The thermal limits to life on Earth | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core

The thermal limits to life on Earth | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core
Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-9dm9z
Total loading time: 0
Render date: 2026-04-24T07:06:04.767Z
Has data issue: false
hasContentIssue false
Journals
International Journal of Astrobiology
Volume 13 Issue 2: Special issue: Fifth UK Astrobi...
The thermal limits to life on Earth
International Journal of Astrobiology
Article contents
Abstract
Introduction
Definitions and principles
Temperature extremes on earth
High-temperature limits to life
What sets upper thermal limits?
The physiological challenge of low temperature
Low-temperature limits
The special case of endotherms
Concluding remarks
References
The thermal limits to life on Earth
Published online by Cambridge University Press:
14 January 2014
Andrew Clarke
Show author details
Andrew Clarke*
Affiliation:
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
e-mail:
accl@bas.ac.uk
Article
Figures
Metrics
Article contents
Abstract
Introduction
Definitions and principles
Temperature extremes on earth
High-temperature limits to life
What sets upper thermal limits?
The physiological challenge of low temperature
Low-temperature limits
The special case of endotherms
Concluding remarks
References
Save PDF (0.33 mb)
View PDF
[Opens in a new window]
Rights & Permissions
[Opens in a new window]
Abstract
Living organisms on Earth are characterized by three necessary features: a set of internal instructions encoded in DNA (software), a suite of proteins and associated macromolecules providing a boundary and internal structure (hardware), and a flux of energy. In addition, they replicate themselves through reproduction, a process that renders evolutionary change inevitable in a resource-limited world. Temperature has a profound effect on all of these features, and yet life is sufficiently adaptable to be found almost everywhere water is liquid. The thermal limits to survival are well documented for many types of organisms, but the thermal limits to completion of the life cycle are much more difficult to establish, especially for organisms that inhabit thermally variable environments. Current data suggest that the thermal limits to completion of the life cycle differ between the three major domains of life, bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. At the very highest temperatures only archaea are found with the current high-temperature limit for growth being 122 °C. Bacteria can grow up to 100 °C, but no eukaryote appears to be able to complete its life cycle above ∼60 °C and most not above 40 °C. The lower thermal limit for growth in bacteria, archaea, unicellular eukaryotes where ice is present appears to be set by vitrification of the cell interior, and lies at ∼−20 °C. Lichens appear to be able to grow down to ∼−10 °C. Higher plants and invertebrates living at high latitudes can survive down to ∼−70 °C, but the lower limit for completion of the life cycle in multicellular organisms appears to be ∼−2 °C.
Keywords
archaea
bacteria
eukaryote
ice
life cycle
survival
temperature
unicell
vitrification
Information
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Astrobiology
Volume 13
Issue 2: Special issue: Fifth UK Astrobiology Conference (ASB5)
, April 2014
, pp. 141 - 154
DOI:
[Opens in a new window]
Creative Commons
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
Introduction
If we wish to assess the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, we need first to understand the physical factors that constrain the existence of life in the only example available for study, namely here on Earth. Limits to life could theoretically be set by one of any number of environmental factors, or combination of these, such as pressure, pH, ionizing radiation, or the presence of particular elements or compounds. In this paper, I examine the limits to life on Earth set by one such factor: temperature.
Temperature attracts particular attention from astrobiologists because it sets the boundary conditions for the existence of liquid water, which is known to be essential for life on Earth. Astrobiologists have considered the possibility of life based on solvents other than water (Clarke
Reference Clarke, Rothschild and Lister
2003
; Bains
Reference Bains
2004
; Benner
et al
Reference Benner, Ricardo and Carrigan
2004
; Ward & Baross
Reference Ward, Baross, Sullivan and Baross
2007
), but at present these remain purely theoretical possibilities. The search for exoplanets that might support life is thus essentially a search for rocky planets with surface temperatures allowing the presence of liquid water.
Temperature is a thermodynamic state variable and appears in all of the equations of state that describe the universe. It affects every aspect of existence, as it influences all of the physical features of the environment as well as the inside of the cell (Clarke
Reference Clarke, Rothschild and Lister
2003
). Examples of physiologically important physical features governed by temperature include the viscosity, density, pH, and dielectric permittivity of water, as well as its capacity to dissolve solutes and gases.
This pervasive influence of temperature sets a profound methodological challenge to any investigation of the effects of temperature on life. Because every aspect of the physical environment is affected by temperature, it is impossible to design a fully controlled experiment to explore the effects of temperature, where the only difference between the treatment and the control is a difference in temperature. For example, two aquatic animals exposed to different temperatures will also experience differences in viscosity, gas solubility and pH. Similarly two terrestrial plants exposed to different temperatures will also be subject to differences in relative humidity, gaseous diffusion rates and air density. This makes the interpretation of many experimental investigations of temperature challenging, and sometimes equivocal.
Definitions and principles
Life, like time, is an elusive concept that we feel we understand intuitively and yet find difficult to explain to others. But if we are to discuss life as a general concept, then we need to know exactly what we are talking about; the problem here is that philosophers and scientists have yet to produce a universally agreed definition of life (Benner
Reference Benner
2010
). What we can do, however, is arrive at a working description of life on Earth.
Table 1
provides one such description, emphasizing those aspects which are important in terms of understanding what sets the thermal limits to its continued existence.
Table 1.
A working description of life on Earth
The first four items comprise the essential general features of life as we know it on Earth, and may be characterized as a containment, metabolism and programme (CMP) description of life (Bedau
Reference Bedau
2010
). It implies constraints on the physical size of a living entity, which cannot be too small (to avoid fatal stochastic imbalances in the internal environment) or too large (such that internal integration becomes compromised).
Almost all discussions of the nature of life refer back to Erwin Schrödinger's classic short book
What is life?
(Schrödinger
Reference Schrödinger
1944
) in which he emphasized the role of free energy and entropy in maintaining the viability of living organisms and explored the nature of the chemistry underpinning the coding of genetic information. At that time the precise chemical nature of the genetic material was unknown, and was widely believed to be protein. It was only later that it was shown to be nucleic acid (Avery
et al.
Reference Avery, MacLeod and McCarty
1944
), and the nature both of the code and its manner of replication recognized with the elucidation of the structure of DNA (Watson & Crick
Reference Watson and Crick
1953
).
Although prescient in his analysis of the thermodynamic aspects of life, Schrödinger confounded the two important features of heredity, namely the code itself and the translation and execution of that code. Von Neumann corrected this error in his consideration of the theory of automata (von Neumann
Reference von Neumann and Jeffress
1951
Reference von Neumann and Arthur
1966
), emphasizing that the genetic material must both be copied, so that its integrity is preserved, and translated (that is, interpreted). Von Neumann's analysis thus recognized the critical distinction between what we would now call software (the coded instructions embodied in nucleic acids) and hardware (the protein machinery produced by translating and interpreting that software).
Taking these insights together suggests a tripartite description of life (
Fig. 1
). A living entity on Earth comprises three essential features: the genetic information encoded in nucleic acids (software), the structural elements of the cell in the protein and lipid architecture, and the protein functional elements (hardware), and energy flux. This last dynamic element is required by thermodynamics: the interior of the cell is maintained in a thermodynamically non-equilibrium state and for this locally low entropy environment to be maintained there must be a continuous dissipation of energy. Without this, the internal composition of the cell cannot be maintained, the organism dies and free energy is then dissipated as its internal composition decays to the equilibrium state.
Fig. 1.
A tripartite description of life on Earth, based on Schrödinger (1944) and von Neumann (
Reference von Neumann and Jeffress
1951
Reference von Neumann and Arthur
1966
). All three components are necessary, but not sufficient: thermodynamic considerations dictate that for a living entity to perpetuate it must also replicate.
Some authors have used such thermodynamic considerations as the basis of a definition of life (e.g. Lovelock
Reference Lovelock
1965
). Such definitions, however, also apply to systems that generate order through the dissipation of energy but which we would not regard intuitively as alive.
An organism is alive only if it exhibits all three of the features shown in
Fig. 1
. A virus has only software: it contains the genetic instructions for the construction of new viruses, but lacks the machinery to do this and exhibits no energy flow. Viruses are obligate parasites of cells, which they utilize for both the machinery of construction and the energy flux to drive that construction. Based on the description of life in
Table 1
and
Fig. 1
, viruses are not alive.
A resting spore, such as those of bacteria, fungi, eukaryotic algae or the brine-shrimp
Artemia salina
contains both the software (DNA) and the hardware (proteins, membranes), but exhibits no energy flux. Like many plant seeds, tardigrade tuns or dehydrated nematodes,
Artemia
spores have the potential (or capacity) to be alive when circumstances change, but they are not alive in themselves. This context dependence of the living state sets an interesting challenge for those wrestling with the definition of life.
A living entity thus has software, hardware and exhibits energy flux (metabolism). While necessary, however, these are not sufficient. Thermodynamic considerations dictate that no living entity can perpetuate itself forever (Bains
Reference Bains
in press
), and the fourth essential component of life is thus reproduction. This reflects a second key distinction identified by von Neumann (
Reference von Neumann and Jeffress
1951
Reference von Neumann and Arthur
1966
), namely that between metabolism and replication. All living entities on Earth reproduce themselves; for a bacterium or archaean this means cell division to produce daughter cells, for a sexually reproducing eukaryote it means completion of the cycle from zygote to zygote.
Given that the copying of the internal instructions in DNA will always be imperfect, and in a resource-limited world not all offspring will survive, evolutionary change is inevitable. Evolutionary change starts with variation in the genetic material, but also requires that this variation results in changes in organism performance (fitness), and that the changes in the genetic material are heritable. A subtle but important feature here is that the basis of the description of life on Earth in
