The rocks record not only who lived and died, but also how the planet’s shape structured their options.
When we look at a paleogeographic map in a classroom, it can feel abstract. Continents drift. Seas open and close. But those changes alter real pathways available to living organisms. A north-south coastline can function like an open corridor. An east-west interior sea can function like a trap.
The new study does not claim that geography alone determines extinction. It does not argue that every east-west coastline leads to disaster. It shows something more careful and more useful. Over hundreds of millions of years, the shape of continents consistently modulated extinction risk, and that effect intensified during rapid climate change.
That is a clear message. Geography sets boundary conditions. Climate imposes pressure. Biological traits influence response. Extinction patterns emerge from the interaction of all three.
When we return to the original question, why do some species survive while others disappear, the answer becomes more grounded. Survival depends not only on what a species is, but also on where it lives and how easily it can move when the world shifts around it.
The fossil record continues to refine that understanding. Each new dataset does not rewrite the story from scratch. Instead, it strengthens or adjusts the framework we already have. In this case, it reinforces a simple but powerful idea. The shape of the planet matters.
Thank you for supporting independent science writing.
Climate Ages has officially become a Substack Bestseller, and it’s thanks to a community of 100+ paid subscribers who believe science writing should stay careful, clear, and accessible.
If you enjoy my work and want to help me keep these stories free for everyone, I’d appreciate your support at any level that feels comfortable:
💡 $1/month or $10/year – A small boost with a big impact.
🌱 $2/month or $20/year – Supporting science communication.
🔬 $3/month or $30/year – Investing in evidence-based insights.
🌍 $4/month or $40/year – Expanding science for everyone.
🚀 $5/month or $50/year – Powering independent science writing.
Every contribution helps me continue creating content that makes science accessible, engaging, and impactful.
With Love,
Silvia P-M, PhD — Climate Ages
Fascinating! And it all makes sense. Could help those of us trying to protect species from extinction to prioritize which species are most at risk, and how we might best help them.
Beautifukky explained - thank you