IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v558y2018i7709d10.1038_s41586-018-0163-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rapid recovery of life at ground zero of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher M. Lowery

    (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Timothy J. Bralower

    (Pennsylvania State University)

  • Jeremy D. Owens

    (Florida State University)

  • Francisco J. Rodríguez-Tovar

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Heather Jones

    (Pennsylvania State University)

  • Jan Smit

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Michael T. Whalen

    (University of Alaska Fairbanks)

  • Phillipe Claeys

    (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

  • Kenneth Farley

    (MS 170-25, California Institute of Technology)

  • Sean P. S. Gulick

    (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Joanna V. Morgan

    (Imperial College London)

  • Sophie Green

    (British Geological Survey)

  • Elise Chenot

    (Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté)

  • Gail L. Christeson

    (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Charles S. Cockell

    (University of Edinburgh)

  • Marco J. L. Coolen

    (Curtin University)

  • Ludovic Ferrière

    (Natural History Museum)

  • Catalina Gebhardt

    (Helmholtz Centre of Polar and Marine Research)

  • Kazuhisa Goto

    (Tohoku University)

  • David A. Kring

    (Lunar and Planetary Institute)

  • Johanna Lofi

    (CNRS, Université de Montpellier)

  • Rubén Ocampo-Torres

    (L’Institut de Chimie et Procédés pour l’Énergie, l’Environnement et la Santé (ICPEES), Université de Strasbourg)

  • Ligia Perez-Cruz

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México)

  • Annemarie E. Pickersgill

    (University of Glasgow
    Argon Isotope Facility, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC))

  • Michael H. Poelchau

    (University of Freiburg)

  • Auriol S. P. Rae

    (Imperial College London)

  • Cornelia Rasmussen

    (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra

    (Independent consultant)

  • Ulrich Riller

    (Universität Hamburg)

  • Honami Sato

    (Chiba Institute of Technology)

  • Sonia M. Tikoo

    (Rutgers University)

  • Naotaka Tomioka

    (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology)

  • Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México)

  • Johan Vellekoop

    (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

  • Axel Wittmann

    (Arizona State University)

  • Long Xiao

    (China University of Geosciences)

  • Kosei E. Yamaguchi

    (Toho University
    NASA Astrobiology Institute)

  • William Zylberman

    (Aix Marseille University)

Abstract

The Cretaceous/Palaeogene mass extinction eradicated 76% of species on Earth1,2. It was caused by the impact of an asteroid3,4 on the Yucatán carbonate platform in the southern Gulf of Mexico 66 million years ago 5 , forming the Chicxulub impact crater6,7. After the mass extinction, the recovery of the global marine ecosystem—measured as primary productivity—was geographically heterogeneous 8 ; export production in the Gulf of Mexico and North Atlantic–western Tethys was slower than in most other regions8–11, taking 300 thousand years (kyr) to return to levels similar to those of the Late Cretaceous period. Delayed recovery of marine productivity closer to the crater implies an impact-related environmental control, such as toxic metal poisoning 12 , on recovery times. If no such geographic pattern exists, the best explanation for the observed heterogeneity is a combination of ecological factors—trophic interactions 13 , species incumbency and competitive exclusion by opportunists 14 —and ‘chance’8,15,16. The question of whether the post-impact recovery of marine productivity was delayed closer to the crater has a bearing on the predictability of future patterns of recovery in 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 a record of foraminifera, calcareous nannoplankton, trace fossils and elemental abundance data from within the Chicxulub crater, dated to approximately the first 200 kyr of the Palaeocene. We show that life reappeared in the basin just years after the impact and a high-productivity ecosystem was established within 30 kyr, which indicates that proximity to the impact did not delay recovery and that there was therefore no impact-related environmental control on recovery. Ecological processes probably controlled the recovery of productivity after the Cretaceous/Palaeogene mass extinction and are therefore likely to be important for the response of the ocean ecosystem to other rapid extinction events.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher M. Lowery & Timothy J. Bralower & Jeremy D. Owens & Francisco J. Rodríguez-Tovar & Heather Jones & Jan Smit & Michael T. Whalen & Phillipe Claeys & Kenneth Farley & Sean P. S. Gulick & Joa, 2018. "Rapid recovery of life at ground zero of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction," Nature, Nature, vol. 558(7709), pages 288-291, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:558:y:2018:i:7709:d:10.1038_s41586-018-0163-6
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0163-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0163-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-018-0163-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:558:y:2018:i:7709:d:10.1038_s41586-018-0163-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.