Table 1
is the individual entity, and an individual organism does not evolve. Neither does a change in genetic makeup between parent and offspring constitute evolution. Evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a defined group of individuals over time: it is a feature of populations, not of individuals. Darwinian evolution is thus a population consequence of the general features of life, rather than a defining characteristic of an individual entity (as proposed in the NASA definition of life: Luisi
Reference Luisi
1998
).
Temperature thresholds
In relation to life on Earth, we can therefore draw an important distinction between two different threshold temperatures: a threshold for completion of the life cycle,
, and a threshold for metabolism,
Fig. 2
). Between
and
, the organism is viable and metabolizing, but unable to complete its life cycle. This might be because of insufficient energy to produce gametes, or initiate cell division, or it might be caused by a temperature-related failure of a key physiological process involved in reproduction but which is not in itself lethal.
Fig. 2.
Temperature thresholds for life on Earth.
: thermal limits for completion of the life cycle;
: thermal limits for metabolism;
: thermal limits for survival. The shaded portion shows the temperature range over which the life cycle can be completed, and defines the thermal limits for the continued existence of a species over generations. Modified from Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Morris, Fonseca, Murray, Acton and Price
2013
).
A third important threshold is that for survival,
. This does not exhibit a consistent relationship with
or
; for example the lower
may be at
, at
or below
. Thus in a chilling-sensitive organism, where a critical physiological system fails at a relatively high temperature, and
and
may even coincide. By contrast, in a cold-hardy organism,
may be below
. Between
and
the organism is in a state of suspended animation, but can resume metabolism once the temperature increases and recrosses the
threshold. An important difference between high- and low-temperature limits for life is that at high temperatures
is always reached; in contrast at low temperatures an organism may never reach its
, even when taken close to absolute zero (Morowitz
Reference Morowitz
1968
).
The upper and lower
thresholds thus mark the limits to life on Earth, as existence outside these boundaries does not allow for completion of the life cycle. The
thresholds are those which define a habitat capable of sustaining life, and are thus the temperature thresholds of most significance to astrobiology. While studies of extremophile microbes have tended to concentrate on establishing
by determining the thermal limits to cell division, studies of plants and animals have tended to concentrate on limits to survival (
). Coupled with the highly variable thermal environment on land, this makes determination of
in these organisms very difficult, but in terms of defining the thermal thresholds for life, it is
we need to know.
Domains of life
Living organisms on Earth range in size and complexity from bacteria and small mycoplasma to whales and redwoods. These organisms show a wide range of internal structure and, in the case of multicellular organisms, tissue architecture. We should therefore not expect them all to respond to temperature in the same way, and indeed they do not. However, life on Earth can be grouped into a relatively small number of functional groups, based on their response to temperature (
Table 2
).
Table 2.
The three major domains of life on Earth, with Eukarya subdivided into categories with differing features of potential importance to their thermal ecology
Temperature extremes on earth
An important context for understanding the thermal limits to life on Earth is set by the range of temperatures available. If we find habitats with liquid water but no life, then we can conclude that these habitats may exceed the temperature limits for life. If on the other hand, we find life everywhere we cannot say whether other, more extreme, environments might harbour life; we may not have sampled the full range of temperatures to which life could adapt.
Life evolved in the sea, and the emergence of first plants and then animals onto the land was one of the most important steps in the evolution of life on Earth. The thermal challenges of land and sea are, however, very different, and the two realms therefore need to be considered separately.
The mean surface temperature of the Earth over the period 1980–2013 was 14.4 °C (data from the Reanalysis Project of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts), but there is much variation with latitude, altitude and season. In addition, the data show an overall increase in mean global temperature from 14.1 °C in the early 1980s to 14.5 °C in 2012. The lowest air temperature yet measured at the surface of the Earth is −89.2 °C, recorded at Vostok Station, Antarctica on 21 July 1983 (Bodetsky
Reference Bodetsky
1984
). The lowest mean monthly temperature for Vostok is −65 °C (August), indicating that this was a truly unusual event. Turner
et al.
Reference Turner
2009
) discuss the atmospheric conditions leading to this record low, and speculate that at nearby Dome A similar circumstances could lead to surface air temperatures as low as −100 °C.
Vostok and Dome A are deep in the interior of Antarctica. There is no native biota at either site, though this is likely the result of the isolation and the lack of habitat rather than temperature
per se
. It is possible that the biota of isolated nunataks (mountain peaks exposed above the ice plateau) in continental Antarctica experience temperatures similar to those of continental locations such as Vostok, but as yet the data are lacking. The lowest temperature for a location with native flora and fauna is −67.7 °C, recorded for two locations in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic of Russia: Verkhoyansk on 5 and 7 Feb 1892, and at Oymyakon on 6 Feb 1933. Earlier records of −69.8 °C and −68.8 °C at Verkhoyansk in 1892 are now regarded as unreliable. The daily mean temperatures for January are −45.5 °C (Verkhoyansk) and −46.4 °C (Oymyakon) (all data from the World Meteorological Association).
The interior of Alaska also gets very cold in winter and here the record low is −62.2 °C recorded at Prospect Creek on 23 Jan 1971 (data from NOAA). This is only just above the record low for North America, which is −63.4 °C recorded at Snag airport, Yukon, on 3 Feb 1947. The interior of continental North America also gets very cold in winter, and there are record low temperatures below −50 °C recorded for many states such as Montana, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.
The highest surface air temperature ever recorded is 56.7 °C, measured at Furnace Creek Ranch (formerly Greenland Ranch), Death Valley, California on 10 July 1913, a previous record of 58 °C from El Azizia, Libya, now being regarded as unreliable (El Fadli
et al.
Reference El Fadli
2013
).
These are, of course, meteorological air temperatures taken at 1.5 m above the ground surface. While these temperatures are relevant for familiar animals and plants, many organisms are small or very small, and live on or very close to the ground surface. Here temperatures can be very different, and satellite observations indicate that surface temperatures frequently exceed 50 °C. Surface temperatures reflect heating of the ground by solar radiation and the highest temperatures will occur where skies are clear, the soils are dry and winds are light. The hottest surface temperatures on Earth determined by remote sensing are regularly recorded from the Lut Desert in Iran, where in 2005 a record of 70.7 °C was achieved (data from NASA MODIS satellite).
The oceans are the largest habitat on the face of the Earth. The overall range of temperatures is much narrower than for terrestrial habitats and the high thermal capacity of water means that rates of change, both across space and in time, are much slower than in air. Surface oceanic waters vary in temperature with depth, latitude and season. The enormous size of the oceans, coupled with their great depth, make it difficult to calculate an overall temperature for seawater. Below the seasonally warmed and cooled surface layers, seawater remains permanently between −1 and +4 °C, except for the deep Mediterranean and Red Sea and the immediate environs of hydothermal vents (Gage & Tyler
Reference Gage and Tyler
1991
). Overall, the mean temperature of oceanic water is <4 °C; the largest habitat on the face of the Earth is cold.
Surface oceanic waters can reach ∼30 °C in tropical regions and −1.96 °C (the freezing point of seawater at atmospheric pressure) in high latitudes. In waters close to the Antarctic continent, bottom temperatures can be ∼−2 °C year-round (Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Griffiths, Barnes, Meredith and Grant
2009
).
High-temperature limits to life
The earliest record of life in hot springs appears to be that of Pliny the Elder, who noted in his
Natural History
(probably written around 77–79 AD) that green plants could be found growing in the hot springs at Padua. These springs are still active, and undeveloped sections contain cyanobacterial mats (which are presumably the ‘green plants’ recorded by Pliny) (Brock
Reference Brock
1978
).
There are many places on Earth where geothermally heated water reaches the surface, including Iceland, New Zealand, Kamchatka and the hydrothermal vent fields associated with the spreading ridge systems of the deep ocean. However, the basis of our understanding of microbial life at high temperatures stems from the pioneering work of Thomas Brock and colleagues in Yellowstone Park (Brock
Reference Brock
1978
). The value of Yellowstone as a location for this work is the existence of a large number geothermal springs with a wide range of temperatures, pH and mineral contents. Although Brock himself ceased working in there in 1975, Yellowstone continues to provide important insights into thermal physiology and ecology. Brock first reported microbes growing at high temperatures in the 1960s (Brock & Brock
Reference Brock and Brock
1966
; Brock
Reference Brock
1967
). Shortly afterwards together with a colleague Hudson Freeze he isolated a bacterium growing at 70 °C which they described as
Thermus aquaticus
(Brock & Freeze
Reference Brock and Freeze
1969
). This organism has proved to be of enormous significance as the source of the DNA polymerase which underpins the genomic revolution. Based on his experiences of life in hot springs in Yellowstone and elsewhere, Brock (
Reference Brock
1978
) predicted that life would be found wherever water was liquid, a prediction that was vindicated spectacularly by the discovery of microbial life at very high temperatures and pressures associated with hydrothermal vents in the 1970s.
The very hot water, often at temperatures >300 °C, that emerges from hydrothermal vents mixes with the local seawater and this leads to very strong thermal gradients. The very hottest waters appear to be abiotic, but areas where the water has cooled are characterized by extensive microbial mats. These have yielded a wide range of hyperthermophiles, both archaeans and bacteria. Hyperthermophiles are defined as organisms with an optimal growth temperature at or above 80 °C. They require liquid water so growth above 100 °C is possible only where pressure keeps water liquid. They are found in a wide variety of terrestrial and marine habitats, all associated with geothermal sources of heat. The low solubility of oxygen at these high temperatures and the frequent presence of large amounts of reducing gasses mean that most habitats for hyperthermophiles are anaerobic. Most hyperthermophiles utilize inorganic redox reactions as the sources of energy, and CO
as the sole carbon source.
The current record for a high-temperature growth is
Methanopyrus kandleri
, originally isolated from a vent in the Gulf of California and found to grow between 84 and 110 °C (Huber
et al
