16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      On impact and volcanism across the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary

      1 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 9 , 17 , 18 , 13 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ,   14 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 4 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 1 , 30 , 14 , 5 , 31 , 32
      Science
      American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          An impact with a dash of volcanism

          Around the time of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction that wiped out dinosaurs, there was both a bolide impact and a large amount of volcanism. Hull et al. ran several temperature simulations based on different volcanic outgassing scenarios and compared them with temperature records across the extinction event. The best model fits to the data required most outgassing to occur before the impact. When combined with other lines of evidence, these models support an impact-driven extinction. However, volcanic gases may have played a role in shaping the rise of different species after the extinction event.

          Science , this issue p. [Related article:]266

          Abstract

          The primary cause of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction was an impact, with volcanism playing a role in the aftermath.

          Abstract

          The cause of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction is vigorously debated, owing to the occurrence of a very large bolide impact and flood basalt volcanism near the boundary. Disentangling their relative importance is complicated by uncertainty regarding kill mechanisms and the relative timing of volcanogenic outgassing, impact, and extinction. We used carbon cycle modeling and paleotemperature records to constrain the timing of volcanogenic outgassing. We found support for major outgassing beginning and ending distinctly before the impact, with only the impact coinciding with mass extinction and biologically amplified carbon cycle change. Our models show that these extinction-related carbon cycle changes would have allowed the ocean to absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide, thus limiting the global warming otherwise expected from postextinction volcanism.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.

          The Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary approximately 65.5 million years ago marks one of the three largest mass extinctions in the past 500 million years. The extinction event coincided with a large asteroid impact at Chicxulub, Mexico, and occurred within the time of Deccan flood basalt volcanism in India. Here, we synthesize records of the global stratigraphy across this boundary to assess the proposed causes of the mass extinction. Notably, a single ejecta-rich deposit compositionally linked to the Chicxulub impact is globally distributed at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. The temporal match between the ejecta layer and the onset of the extinctions and the agreement of ecological patterns in the fossil record with modeled environmental perturbations (for example, darkness and cooling) lead us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Extraterrestrial cause for the cretaceous-tertiary extinction.

            Platinum metals are depleted in the earth's crust relative to their cosmic abundance; concentrations of these elements in deep-sea sediments may thus indicate influxes of extraterrestrial material. Deep-sea limestones exposed in Italy, Denmark, and New Zealand show iridium increases of about 30, 160, and 20 times, respectively, above the background level at precisely the time of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions, 65 million years ago. Reasons are given to indicate that this iridium is of extraterrestrial origin, but did not come from a nearby supernova. A hypothesis is suggested which accounts for the extinctions and the iridium observations. Impact of a large earth-crossing asteroid would inject about 60 times the object's mass into the atmosphere as pulverized rock; a fraction of this dust would stay in the stratosphere for several years and be distributed worldwide. The resulting darkness would suppress photosynthesis, and the expected biological consequences match quite closely the extinctions observed in the paleontological record. One prediction of this hypothesis has been verified: the chemical composition of the boundary clay, which is thought to come from the stratospheric dust, is markedly different from that of clay mixed with the Cretaceous and Tertiary limestones, which are chemically similar to each other. Four different independent estimates of the diameter of the asteroid give values that lie in the range 10 +/- 4 kilometers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Time scales of critical events around the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.

              Mass extinctions manifest in Earth's geologic record were turning points in biotic evolution. We present (40)Ar/(39)Ar data that establish synchrony between the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary and associated mass extinctions with the Chicxulub bolide impact to within 32,000 years. Perturbation of the atmospheric carbon cycle at the boundary likely lasted less than 5000 years, exhibiting a recovery time scale two to three orders of magnitude shorter than that of the major ocean basins. Low-diversity mammalian fauna in the western Williston Basin persisted for as little as 20,000 years after the impact. The Chicxulub impact likely triggered a state shift of ecosystems already under near-critical stress.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Science
                Science
                American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
                0036-8075
                1095-9203
                January 17 2020
                January 17 2020
                : 367
                : 6475
                : 266-272
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
                [2 ]Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, 30655 Hannover, Germany.
                [3 ]GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, 14473 Potsdam, Germany.
                [4 ]Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
                [5 ]National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.
                [6 ]International Ocean Discovery Program, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA.
                [7 ]Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra and Instituto Universitario de Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
                [8 ]Géosciences Rennes, Université de Rennes 1, 35042 Rennes, France.
                [9 ]Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
                [10 ]Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
                [11 ]CEREGE, Université Aix-Marseille, 13545 Aix en Provence, France.
                [12 ]Institute for Rock Magnetism, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
                [13 ]Institut für Planetologie, Universität Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
                [14 ]MARUM – Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
                [15 ]Institute of Earth Sciences, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
                [16 ]Institut für Geophysik und Geologie, Universität Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
                [17 ]School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK.
                [18 ]Department of Geology & Geophysics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
                [19 ]Department of Biogeochemical Systems, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
                [20 ]Department of Earth Sciences, Waseda University, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8050, Japan.
                [21 ]Department of Geosciences, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798, USA.
                [22 ]Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
                [23 ]ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX 77079, USA.
                [24 ]Department of Geological Sciences and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.
                [25 ]School of Environment, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK.
                [26 ]Harvard Society of Fellows, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
                [27 ]Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
                [28 ]Department of Stratigraphy, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
                [29 ]Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
                [30 ]Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459, USA.
                [31 ]National Museum of Nature and Science, Tsukuba, 305-0005, Japan.
                [32 ]Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
                Article
                10.1126/science.aay5055
                31949074
                91efdd37-f109-4133-92e1-f941e865eba0
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article