36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Rapid Recovery of Life at Ground Zero of the End Cretaceous Mass Extinction

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 1 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 1 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 9 , 1 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 20 , 7 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33
      Nature
      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.

          Abstract

          The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction eradicated 76% of species on Earth 1, 2 . It was caused by the impact of an asteroid 3, 4 on the Yucatán carbonate platform in the southern Gulf of Mexico at 66.0 Ma 5 which formed the Chicxulub impact crater 6, 7 . Following the mass extinction, recovery of the global marine ecosystem, measured in terms of primary productivity, was geographically heterogeneous 8 , as export production in the Gulf of Mexico and North Atlantic/Tethys took 300 kyr to return to Late Cretaceous quantities, slower than most other regions 811 . Delayed recovery of marine productivity closer to the crater implies an impact-related environmental control, like toxic metal poisoning 12 , on recovery times. Conversely, if no such geographic pattern exists, the best explanation for the observed heterogeneity is ecological, based on trophic interactions 13 , species incumbency and competitive exclusion by opportunists 14 , and “chance” 8, 15, 16 . Importantly, this question has bearing on the inherent predictability (or lack thereof) of future patterns of recovery in modern anthropogenically perturbed ecosystems. If there is a relationship between the distance from the impact and the recovery of marine productivity, we would expect recovery rates to be slowest in the crater itself. Here, we present the first record of foraminifera, calcareous nannoplankton, trace fossils, and elemental abundance data from the first ~200 kyr of the Paleocene within the Chicxulub Crater. We show that life reappeared in the basin just years after the impact and a thriving, high-productivity ecosystem was established within 30 kyr, faster than many sites across the globe. This is a clear indication that proximity to the impact did not delay recovery and thus there was no impact-related environmental control on recovery. Ecological processes likely controlled the recovery of productivity after the K-Pg mass extinction and are therefore likely to be significant in the response of the ocean ecosystem to other rapid extinction events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • 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: not found
            • Article: not found

            Review and revision of Cenozoic tropical planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and calibration to the geomagnetic polarity and astronomical time scale

              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

                Journal
                0410462
                6011
                Nature
                Nature
                Nature
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                20 April 2018
                30 May 2018
                June 2018
                01 December 2018
                : 558
                : 7709
                : 288-291
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, USA
                [2 ]Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA
                [3 ]Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science | National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
                [4 ]Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Universidad de Granada, 18002 Granada, Spain
                [5 ]Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences (FALW), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Geosciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
                [7 ]Analytical, Environmental and Geo-Chemistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
                [8 ]Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, MS 170-25, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
                [9 ]Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, UK
                [10 ]British Geological Survey, Edinburgh, UK
                [11 ]Biogéosciences Laboratory, Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France
                [12 ]UK Centre for Astrobiology, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [13 ]School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, WA-Organic and Isotope Geochemistry Centre (WA-OIGC), Curtin University, Bentley, Australia
                [14 ]Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria
                [15 ]Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre of Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany
                [16 ]International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
                [17 ]Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, USA
                [18 ]Géosciences Montpellier, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, France
                [19 ]Groupe de Physico-Chimie de l´Atmosphère, L’Institut de Chimie et Procédés pour l’Énergie, l’Environnement et la Santé (ICPEES), Université de Strasbourg, France
                [20 ]Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, Ciudad de México, México
                [21 ]School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK
                [22 ]Argon Isotope Facility, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC), East Kilbride, UK
                [23 ]Department of Geology, University of Freiburg, Germany
                [24 ]SM 312, Mza 7, Chipre 5, Resid. Isla Azul, Cancun, Quintana Roo, México, 77500
                [25 ]Institut für Geologie, Universität Hamburg, Germany
                [26 ]Ocean Resources Research Center for Next Generation, Chiba Institute of Technology, Chiba, Japan
                [27 ]Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
                [28 ]Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Kochi, Japan
                [29 ]LeRoy Eyring Center for Solid State Science, Physical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
                [30 ]Planetary Science Institute, School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), China
                [31 ]Department of Chemistry, Toho University, Chiba, Japan
                [32 ]NASA Astrobiology Institute, USA
                [33 ]CNRS, Institut pour la Recherche et le Développement, Aix Marseille University, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to CML ( cmlowery@ 123456utexas.edu )
                Article
                NASAPA956943
                10.1038/s41586-018-0163-6
                6058194
                29849143
                cd90e9c3-e352-44cc-9c87-e56ab4fcb4bd

                Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms

                Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article