Reference Huber, Kurr, Jannasch and Stetter
1989
; Kurr
et al.
Reference Kurr, Huber, König, Jannasch, Fricke, Kristjansson and Stetter
1991
). However a strain of
M. kandleri
isolated subsequently from the Kairei vent field on the Central Indian Ridge was found to grow at 122 °C under 40 MPa pressure (Takai
et al.
Reference Takai, Nakamura, Toki, Tsunogai, Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Hirayama, Makagawa, Nunoura and Horikoshi
2008
), just surpassing the previous record for 121 °C for
Geogemma barossii
strain 121 (Kashefi & Lovley
Reference Kashefi and Lovley
2003
).
Microbes growing at the very highest growth temperatures all appear to be archaeans, but there are some bacteria are able to grow to ∼100 °C, with the current record being
Geothermobacterium ferrireducens
, which was isolated from Obsidian Pool in Yellowstone National Park (Kashefi
et al.
Reference Kashefi, Holmes, Reysenbach and Lovley
2002
). Two other taxa,
Aquifex aeolicus
and
Thermotoga maritima
can grow at 90 °C or above (
Table 3
), and there are a range of Fe(III)-reducing thermophilic bacteria with
values in the range 65–75 °C (Sokolova
et al.
Reference Sokolova, Hanel, Onyenwoke, Reysenbach, Banta, Geyer, Gonzáles, Whitman and Wiegel
2006
). This difference between archaea and bacteria in sensitivity to high temperatures is evident in the distribution of the two groups within active vents, where there can be a transition from a mixed assemblage of archaea and bacteria near the cooler exterior of the chimney, to primarily archaea in the hotter interior (Schrenk
et al.
Reference Schrenk, Kelley, Delaney and Baross
2003
).
Table 3.
Some representative thermophilic Archaea and Bacteria that define the upper thermal limit to life on Earth. Hyperthermophiles are a subset of thermophilic extremophiles, defined by having an optimal temperature for growth above 80 °C
The water issuing from hydrothermal vents can exceed 300 °C, and with the surrounding seawater at less than 4 °C this leads to very steep and highly variable thermal gradients that make it extremely difficult to quantify the precise thermal environment of the microbes growing there. Schrenk
et al.
Reference Schrenk, Kelley, Delaney and Baross
2003
) reported intact microbes growing in water ‘that must have been well in excess of 100 °C’ but the only reliable technique to establish unequivocal growth temperatures is culture
in vitro
. Baross
et al
. (
Reference Baross, Lilley and Gordon
1982
) sampled the microbial flora from hydrothermal vents along the East Pacific Rise, where vent fluids had temperatures of >300 °C. Baross & Deming (
Reference Baross and Deming
1983
) and Deming (
Reference Deming
1986
) reported growth of these microbes in culture at 250 atm (26.85 MPa) pressure and temperatures of 250 °C, with evidence for the utilization of inorganic C and N and the production of methane. These studies raised the upper thermal limit for hyperthermophiles by a staggering 140 K, and initiated an intense debate centred on the possibility of artefacts or contamination (Trent
et al
Reference Trent, Chastain and Yayanos
1984
), and the instability of many biological molecules at such high temperatures (Bernhardt
et al
Reference Bernhardt, Lüdemann, Jaenicke, König and Stetter
1984
; White
Reference White
1984
; Lang
Reference Lang
1986
). To date these results have not been replicated, and while Wharton (
Reference Wharton
2002
) has speculated that the actual thermal limit for microbial growth may be as high as 150 °C, the currently accepted upper limit for microbial growth is 122 °C.
Temperature and microbial diversity
The diversity of microbial taxa that can exist in geothermally heated waters declines with increasing water temperature and the very highest temperatures support only a small number of extremophile taxa (
Fig. 3
). At first glance this pattern might seem entirely sensible: as the environment gets tougher fewer species can live there. Indeed we often make a subjective assessment of the harshness of an environment on the basis of how many (or how few) types of organism live there. This reasoning is, of course, inherently circular: we explain the paucity of organisms on the basis of the harshness of the environment, but we also assess the harshness of an environment from the number of types of organism that live there.
Fig. 3.
Species richness (number of species) of cyanobacteria as a function of water temperature across a range of geothermally heated pools in Yellowstone National Park. Replotted from data in Brock (
Reference Brock
1978
).
While a correlation between environmental harshness and diversity of life might seem intuitively reasonable, it was challenged memorably by the ecologist Evelyn Hutchinson. In a classic short paper (Hutchinson
Reference Hutchinson
1959
), he posed the question of why, if one species can adapt to a particular environment, cannot more do so? The question was actually posed in terms of plants adapting to a cold Arctic environment, but it is equally pertinent to cyanobacteria in hot springs. We do not yet have a fully satisfactory answer to this deceptively simple question.
Eukaryotes at high temperature
Eukaryotes appear not to be able to live at the very highest temperatures that characterize geothermal water. The highest
for a unicellular eukaryote appears to 55–56 °C, which is the upper limit for the rhodophyte
Cyanidium caldarium
, although optimal (maximum) growth was at 45 °C (Doemel & Brock
Reference Doemel and Brock
1970
Reference Doemel and Brock
1971
). Over a century ago, however, Dallinger (
Reference Dallinger
1887
) reported an experiment in which he raised the temperature of a culture of ‘monads’ (unicellular flagellates, including
Tetramitus rostratus, Monas dallingeri
and
Dallingera drysdali
), inspecting the cultures for morphology (especially the presence of vacuoles), activity, fission and sexual fusion after each rise in temperature. Over the course of 7 years (the experiment ran from 1880 to 1886, allowing the cultures to acclimate after each small increment in temperature) Dallinger reported that the flagellates were still active and reproducing at 70 °C. This intriguing experiment needs repeating with replication, modern means of temperature control and documentation of growth from cell counts, as it may well establish a new thermal maximum for growth in unicellular eukaryotes.
Slightly higher temperatures appear to be tolerated by filamentous fungi, and a survey of a range of high-temperature habitats revealed species able to grow at 55–60 °C (Tansey & Brock
Reference Tansey and Brock
1972
). Both unicellular algae and fungi can produce resting stages (spores) when environmental conditions become unfavourable. The upper thermal limit for survival of these spores is unclear, though resistance up to 115 °C has been reported in spores of saprotrophic fungi in the Western Ghats of Southern India (Suryanarayanan
et al.
Reference Suryanarayanan, Govindarajulu, Thirumalai, Reddy and Money
2011
). This extreme thermotolerance may be an adaptation to surviving the dry season wildfires that characterize the Western Ghats; the growing fungi themselves are mesophilic.
Higher plants can be found growing close to hot springs in Yellowstone, and in the perennial grass
Dichanthelium lanuginosum
(intriguingly named ‘hot springs panic grass’) the thermal tolerance is mediated through a mutualistic endophytic fungus
Curvularia protuberata
(Redman
et al.
Reference Redman, Sheehan, Stout, Rodriguez and Henson
2002
) and a mycovirus (Márquez
et al.
Reference Márquez, Redman, Rodriguez and Roosinck
2007
). With both the fungus and mycovirus present, plants can grow in soils up to 65 °C; with either missing the plants are unable to grow above 38 °C (Márquez
et al.
Reference Márquez, Redman, Rodriguez and Roosinck
2007
).
Hot springs also provide the hottest habitats inhabited by invertebrates and vertebrates. Temperature in these springs may reach over 50 °C, and the fauna includes crustaceans, chironomid larvae, nematodes and molluscs, as well as fish. It is difficult to establish
values for these; although many secondary and anecdotal sources quote a range of temperatures for hot springs, there are very few primary sources with data for both temperature and fauna. Two nematodes,
Rhabditis terrestris
and
Udonchus tenuicaudatus
, appear to be ubiquitous in thermal springs and have been recorded as living up to 42.8 °C in Granada, Spain (Ocaña
Reference Ocaña
1991
), Wharton (
Reference Wharton
2002
) records
Aphelenchoides parientus
living in hot springs up to 51 °C, and
Darylaimus thermus
is found in Yellowstone in waters up to 53 °C (Hoeppli
Reference Hoeppli
1926
; Hoeppli & Chu
Reference Hoeppli and Chu
1932
). Hot springs contain a range of other aquatic invertebrates, including crustaceans such as the isopod
Thermosphaeroma subequalum
, insect larvae (especially chironomids), and molluscs such as the springsnail
Tryonia julimensis
; all of these will have similar
values. The highest temperature for completion of the life cycle in an invertebrate may be for nematodes of the genus
Aphelenchoides
and
Panagrolaimus
, which tolerate temperatures of 60 °C in compost heaps (Steel
et al
Reference Steel, Verdoodt, Čerevková, Couvreur, Fonderie, Moens and Bert
2013
).
Hot springs also support populations of fish, and the classic high-temperature fish are the desert pupfish of the genus
Cyprinodon
. These fish live in shallow geothermal springs, where the temperatures are high but vary both spatially and throughout the day and with season.
Cyprinodon pachycephalus
from the hot springs of San Diego de Alcalá, Chihuahua, México lives in waters of 39.2–43.8 °C (Minckley & Minckley
Reference Minckley and Minckley
1986
; Miller
et al
Reference Miller, Minckley and Norris
2005
), and
Cyprinodon julimes
recently described from the hot springs of Julimes, Chihuahua, México lives at temperatures of between 38 and 46 °C (Montejano & Absalόn
Reference Montejano and Absalón
2009
). In contrast to terrestrial vertebrates which can use shade to avoid the heat of the sun, and which cool off by night, desert pupfish spend their entire life at these high temperatures. While the water temperatures do vary a little diurnally and the fish often select the cooler water (Montejano & Absalόn
Reference Montejano and Absalón
2009
), these two species of
Cyprinodon
are believed to be the fish with the highest
on Earth. They also limited to a few small springs and pools and are consequently highly endangered.
The hottest marine environments are hydrothermal vents, and these have a spectacularly rich and abundant fauna that includes a range of crustaceans, molluscs and worms (Van Dover
Reference Van Dover
2000
). As with the microbial flora within the vent chimneys, the very steep thermal gradients make it difficult to assess precisely what temperatures any given animal is experiencing. Behavioural observations and associated temperature measurements suggest that many motile vent animals select warm but not hot locations, and that they are very sensitive to changes in temperatures.
The most studied vent animal in this regard is the Pompeii worm,
Alvinella pompeiana
. This polychaete lives in a tube through which vent fluids pass, and from which it emerges to forage. Recordings with a temperature probe indicated that at the base of the tube the temperatures can reach 81 °C, and that the base of the worm itself the temperature averaged 61 °C, although occasionally spikes up to 81 °C were recorded. At the mouth of the tube temperatures averaged 22 °C (Cary
et al.
Reference Cary, Shank and Stein
1998
). These data indicate that
Alvinella
is subject to a quite remarkable thermal gradient along its body (roughly 60 K). However, it is difficult to assess its
, both because of this gradient but also because the worm leaves its tube to forage in much cooler water (2 °C: Lutz
Reference Lutz and Bell
2012
). Indeed studies of individual proteins indicate quite low thermal denaturation temperatures: ∼50 °C for haemoglobin and ATP generation by isolated mitochondria, and ∼45 °C for collagen. These data would indicate that in the long term,
Alvinella
is limited to temperatures below ∼50 °C (Desbruyères & Laubier
Reference Desbruyères and Laubier
1991
). A recent study (Ravaux
et al
Reference Ravaux, Hamel, Zbinden, Tasiemski, Boutet, Léger, Tanguy, Jollivet and Shillito
2013
) has shown that long-term survival, as assessed by a 2 h ramped thermal exposure, is above 42 °C but below 50 °C. Similarly, another vent polychaete
Paralvinella sulfinicola
, can be found in waters up to 88 °C, but has an upper incipient lethal temperature (at which 50% of the population cannot survive indefinitely) of only 45 °C (Dilly
et al
Reference Dilly, Young, Lane, Pangilinan and Girguis
2012
). Although the actual
values for
Alvinella
or
Paralvinella
are unknown, current data suggest that they may hold the record
for an aquatic animal, and are also probably some of the most eurythermal metazoans on the planet (Lutz
Reference Lutz and Bell
2012
).
Away from geothermal areas, the hottest terrestrial environments are deserts and directly measured surface temperatures in places can reach 75–80 °C (Ward & Seeley
Reference Ward and Seeley
1966
). Deserts are, however, often only hot during the day; by night and under a clear sky temperatures can drop below freezing (Ward
Reference Ward
2009
).
This combination of high daytime temperatures and low night-time temperatures poses severe physiological problems for organisms living in deserts. Some motile forms are active by day and can tolerate brief periods of very high temperatures. For example, the Saharan silver ant
Cataglyphis bombycina
forages for very short periods in air temperatures up to 55 °C (Wehner
et al.
Reference Wehner, Marsh and Wehner
1992
). Similarly,
Ocymyrmex barbiger
, an ant from the Namib Desert, forages in air temperatures up to 67 °C (Marsh
Reference Marsh
1985
), and the pseudoscorpion
Eremogarypus perfectus
only goes into heat coma at 65 °C (Heurtault & Vannier
Reference Heurtault and Vannier
1990
). Being small, these ants have a very low thermal mass, and in consequence they heat up and cool down quickly. These, and other small arthropods active in the desert heat thus minimize the period of time for which they are exposed to the highest temperatures, and they climb frequently up stems of vegetation where the air is cooler.
Not all desert animals are so active and able to use behavioural means to minimize their exposure to the heat of the sun. Some such as land snails simply have to sit it out. The desert snail
Sphicterochila boisseri
minimizes its body temperatures by having a highly reflective shell, which allows it to maintain a tissue temperature of 50 °C in direct sunlight despite a local air temperature of 43 °C and a surface temperature of 65 °C (Schmidt-Nielsen
et al.
Reference Schmidt-Nielsen, Taylor and Shkolnik
1971
). A significant physiological problem for organisms that cannot move underground to avoid temperature extremes is that gas exchange inevitably also results in water loss. Many arthropods minimize this water loss by restricting the periods of tracheal respiration (an adaptation referred to as discontinuous gas exchange). While these examples indicate that many desert invertebrates can tolerate very high temperatures, at least for short periods, they cool down by night and it is not clear what is the highest temperature at which any of these organisms can complete their life-cycles.
Desert plants must be able to withstand the same temperatures as the animals, but without the ability to move about to alleviate the direct effects of heat. One must assume that some plants living in the hottest deserts have thermal tolerances at least comparable with those living around geothermal springs, but data on the maximum temperatures at which plants can complete their life cycle are very difficult to find.
Plants exposed to direct solar heating can reach temperatures well above that of the surrounding air. Fleshy leaves can reach internal temperatures of 40–50 °C when the surrounding air is only 20–30 °C, and the cambium of the sunny side of some trees may reach 55 °C (Öpik & Rolfe
Reference Öpik and Rolfe
2005
). The record appears to be held by the cactus
Opuntia
, several species of which can reach internal temperatures up to 65 °C (Smith
et al.
Reference Smith, Didden-Zopfy and Nobel
1984
).
Current knowledge of the upper thermal limits to life is summarized in
Table 4
. Although there is a diverse literature on thermal limits to survival (
), data on the thermal limits to the completion of the life cycle (
) are far more difficult to obtain, and for some groups the data in
Table 4
rely principally on the data collated over 40 years ago by Precht
et al.
Reference Precht, Christophersen, Hensel and Larcher
1973
).
Table 4.
High-temperature limits for life on Earth
nd: no data.
Unclear whether the entire life cycle is completed at this temperature.
What sets upper thermal limits?
The main physiological challenge from increased temperature comes in the form of greater thermal motion. In particular, the enhanced internal molecular motions increase the likelihood of thermal denaturation, in that the molecule may move to a conformation that is neither functional nor allowing return to a functional state.
The higher level structure of cellular macromolecules and the association between molecules critical to physiological processes are all dependent on weak bonds, such as Van der Walls interactions, hydrogen bonds, electrostatic (ionic) bonds and hydrophobic interactions. These all have low enthalpies of formation, typically in the range <4 kJ mol
−1
(Van der Waals) to 10–30 kJ mol
−1
(hydrogen bonds) and <40 kJ mol
−1
(hydrophobic interactions). These values are of the same order of magnitude as the mean thermal energy of molecules at 25 °C, and hence are likely to break more frequently at higher temperatures.
The most common adaptations to allow macromolecules to function at high temperatures include changes in the number of residues influencing overall hydrophobicity, and an increase in the number of weak interactions to increase stability. These adaptations result in homologous enzymes having similar flexibility, and hence similar metabolic activity, at the optimal growth temperature (Tehei & Zaccai
Reference Tehei and Zaccai
2007
). Whilst some proteins that are stable to ∼140 °C can be isolated from hyperthermophiles, not all proteins appear to be sufficiently stable to retain their structure, and hence function, at very high temperatures (Lang
Reference Lang
1986
; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life
2007
). In these, structural integrity is associated with the presence of large molecular chaperones and a range of small compatible solutes (Sterner & Liebl
Reference Sterner and Liebl
2001
).
The thermostability of nucleic acids has been linked to the content of guanine and cytosine, which, having three hydrogen bonds, are thermally more stable than the pairing of adenine and thymine, which have only two. However, there is no correlation between genome GC content and growth temperatures (Hurst & Merchant
Reference Hurst and Merchant
2001
; Hickey & Singer
Reference Hickey and Singer
2004
). There is a correlation in structural RNAs although this is limited to the double-stranded stem regions of the molecules (Galtier & Lobry
Reference Galtier and Lobry
1997
).
Much attention has been directed at the unique membrane architecture of archaea in respect of the ability of some taxa to live at very high temperatures. Archaeal membranes consist of isoprenoid hydrocarbon chains, which are attached to the glycerol moiety by an ether link. Furthermore, the glycerol moiety has a different stereochemistry from that in bacteria and eukaryotes, and in some archaeans the isoprenoid chains are fused to form a single layer (as distinct from the bilayer that is found in all other organisms). While this unique membrane architecture is found in hyperthermophilic archaeans, it is also found in archaea that live at low temperatures, which suggests that it may not necessarily be an adaptation to high temperature but simply a feature of archaeans in general. Its greater stability at high temperatures does, however, allow archaea to live at higher temperatures than bacteria or eukaryotes.
While an upper limit to the stability of biomolecules may be set by processes such as hydrolysis, it is not yet clear whether the upper limit for survival of an organism is set by the fate of individual molecules or the intracellular structure. Hansen
et al.
Reference Hansen, Criddle and Battley
2009
) used calorimetry to investigate denaturation of key physiological macromolecules at high temperature and showed that in both
Escherichia coli
and
Lactobacilluis plantarum
ribosomes denatured at lower temperatures than either DNA or cell walls.
We cannot necessarily generalize from these results and assume that upper thermal limits will be set by the same processes in all organisms. Indeed the difference in the upper thermal limits for Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya (
Table 4
) suggests that different processes may set the limits for different domains. It is tempting to ascribe the markedly lower upper thermal limit for eukaryotes to the presence of a nucleus, but there are many other differences in internal cellular complexity that might be responsible for the greater sensitivity to high temperatures, and in truth we do not know the cause. In multicellular organisms, the requirement for integration between cells in tissues, and between tissues within the organism, introduces further possibilities for limiting thermal sensitivity. It also introduces the possibility of sublethal damage that limits physiological function, and hence maybe preventing completion of the life cycle, but without causing organism death.
The physiological challenge of low temperature
Cells at low temperatures must cope with the reduced molecular kinetic energy of the environment and the consequent lower rate of many physical processes. In addition, cells must adjust to reduced membrane fluidity, changes in intracellular pH and loss of macromolecular integrity (Hochachka & Somero
Reference Hochachka and Somero
2002
). The molecular adaptations to maintain physiological function at low temperatures are in many cases simply the reverse of those involved in adaptation to high temperatures.
Additional challenges arise, however, when ice is present in the environment immediately external to the cell. Following ice nucleation, solutes are rejected from the growing ice crystal and are concentrated in the remaining liquid, which thus increases in osmotic strength and tends to pull water from inside the cell.
A critical distinction in considering how organisms react to the physiological challenge of ice nucleation is that between unicells and multicellular organisms (
Table 2
). In archaea, bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes, the cell membrane is exposed directly to the environment. Although a cell wall may be present, this has to be permeable to allow the cell to take up nutrients, and dump waste products. This means that when ice is present in the environment, the cell membrane will experience directly the associated changes in osmotic strength. In contrast, multicellular organisms have their internal cells and tissues bathed in a fluid over whose composition the organism can exert a degree of control. When ice is present in the external environment, the cells and tissues of a multicellular organism such as a plant, insect or frog are not necessarily exposed to that ice.
When ice is present in the immediate environment of the cell, that cell may be damaged through hydraulic stresses, osmotic changes or solute toxicity mechanisms. In addition, intracellular ice can form when the cooling rate is sufficiently high that the cell cannot maintain osmotic equilibrium with the environment (Mazur
Reference Mazur, Fuller, Lane and Benson
2004
). Intracellular ice is observed only rarely in the natural environment (Wharton & Ferns
Reference Wharton and Ferns
1995
). This is partly because the formation of intracellular ice generally requires faster cooling than is typical of the natural environment. For example in the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
intracellular ice formation requires cooling rates faster than 20 K min
−1
(Seki
et al.
Reference Seki, Kleinhans and Mazur
2009
). Atmospheric cooling rates in the environment rarely exceed 1 K min
−1
(Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Morris, Fonseca, Murray, Acton and Price
2013
), but some specialized habitats such as rock or leaf surfaces can change temperature more rapidly (Strimbeck
et al
Reference Strimbeck, Johnson and Vann
1993
). Freezing of extracellular fluids does, however, occur in some multicellular plants and animals living in seasonally cold climates (Schmid
Reference Schmid
1982
; Leather
et al.
Reference Leather, Walters and Bale
1993
; Pearce
Reference Pearce, Fuller, Lane and Benson
2004
).
At the slow cooling rates typical of the natural environment, cells can often maintain osmotic equilibrium with the surrounding fluid. Under these circumstances, free-living cells such as bacteria, archaeans or unicellular eukaryotes may vitrify. Vitrification (also known as the glass transition) occurs when a liquid begins to behave as a solid during cooling, but without any substantial change in molecular arrangement or thermodynamic state variables (pressure, volume, internal energy, entropy) (Wowk
Reference Wowk
2010
). In bulk liquids, as temperature decreases, all molecular motions, translational and internal, become progressively slower until a critical temperature is reached where there is insufficient energy for significant translational molecular motion to take place over a meaningful timescale. This is the vitrification or glass transition temperature, Tg, and it is defined operationally as the temperature at which viscosity exceeds 10
12
Pa.s (Debenedetti
Reference Debenedetti
1996
).
Intracellular vitrification is more complex than in simple bulk liquids. This is principally because the interior of the cell is extremely crowded (Ellis
Reference Ellis
2001
), approximating a colloid in physical structure. As colloids dehydrate they exhibit a sharp increase in viscosity and undergo a colloid glass transition (Zhou
et al.
Reference Zhou, Trepat, Park, Lenormand, Oliver, Mihailovich, Hardin, Weitz, Butler and Fredberg
2009
). Cellular dehydration, whether associated with a shift to anhydrobiosis or withdrawal of water driven by freeze concentration of the extracellular medium, can thus induce vitrification of the cell interior. The vitrification of the interior of a free-living microbial cell exposed to ice in the external environment is thus primarily the result of dehydration and is analogous to the vitrification of a colloid rather than the glass transition of bulk water.
The vitrification temperature of a cell will vary with the precise composition of the internal cell environment, and this may allow the intracellular vitrification temperature to be adjusted by natural selection to match ecological circumstances (for example by varying the level of small cryoprotectant molecules). In free-living unicells, dehydration driven by freeze-concentration of the external environment triggers vitrification at temperatures between −10 and −25 °C (Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Morris, Fonseca, Murray, Acton and Price
2013
).
The very high viscosity of the vitrified cell means that movement of oxygen and metabolites effectively stops. Under these conditions, metabolism ceases. The cell does, however, maintain its internal integrity, and metabolism can start again once the cell warms and rehydrates. This process carries the danger that once water molecules can move within the cell, any small ice nuclei present may grow rapidly (a process usually termed devitrification) and the consequent mechanical damage may be lethal. The presence of chaperone proteins such as dehydrins or late embryogenesis abundant proteins (LEAs), as well as cryoprotectants such as polyols may be important in ensuring a safe transition from the vitrified to the normal state, though this is an area where more research is needed. LEAs were originally identified in plant seeds, but are now known to be fairly widespread (Hand
et al
Reference Hand, Menze, Toner, Boswell and Moore
2011
). It is also possible that thermal hysteresis proteins (antifreeze proteins) may be important in minimizing the chances of lethal growth of intracellular ice (devitrification) during the return to the fluid state.
Low-temperature limits
A general lower limit for life in free-living unicells would appear to be set by the temperature at which freeze-concentration of the external environment dehydrates the cell interior and drives vitrification (Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Morris, Fonseca, Murray, Acton and Price
2013
). While vitrification defines a lower limit for metabolism, it is possible that one or more other factor may limit completion of the life cycle at temperatures above which the cell vitrifies (that is
is above
, where
corresponds to the vitrification temperature).
A thorough survey of studies of microbial growth at low temperatures suggests that none grow below −20 °C (
Fig. 4
). There are a few reports in the literature of microbial growth at temperatures below −20 °C but in these studies growth or metabolism are usually inferred from proxies (such as release of apparent metabolic products) and not direct measures of cell number as a function of time. It is possible that in these cases geochemical processes or concentrated solution chemistry is mimicking metabolism (see discussion in Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Morris, Fonseca, Murray, Acton and Price
2013
). Indeed, despite a century of refrigeration technology, there are no reports of spoilage organisms growing below −20 °C (Geiges
Reference Geiges
1996
). It is clear that the lower limit for completion of the life cycle in free-living unicells (bacteria, archaeans, unicellular eukaryotes) is around −20 °C.
Fig. 4.
Specific growth rate (h
−1
) of microbes as a function of temperature. Data plotted as Arrhenius relationship (natural log of rate as a function of inverse thermodynamic temperature). The slope of the fitted line (ordinary least-squares regression), which captures the across-species relationship between growth rate and temperature, is −13.6 (note that the inverse temperature has been rescaled for presentational convenience). The dotted line shows the lower thermal limit for microbial growth known to date, which is −20 °C. Data replotted from Price & Sowers (
Reference Price and Sowers
2004
).
The lower thermal limit for life in marine organisms is set by the lowest temperature at which seawater can remain liquid. For seawater of normal salinity (35), the equilibrium freezing point at atmospheric pressure is −1.92 °C, increasing with depth. Parts of the continental shelf seabed around Antarctica are close to the freezing point year-round (Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Griffiths, Barnes, Meredith and Grant
2009
) and so the rich communities of marine invertebrates and fish that live there must complete their life cycles at this temperature (
∼−2 °C).
Teleost fish have body fluids of lower osmotic strength than seawater, and would freeze at these temperatures. Polar teleosts avoid such freezing by the production of protein or glycoprotein antifreezes, together with a suite of associated anatomical and physiological adjustments (DeVries & Cheng
Reference DeVries, Cheng, Somero, Osmond and Bolis
1992
). Different lineages of teleost fish use different molecules as antifreezes, indicating that antifreeze has evolved many times independently, suggesting that this is not a difficult evolutionary problem.
When sea-ice forms, salt is excluded from the growing ice. As a result sea-ice contains many channels filled with brine, and these can reach very low temperatures (∼−20 °C) without freezing. These channels contain diatoms and many other unicellular eukaryotes (Thomas
Reference Thomas and Bell
2012
), as well as some invertebrates. It is possible that these assemblages contain taxa that can complete their life cycle at lower temperatures than in the surrounding seawater: for example the Arctic sea-ice diatom
Nitzschia frigida
can grow down to −8 °C, although the doubling time is very long (60 days) (Thomas
Reference Thomas and Bell
2012
).
In terrestrial habitats, temperatures may fall very low in winter (see above). While some animals migrate to warmer climates, many others and all plants have to survive the winter
in situ
. Polar organisms have evolved two basic strategies to achieve this: they either prevent ice forming within their tissues and survive the winter in an undercooled state (
freeze avoidance
), or they allow extracellular water to freeze (
freeze tolerance
). In the latter case, cells are typically subject to dehydration driven by freeze-concentration of the extracellular water as it freezes; they then either undercool or vitrify.
It has long been known that fungal infections can affect crops under snow and Schmidt-Nielsen (
Reference Schmidt-Nielsen
1902
) reported the growth of two unicellular yeasts at 0 °C. Pathogenic fungi are known from snow banks and also from cryoconite assemblages on the surface of glaciers, and mushrooms that emerge through snow in northern forests are well known (Hoshino
et al
Reference Hoshino, Xiao, Yajima, Tkachenko and Yumoto
2013
). The lower thermal limit for completion of the life cycle in free-living fungi and yeasts remains unknown but appears to be about 0 °C, and while some moulds and rusts can grow at low water activities on refrigerated foods, none are known to grow below −20 °C (Geiges
Reference Geiges
1996
).
The most studied animals in terms of winter survival in relation to freezing temperatures are arthropods, and insects show examples of both freeze avoidance and freeze tolerance (Leather
et al.
Reference Leather, Walters and Bale
1993
; Wharton
Reference Wharton
2002
; Denlinger & Lee
Reference Denlinger and Lee
2010
). A recent study of thermal limits (
) in insects shows clearly that
is much lower in insects from higher (colder) latitudes (
Fig. 5
), indicating that
can be adjusted by natural selection to match ecological requirements. A few vertebrates have been shown to tolerate extracellular freezing, and the most studied example here is the wood frog
Rana sylvatica
(Schmid
Reference Schmid
1982
; Storey & Storey
Reference Storey and Storey
1996
Reference Storey, Storey, Fuller, Lane and Benson
2004
). Plants overwintering in cold regions are known to undergo extracellular freezing, and in some cases vitrification of the dehydrated cells has been demonstrated (Hirsh
et al.
Reference Hirsh, Williams and Meryman
1985
). This may prove to be a widespread phenomenon in high-latitude plants (Hirsh
Reference Hirsh
1987
; Pearce
Reference Pearce, Fuller, Lane and Benson
2004
).
Fig. 5.
Lower critical temperature (LCT) as a function of latitude for northern hemisphere insects. LCT is a measure of the lower
will either be at or above the lower
. Plotted from data in Hoffmann
et al
. (
Reference Hoffmann, Chown and Clusella-Trullas
2013
).
Lichens are among the most tolerant of plants, being found in habitats where higher plants are missing. They are able to dehydrate extensively, and in this state can tolerate very low temperatures. The lowest recorded temperature for photosynthetic carbon fixation is −24 °C (Kappen
Reference Kappen and Friedmann
1993
). In Antarctic lichens, photosynthesis has been recorded down to −16.5 °C in
Xanthoria candelaria
, −17 °C in
Umbilicaria aprina
and −18 °C in
Neuropogon acromelanus
(Kappen
Reference Kappen and Friedmann
1993
; Schroeter
et al
Reference Schroeter, Green, Kappen and Seppelt
1994
). In
U. aprina
, dark respiration ceased at higher temperatures, suggesting that
is ∼−10 °C (Schroeter
et al
Reference Schroeter, Green, Kappen and Seppelt
1994
). Lichens are a symbiotic relationship between an alga (the photobiont) and a fungus (the mycobiont). Interestingly, the symbiotic organisms (the lichen) appear to withstand more extreme conditions than either the phytobiont or mycobiont alone (de Vera
et al
Reference de Vera, Rettberg and Ott
2008
).
In Antarctica, lichens extend further south than either mosses or vascular plants (Peat
et al
Reference Peat, Clarke and Convey
2007
), suggesting that they are more tolerant of very low temperatures and the associated aridity. These characteristics of lichens have stimulated considerable interest in their use as model experimental organisms in astrobiology (de Vera
et al
Reference de Vera, Rettberg and Ott
2008
; Onofri
et al
Reference Onofri
2012
). Indeed, lichens have been shown to photosynthesize under simulated Martian conditions (de Vera
et al
Reference de Vera, Möhlmann, Butina, Lorek, Wernecke and Ott
2010
), and it has been suggested that lichens could even by viable in small areas with suitable microclimates on Mars today. Studies have, however, concentrated on photosynthesis, and the limited experimental; data suggest that growth ceases at higher temperatures than photosynthesis (Schroeter
et al
Reference Schroeter, Green, Kappen and Seppelt
1994
).
In most cases, terrestrial organisms able to survive extreme cold can only complete their life cycle once temperatures have risen again in summer. Hence, while some very impressive examples of low-temperature survival (
) are known, it is much more difficult to assign a value to the low-temperature threshold for completion of the life cycle (
). The lowest limits so far documented are for invertebrates in meltwater on glaciers, such as the enchytraeid annelid ‘ice worms’ of the genus
Mesenchytraeus
(Farrell
et al
Reference Farrell, Hohenstein and Shain
2004
) or chironomid midges of the genus
Diamesa
(Kohshima
Reference Kohshima
1984
; Hagvar
Reference Hagvar
2010
), where
is ∼0 °C. This is slightly higher than the
for marine invertebrates, but it may be that we simply lack documentary evidence of lower
values for terrestrial plants and invertebrates. The marked diurnal and seasonal variations in environmental temperature will, however, make such data difficult to obtain.
The special case of endotherms
Two lineages of vertebrates, mammals and birds, have independently evolved endothermy, the capacity to maintain a high and constant body temperature. This is often referred to colloquially as ‘warm-bloodedness’, but this term is unhelpful because many ectotherms, including insects, reptiles and even some fish, can achieve similarly high body temperatures.
Typically endotherm body temperatures are in the range 30–45 °C, with birds tending to be warmer than mammals (Clarke & Rothery
Reference Clarke and Rothery
2008
). These temperatures are achieved through a combination of a high resting metabolic rate and insulation. Endothermy is very expensive energetically, but it allows mammals and birds to be active at any time of the day or night, and to occupy a very wide range of habitats.
While endotherm cell temperatures are confined to a narrow range, the environments they inhabit range from the hottest deserts to the polar regions. To take mammals as an example, the range of body temperatures is 30–41 °C, but these live in areas with annual mean temperatures ranging from −11 to 26 °C (
Fig. 6
). The extreme endotherm example is, however, probably a bird: the Emperor Penguin,
Aptenodytes forsteri
, which raises its chick on sea-ice in the depths of the Antarctic winter, when temperatures are −20 °C or below (McCafferty
et al
Reference McCafferty, Gilbert, Thierry, Currie, Le Maho and Ancel
2013
).
Fig. 6.
What is the
for a mammal? Body temperature as a function of the mean annual environmental temperature within the range for 512 mammal species (from Clarke
et al.
Reference Clarke, Rothery and Isaac
2010
).
This poses the question of what is the correct value of
for an endotherm: is it the internal body temperature at which the cellular physiology operates, or is it the environmental temperature? For humans with cultural adaptations (clothing, housing), the range of environmental temperatures that define the
range is the widest of any species on Earth.
Concluding remarks
The upper and lower thermal limit to life vary markedly across the domains of life on Earth (
Tables 4
and
). While data on limits to survival (
) attract considerable attention, the thermal limits to completion of the life cycle (
) are far more difficult to determine and hence are much less well defined.
Table 5.
Low-temperature limits for life on Earth
nd: no data.
Unclear whether the entire life cycle is completed at this temperature.
The data are clearest for unicells. Currently identified upper thermal limits for growth are 122 °C for archaeans, 100 °C for bacteria and ∼60 °C for unicellular eukaryotes. No unicells appear to grow below −20 °C, a limit that is probably set by dehydration-linked vitrification of the cell interior driven by freeze-concentration in the presence of extracellular ice (Clarke
et al
Reference Clarke, Morris, Fonseca, Murray, Acton and Price
2013
).
The range of temperatures over which multicellular eukaryotes can complete their life cycle is much narrower than for unicells. The upper limits on land would appear to be exhibited by nematodes in hot springs and compost heaps (∼60 °C), and in the sea by polychaetes associated with hydrothermal vents (>40 °C, but poorly defined). The upper limit for an ectothermic vertebrate would appear to be 38–46 °C for desert pupfish. The lower thermal limits for survival (
) in multicellular organisms extend to at least −70 °C, the winter minimum temperature of the Arctic tundra and taiga. However in all cases known to date, completion of the life cycle requires summer warmth and the lowest
appears to be ∼0 °C for invertebrates in glacial meltwater and ∼−2 °C for marine invertebrates and fish living on the continental shelves around Antarctica.
It is interesting that in lichens (de Vera
et al
Reference de Vera, Rettberg and Ott
2008
) and the grass
D. lanuginosum
(Redman
et al.
Reference Redman, Sheehan, Stout, Rodriguez and Henson
2002
), temperature tolerance is conferred by symbiosis or mutualism. The mechanism by which the symbiotic organism gains enhanced temperature tolerance in comparison with the isolated individual components remains obscure.
Acknowledgements
I thank Charles Cockell and Rocco Mancinelli for the invitation to present a keynote talk at the Fifth UK meeting of the Astrobiology Society of Britain (ASB5), and to write this paper. The subject of this paper has benefitted greatly from helpful input over a number of years from John Morris, Peter Convey, Bill Block, Roger Worland, Steven Chown, Lloyd Peck and Nick Lane. I also thank David Wharton, Mark Blaxter and Paul De Ley for helpful advice on recent nematode references, and William Bains for valuable input that sharpened my thinking in key areas.
References
Avery
O.T.
MacLeod
C.M.
McCarty
M.
1944
).
J. Exp. Med
79
137
159
Google Scholar
Bains
W.
2004
).
Astrobiology
),
137
167
Google Scholar
Bains
W.
(In press).
Int. J. Astrobiol
. (this issue).
Google Scholar
Baross
J.A.
Deming
J.W.
1983
).
Nature
303
5916
),
423
426
Google Scholar
Baross
J.A.
Lilley
M.D.
Gordon
L.I.
1982
).
Nature
298
5872
),
366
368
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Bedau
M.A.
2010
).
Astrobiology
10
10
),
1011
1020
Google Scholar
Benner
S.A.
2010
).
Astrobiology
10
10
),
1021
1030
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Benner
S.A.
Ricardo
A.
Carrigan
M.A.
2004
).
Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol
672
689
Google Scholar
Bernhardt
G.
Lüdemann
H.-D.
Jaenicke
R.
König
H.
Stetter
K.O.
1984
).
Naturwissenschaften
71
11
),
583
586
Google Scholar
Blöchl
E.
Rachel
R.
Burggraf
F.
Hafenbradl
D.
Jannasch
H.W.
Stetter
K.O.
1997
).
Extremophiles
),
14
21
Google Scholar
Bodetsky
A.B.
1984
).
Information Bulletin of Soviet Antarctic Expedition
Hydrometeoizdat
Leningrad
, p.
105
Google Scholar
Brock
T.D.
1967
).
Nature
214
5091
),
882
885
Google Scholar
Brock
T.D.
1978
).
Thermophilic Microorganisms and Life at High Temperatures
Springer-Verlag
New York
, p.
465
Google Scholar
Brock
T.D.
Brock
M.L.
1966
).
Nature
209
733
734
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Brock
T.D.
Freeze
H.
1969
).
J. Bacteriol
98
),
289
297
Google Scholar
Caldwell
S.L.
Liu
Y.
Ferrrera
I.
Beveridge
T.
Reysenbach
A.-L.
2009
).
Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol
60
338
343
Google Scholar
Cary
S.C.
Shank
T.
Stein
J.
1998
).
Nature
391
6667
),
545
546
Google Scholar
Clarke
A.
2003
). In
Evolution on Planet Earth: The Impact of the Physical Environment
. ed.
Rothschild
L.J.
Lister
A.M.
Academic Press
London
, pp.
187
207
Google Scholar
Clarke
A.
Rothery
P.
2008
).
Funct. Ecol
22
),
58
67
Google Scholar
Clarke
A.
Griffiths
H.J.
Barnes
D.K.A.
Meredith
M.P.
Grant
S.M.
2009
).
J. Geophys. Res. – Biogeosci
114
G03003
Google Scholar
Clarke
A.
Rothery
P.
Isaac
N.J.B.
2010
).
J. Anim. Ecol
79
),
610
619
Google Scholar
Clarke
A.
Morris
G.J.
Fonseca
F.
Murray
B.J.
Acton
E.
Price
H.C.
2013
).
PLoS ONE
),
e66207
Google Scholar
Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems
2007
). The limits of organic life in planetary systems, National Research Council of the National Academies, p.
100
Google Scholar
Dallinger
W.H.
1887
).
J. R. Microsc. Soc
),
185
199
Google Scholar
de Vera
J.-P.
Rettberg
P.
Ott
S.
2008
).
Orig. Life Evol. Biosph
38
),
457
468
Google Scholar
de Vera
J.-P.
Möhlmann
D.
Butina
F.
Lorek
A.
Wernecke
R.
Ott
S.
2010
).
Astrobiology
10
),
215
227
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Debenedetti
P.G.
1996
).
Metastable Liquids: Concepts and Principles
Princeton University Press
New Jersey
, p.
411
Google Scholar
Deckert
G.
et al. (
1998
).
Nature
392
6674
),
353
358
Google Scholar
Deming
J.W.
1986
).
Actes Colloq
325
332
Google Scholar
Denlinger
D.L.
Lee
R.E.
(eds) (
2010
).
Low Temperature Biology of Insects
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK
, p.
390
Google Scholar
Desbruyères
D.
Laubier
L.
1991
).
Ophelia Suppl
),
31
45
Google Scholar
DeVries
A.L.
Cheng
C.-H.C.
1992
).
The role of antifreeze glycopeptides and peptides in the survival of cold-water fishes
. In
Water and Life: Comparative Analyis of Water Relationships at the Organismic. Cellular and Molecular Levels
. ed.
Somero
G.N.
Osmond
C.B.
Bolis
C.L.
Springer-Verlag
Berlin
, pp.
310
315
Google Scholar
Dilly
G.F.
Young
C.R.
Lane
W.S.
Pangilinan
J.
Girguis
P.R.
2012
).
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
279
1741
),
3347
3356
Google Scholar
Doemel
W.N.
Brock
T.D.
1970
).
Arch. Mikrobiol
72
),
326
332
Google Scholar
Doemel
W.N.
Brock
T.D.
1971
).
J. Gen. Microbiol
67
),
17
32
Google Scholar
El Fadli
K.I.
et al. (
2013
).
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc
94
),
199
204
Google Scholar
Ellis
R.J.
2001
).
Trends Biochem. Sci
26
10
),
597
604
Google Scholar
Farrell
A.H.
Hohenstein
K.A.
Shain
D.H.
2004
).
J. Mol. Evol
59
),
666
673
Google Scholar
Fiala
G.
Stetter
K.O.
1986
).
Arch. Microbiol
145
),
56
61
Google Scholar
Gage
J.D.
Tyler
P.A.
1991
).
Deep-sea biology: a natural history of organisms at the deep-sea floor
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK
, p.
504
Google Scholar
Galtier
N.
Lobry
J.R.
1997
).
J. Mol. Evol
44
),
632
636
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Geiges
O.
1996
).
Adv. Space Res
18
12
),
109
118
Google Scholar
Hagvar
S.
2010
).
Eur. J. Entomol
107
),
281
298
Google Scholar
Hand
S.C.
Menze
M.A.
Toner
M.
Boswell
L.
Moore
D.
2011
).
Annu. Rev. Physiol
73
115
124
Google Scholar
Hansen
L.D.
Criddle
R.S.
Battley
E.H.
2009
).
Pure Appl. Chem
81
10
),
1843
1855
Google Scholar
Heurtault
J.
Vannier
G.
1990
).
Acta Zool. Fennica
190
165
172
Google Scholar
Hickey
D.A.
Singer
G.A.C.
2004
).
Genome Biol
10
),
117
Google Scholar
Hirsh
A.G.
1987
).
Cryobiology
24
),
214
228
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Hirsh
A.G.
Williams
R.J.
Meryman
H.T.
1985
).
Plant Physiol
79
),
41
56
Google Scholar
Hochachka
P.W.
Somero
G.N.
2002
).
Biochemical Adaptation: Mechanism and Process in Physiological Evolution
Oxford University Press
Oxford, UK
, p.
466
Google Scholar
Hoeppli
R.
Chu
H.J.
1932
).
Hong Kong Nat
., (
Suppl. 1
),
15
28
Google Scholar
Hoeppli
R.J.C.
1926
).
Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc
45
234
255
Google Scholar
Hoffmann
A.A.
Chown
S.L.
Clusella-Trullas
S.
2013
).
Funct. Ecol
27
),
934
949
Google Scholar
Hoshino
T.
Xiao
N.
Yajima
Y.
Tkachenko
O.B.
2013
).
Fungi in cryosphere: their adaptations to environments
. In
Cold-Adapted Microorganisms
. ed.
Yumoto
I.
Caister Academic Press
Caister, Norfolk, UK
, pp.
51
68
Google Scholar
Huber
R.
Langworthy
T.A.
König
H.
Thomm
M.
Woese
C.R.
Sleytr
U.B.
Stetter
K.O.
1986
).
Arch. Microbiol
144
),
324
333
Google Scholar
Huber
R.
Kurr
M.
Jannasch
H.W.
Stetter
K.O.
1989
).
Nature
342
6251
),
833
834
Google Scholar
Huber
R.
Eder
W.
Hedlwein
S.
Wanner
G.
Huber
H.
Rachel
R.
Stetter
K.O.
1998
).
Appl. Environ. Microbiol
64
10
),
3576
3583
Google Scholar
Hurst
L.D.
Merchant
A.R.
2001
).
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
286
1466
),
493
497
Google Scholar
Hutchinson
G.E.
1959
).
Am. Nat
93
870
),
145
159
Google Scholar
Jones
W.J.
Leigh
J.A.
Mayer
F.
Woese
C.R.
Wolfe
R.S.
1983
).
Arch. Microbiol
136
),
254
261
Google Scholar
Kappen
L.
1993
).
Lichens in the Antarctic region
. In
Antarctic Microbiology
. ed.
Friedmann
E.I.
Wiley-Liss
New York
, pp.
433
490
Google Scholar
Kashefi
K.
Lovley
D.R.
2003
).
Science
301
5635
),
934
934
Google Scholar
Kashefi
K.
Holmes
D.E.
Reysenbach
A.L.
Lovley
R.D.
2002
).
Appl. Environ. Microbiol
68
),
1735
1742
Google Scholar
Kohshima
S.
1984
).
Nature
310
5974
),
225
227
Google Scholar
Kurr
M.
Huber
R.
König
H.
Jannasch
H.W.
Fricke
H.
Kristjansson
J.K.
Stetter
K.O.
1991
).
Arch. Microbiol
156
),
239
247
Google Scholar
Lang
E.W.
1986
).
Adv. Space Res
12
),
251
255
Google Scholar
Leather
S.R.
Walters
K.F.A.
Bale
J.S.
1993
).
The Ecology of Insect Overwintering
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK
, p.
255
Google Scholar
Lovelock
J.E.
1965
).
Nature
207
997
),
568
570
Google Scholar
Luisi
P.L.
1998
).
Orig. Life Evol. Biosph
28
4–6
),
613
622
Google Scholar
Lutz
R.A.
2012
).
Deep-sea hydrothermal vents
. In
Life at Extremes: Environments, Organisms and Strategies for Survival
. ed.
Bell
E.M.
CAB International
Wallingford, Oxfordshire
, pp.
242
270
Google Scholar
Márquez
L.M.
Redman
R.S.
Rodriguez
R.J.
Roosinck
M.J.
2007
).
Science
315
5811
),
513
515
Google Scholar
Marsh
A.C.
1985
).
Physiol. Zool
58
),
629
636
Google Scholar
Mazur
P.
2004
).
Principles of cryobiology
. In
Life in the Frozen State
. ed.
Fuller
B.J.
Lane
N.
Benson
E.E.
CRC Press
Boca Raton
, pp.
65
Google Scholar
McCafferty
D.J.
Gilbert
C.
Thierry
A.-M.
Currie
J.
Le Maho
Y.
Ancel
A.
2013
).
Biol. Lett
20121192
Google Scholar
Miller
R.R.
Minckley
W.L.
Norris
S.M.
2005
).
Freshwater Fishes of Mexico
University of Chicago Press
Coyoacán, México
, p.
652
Google Scholar
Minckley
W.L.
Minckley
C.O.
1986
).
Copeia
1986
),
184
192
Google Scholar
Montejano
G.
Absalón
I.B.
2009
).
Caracterización del hábitat acuático asociado al pez Cyprinodon (nsp.) julimes (in Spanish)
Laboratorio de Ficología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Coyoacán, México
, p.
34
Google Scholar
Morowitz
H.J.
1968
).
Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics
Academic Press
New York
Google Scholar
Ocaña
A.
1991
).
Nematol. Mediterr
19
),
173
175
Google Scholar
Ogg
C.D.
Patel
B.K.C.
2009
).
Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol
59
),
1100
1107
Google Scholar
Onofri
S.
et al. (
2012
).
Astrobiology
12
),
508
516
Google Scholar
Öpik
H.
Rolfe
S.A.
2005
).
The Physiology of Flowering Plants
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK
, p.
392
Google Scholar
Pearce
R.S.
2004
).
Adaptation of higher plants to freezing
. In
Life in the Frozen State
. ed.
Fuller
B.J.
Lane
N.
Benson
E.E.
CRC Press
Boca Raton
, pp.
171
203
Google Scholar
Peat
H.J.
Clarke
A.
Convey
P.
2007
).
J. Biogeogr
34
),
132
146
Google Scholar
Pley
U.
Schipka
J.
Gambacorta
A.
Jannasch
H.W.
Fricke
H.
Rachel
R.
Stetter
K.O.
1991
).
Syst. Appl. Microbiol
14
),
245
253
Google Scholar
Precht
H.
Christophersen
J.
Hensel
H.
Larcher
W.
1973
).
Temperature and Life
Springer-Verlag
, p.
779
Google Scholar
Price
P.B.
Sowers
T.
2004
).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
101
13
),
4631
4636
Google Scholar
Ravaux
J.
Hamel
G.
Zbinden
M.
Tasiemski
A.A.
Boutet
I.
Léger
N.
Tanguy
A.
Jollivet
D.
Shillito
B.
2013
).
PLoS ONE
),
e64074
(64076 p.).
Google Scholar
Redman
R.S.
Sheehan
K.B.
Stout
R.G.
Rodriguez
R.J.
Henson
J.M.
2002
).
Science
298
5598
), p.
1581
Google Scholar
Rivkina
E.
Shcherbakova
V.
Laurinavichius
K.
Petrovskaya
L.
Krivushin
K.
Kraev
G.
Pecheritsina
S.
Gilichinsky
D.
2007
).
FEMS Microbiol. Ecol
61
),
15
Google Scholar
Rivkina
E.M.
Friedmann
E.I.
McKay
C.P.
Gilichinsky
D.
2000
).
Appl. Environ. Microbiol
66
),
3230
3233
Google Scholar
Sako
Y.
Nomura
N.
Uchida
A.
Ishida
Y.
Morii
H.
Koga
Y.
Hoaki
T.
Maruyama
T.
1996
).
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol
46
),
1070
1077
Google Scholar
Schmid
W.D.
1982
).
Science
215
4533
),
697
698
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen
K.
Taylor
C.R.
Shkolnik
A.
1971
).
J. Exp. Biol
55
),
385
398
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen
S.
1902
).
Zentrabl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infekionskr Hyg Abt II
145
147
Google Scholar
Schrenk
M.O.
Kelley
D.S.
Delaney
J.R.
Baross
J.A.
2003
).
Appl. Environ. Microbiol
69
),
3580
3592
Google Scholar
Schrödinger
E.
1944
).
What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell
Cambridge University Press
, p.
96
Google Scholar
Schroeter
B.
Green
T.G.A.
Kappen
L.
Seppelt
R.D.
1994
).
Cryptogam. Bot
),
233
241
Google Scholar
Seki
S.
Kleinhans
F.W.
Mazur
P.
2009
).
Cryobiology
58
),
157
165
Google Scholar
Smith
S.D.
Didden-Zopfy
B.
Nobel
P.S.
1984
).
Ecology
65
),
643
651
Google Scholar
Sokolova
T.
Hanel
J.
Onyenwoke
R.U.
Reysenbach
A.-L.
Banta
A.
Geyer
R.
Gonzáles
J.M.
Whitman
W.B.
Wiegel
J.
2006
).
Extremophiles
11
),
145
157
Google Scholar
Steel
H.
Verdoodt
F.
Čerevková
A.
Couvreur
M.
Fonderie
P.
Moens
T.
Bert
W.
2013
).
Invertebr. Biol
132
),
108
119
Google Scholar
Sterner
R.
Liebl
W.
2001
).
Critic. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol
36
),
39
106
Google Scholar
Stetter
K.O.
1988
).
Syst. Appl.Microbiol
10
),
172
173
Google Scholar
Stetter
K.O.
Thomm
M.
Winter
J.
Wildgruber
G.
Huber
H.
Zillig
W.
Jané-Covic
D.
König
H.
Palm
P.
Wunderl
S.
1981
).
Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie Mikrobiologie und Hygiene: I. Abt. Originale C: Allgemeine, angewandte und ökologische Mikrobiologie
),
166
178
Google Scholar
Storey
K.B.
Storey
J.M.
1996
).
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst
27
365
386
Google Scholar
Storey
K.B.
Storey
J.M.
2004
).
Physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology of vertebrate freeze tolerance: the wood frog
. In
Life in the Frozen State
. ed.
Fuller
B.J.
Lane
N.
Benson
E.E.
CRC Press
Boca Raton
, pp.
243
274
Google Scholar
Strimbeck
G.R.
Johnson
A.H.
Vann
D.R.
1993
).
Tree Physiol
13
),
131
144
Google Scholar
Suryanarayanan
T.S.
Govindarajulu
M.B.
Thirumalai
E.
Reddy
M.S.
Money
N.P.
2011
).
Fungal Biol
115
),
833
838
Google Scholar
Takai
K.
Nakamura
K.
Toki
T.
Tsunogai
U.
Miyazaki
M.
Miyazaki
J.-I.
Hirayama
H.
Makagawa
S.
Nunoura
T.
Horikoshi
K.
2008
).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
105
31
),
1949
10954
Google Scholar
Tansey
M.R.
Brock
T.D.
1972
).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
69
),
2426
2428
Google Scholar
Tehei
M.
Zaccai
G.
2007
).
FEBS J
274
16
),
4034
4043
Google Scholar
Thomas
D.N.
2012
).
Sea ice
. In
Life at Extremes: Environments, Organisms and Strategies for Survival
. ed.
Bell
E.M.
CAB International
Wallingford, Oxfordshire
, pp.
62
80
Google Scholar
Trent
J.D.
Chastain
R.A.
Yayanos
A.A.
1984
).
Nature
307
5953
),
737
740
Google Scholar
Turner
J.
et al. (
2009
).
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos
114
D24102
Google Scholar
Van Dover
C.L.
2000
).
The Ecology of Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents
Princeton University Press
Princeton, New Jersey
, p.
424
Google Scholar
von Neumann
J.
1951
).
The general and logical theory of automata
. In
Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior; the Hixon Symposium
. ed.
Jeffress
L.A.
John Wiley
New York
, pp.
41
Google Scholar
von Neumann
J.
1966
).
Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata
. Edited and completed by
Arthur
W.
Burks, University of Illinois Press
Urbana, Illinois
, p.
388
Google Scholar
Ward
D.
2009
).
The Biology of Deserts
Oxford University Press
Oxford
, p.
339
Google Scholar
Ward
D.
Seeley
M.K.
1966
).
Evol. Ecol
10
),
341
359
Google Scholar
Ward
P.D.
Baross
J.A.
2007
).
Alien biochemistries
. In
Planets and Life: The Emerging Science of Astrobiology
. ed.
Sullivan
W.T.
Baross
J.A.
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK
, pp.
537
544
Google Scholar
Watson
J.D.
Crick
F.H.C.
1953
).
Nature
171
4356
),
737
738
Google Scholar
Wehner
R.
Marsh
A.C.
Wehner
S.
1992
).
Nature
357
586
587
Google Scholar
Wharton
D.A.
2002
).
Life at the Limits: Organisms in Extreme Environments
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK
, p.
320
Google Scholar
Wharton
D.A.
Ferns
D.J.
1995
).
J. Exp. Biol
198
1381
1387
Google Scholar
White
R.H.
1984
).
Nature
310
5976
),
430
432
Google Scholar
Wowk
B.
2010
).
Cryobiology
60
),
11
22
Google Scholar
Zhou
E.H.
Trepat
X.
Park
C.Y.
Lenormand
G.
Oliver
M.N.
Mihailovich
S.M.
Hardin
C.
Weitz
D.A.
Butler
J.P.
Fredberg
J.J.
2009
).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
106
26
),
10632
10637
Google Scholar
Zillig
W.
Holz
I.
Klenk
H.-P.
Trent
J.
Wunderl
S.
Janekovic
D.
Imsel
E.
Haas
B.
1987
).
Syst. Appl. Microbiol
1–2
),
62
70
Google Scholar
Zillig
W.
Holz
I.
Janekovic
D.
Klenk
H.-P.
Imsel
E.
Trent
J.
Wunderl
S.
Forjaz
V.H.
Coutinho
R.
Ferreira
T.
1990
).
J. Bacteriol
172
),
3959
3965
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Zillig
W.
Holz
I.
Wunderl
S.
1991
).
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol
41
169
170
Google Scholar
Table 1.
A working description of life on Earth
Fig. 1.
A tripartite description of life on Earth, based on Schrödinger (1944) and von Neumann (1951, 1966). All three components are necessary, but not sufficient: thermodynamic considerations dictate that for a living entity to perpetuate it must also replicate.
Fig. 2.
Temperature thresholds for life on Earth.
: thermal limits for completion of the life cycle;
: thermal limits for metabolism;
: thermal limits for survival. The shaded portion shows the temperature range over which the life cycle can be completed, and defines the thermal limits for the continued existence of a species over generations. Modified from Clarke
et al.
(2013).
Table 2.
The three major domains of life on Earth, with Eukarya subdivided into categories with differing features of potential importance to their thermal ecology
Table 3.
Some representative thermophilic Archaea and Bacteria that define the upper thermal limit to life on Earth. Hyperthermophiles are a subset of thermophilic extremophiles, defined by having an optimal temperature for growth above 80 °C
Fig. 3.
Species richness (number of species) of cyanobacteria as a function of water temperature across a range of geothermally heated pools in Yellowstone National Park. Replotted from data in Brock (1978).
Table 4.
High-temperature limits for life on Earth
Fig. 4.
Specific growth rate (h
−1
) of microbes as a function of temperature. Data plotted as Arrhenius relationship (natural log of rate as a function of inverse thermodynamic temperature). The slope of the fitted line (ordinary least-squares regression), which captures the across-species relationship between growth rate and temperature, is −13.6 (note that the inverse temperature has been rescaled for presentational convenience). The dotted line shows the lower thermal limit for microbial growth known to date, which is −20 °C. Data replotted from Price & Sowers (2004).
Fig. 5.
Lower critical temperature (LCT) as a function of latitude for northern hemisphere insects. LCT is a measure of the lower
will either be at or above the lower
. Plotted from data in Hoffmann
et al
. (2013).
Fig. 6.
What is the
for a mammal? Body temperature as a function of the mean annual environmental temperature within the range for 512 mammal species (from Clarke
et al.
2010).
Table 5.
Low-temperature limits for life on Earth
You have
Access
Open access
114
Cited by
Cited by
Loading...
Cited by
114
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref
Hodkinson, Brendan P.
and
Hodkinson, Sarah Z.
2014.
Recent literature on lichens—235

The Bryologist,
Vol. 117,
Issue. 4,

p.
418.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Schulze-Makuch, Dirk

Schulze-Makuch, Alexander
and
Houtkooper, Joop
2015.
The Physical, Chemical and Physiological Limits of Life

Life,
Vol. 5,
Issue. 3,

p.
1472.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Vladilo, Giovanni

Silva, Laura

Murante, Giuseppe

Filippi, Luca
and
Provenzale, Antonello
2015.
MODELING THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF EARTH-LIKE PLANETS

The Astrophysical Journal,
Vol. 804,
Issue. 1,

p.
50.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Santillan, Eugenio-Felipe U.

Choi, Wanjoo

Bennett, Philip C.
and
Diouma Leyris, Juliette
2015.
The effects of biocide use on the microbiology and geochemistry of produced water in the Eagle Ford formation, Texas, U.S.A.

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
Vol. 135,
Issue. ,

p.
1.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Hedlund, Brian P.

Thomas, Scott C.

Dodsworth, Jeremy A.
and
Zhang, Chuanlun L.
2015.
Manual of Environmental Microbiology

p.
4.3.4-1.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Bains, William

Xiao, Yao
and
Yu, Changyong
2015.
Prediction of the Maximum Temperature for Life Based on the Stability of Metabolites to Decomposition in Water

Life,
Vol. 5,
Issue. 2,

p.
1054.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Harrison, Jesse P.

Dobinson, Luke

Freeman, Kenneth

McKenzie, Ross

Wyllie, Dale

Nixon, Sophie L.
and
Cockell, Charles S.
2015.
Aerobically respiring prokaryotic strains exhibit a broader temperature–pH–salinity space for cell division than anaerobically respiring and fermentative strains

Journal of The Royal Society Interface,
Vol. 12,
Issue. 110,
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Cockell, C.S.

Bush, T.

Bryce, C.

Direito, S.

Fox-Powell, M.

Harrison, J.P.

Lammer, H.

Landenmark, H.

Martin-Torres, J.

Nicholson, N.

Noack, L.

O'Malley-James, J.

Payler, S.J.

Rushby, A.

Samuels, T.

Schwendner, P.

Wadsworth, J.
and
Zorzano, M.P.
2016.
Habitability: A Review

Astrobiology,
Vol. 16,
Issue. 1,

p.
89.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Pörtner, Hans O.
and
Gutt, Julian
2016.
Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on (Marine) Animals: Physiological Underpinnings and Evolutionary Consequences

Integrative and Comparative Biology,
Vol. 56,
Issue. 1,

p.
31.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Moissl-Eichinger, Christine

Cockell, Charles

Rettberg, Petra
and
Albers, Sonja-Verena
2016.
Venturing into new realms? Microorganisms in space

FEMS Microbiology Reviews,
Vol. 40,
Issue. 5,

p.
722.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Bains, William
and
Schulze-Makuch, Dirk
2016.
The Cosmic Zoo: The (Near) Inevitability of the Evolution of Complex, Macroscopic Life

Life,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 3,

p.
25.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Corkrey, Ross

McMeekin, Tom A.

Bowman, John P.

Ratkowsky, David A.

Olley, June

Ross, Tom
and
Badger, Jonathan H.
2016.
The Biokinetic Spectrum for Temperature

PLOS ONE,
Vol. 11,
Issue. 4,

p.
e0153343.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Oheimb, Parm Viktor von

Landler, Lukas
and
Oheimb, Katharina C. M. von
2016.
Cold Snails in Hot Springs: Observations from Patagonia and the Tibetan Plateau

Malacologia,
Vol. 59,
Issue. 2,

p.
313.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Silva, Laura

Vladilo, Giovanni

Murante, Giuseppe
and
Provenzale, Antonello
2017.
Quantitative estimates of the surface habitability of Kepler-452b

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
Vol. 470,
Issue. 2,

p.
2270.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Silva, Laura

Vladilo, Giovanni

Schulte, Patricia M.

Murante, Giuseppe
and
Provenzale, Antonello
2017.
From climate models to planetary habitability: temperature constraints for complex life

International Journal of Astrobiology,
Vol. 16,
Issue. 3,

p.
244.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Harrison, Jesse P.

Angel, Roey
and
Cockell, Charles S.
2017.
Astrobiology as a framework for investigating antibiotic susceptibility: a study ofHalomonas hydrothermalis

Journal of The Royal Society Interface,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 126,

p.
20160942.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Kosek, Klaudia

Jankowska, Katarzyna
and
Polkowska, Żaneta
2017.
Bacterial presence in polar regions associated with environment modification by chemical compounds including contaminants

Environmental Reviews,
Vol. 25,
Issue. 4,

p.
481.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Schmidt, Susanne I.

Cuthbert, Mark O.
and
Schwientek, Marc
2017.
Towards an integrated understanding of how micro scale processes shape groundwater ecosystem functions

Science of The Total Environment,
Vol. 592,
Issue. ,

p.
215.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Corkrey, Ross

McMeekin, Tom A.

Bowman, John P.

Olley, June

Ratkowsky, David
and
Ross, Tom
2018.
The maximum growth rate of life on Earth

International Journal of Astrobiology,
Vol. 17,
Issue. 1,

p.
17.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Nicholson, Arwen E

Wilkinson, David M

Williams, Hywel T P
and
Lenton, Timothy M
2018.
Gaian bottlenecks and planetary habitability maintained by evolving model biospheres: the ExoGaia model

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
Vol. 477,
Issue. 1,

p.
727.
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Download full list
Google Scholar Citations
View all
Google Scholar citations
for this article.
Cancel
Confirm
Save article to Kindle
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the
Kindle Personal Document Service.
The thermal limits to life on Earth
Volume 13,
Issue 2
Andrew Clarke
(a1)
(a2)
DOI:
Save article to Dropbox
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account.
Find out more about saving content to Dropbox
The thermal limits to life on Earth
Volume 13,
Issue 2
Andrew Clarke
(a1)
(a2)
DOI:
Save article to Google Drive
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account.
Find out more about saving content to Google Drive
The thermal limits to life on Earth
Volume 13,
Issue 2
Andrew Clarke
(a1)
(a2)
DOI:
Reply to:
Submit a response