The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction...

DOI: 10.1126/science.1177265 , 1214 (2010); 327Science

et al.Peter Schulte,at the Cretaceous-Paleogene BoundaryThe Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

. clicking herecolleagues, clients, or customers by , you can order high-quality copies for yourIf you wish to distribute this article to others

. herefollowing the guidelines can be obtained byPermission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles

(this information is current as of March 4, 2010 ):The following resources related to this article are available online at www.sciencemag.org

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214version of this article at:

including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1 can be found at: Supporting Online Material

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214#otherarticles, 17 of which can be accessed for free: cites 54 articlesThis article

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/geochem_physGeochemistry, Geophysics

: subject collectionsThis article appears in the following

registered trademark of AAAS. is aScience2010 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title

CopyrightAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by theScience

on

Mar

ch 4

, 201

0 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl

http://www.sciencemag.org/help/about/permissions.dtl

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214#otherarticles

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/geochem_phys

http://www.sciencemag.org

The Chicxulub Asteroid Impactand Mass Extinction at theCretaceous-Paleogene BoundaryPeter Schulte,1* Laia Alegret,2 Ignacio Arenillas,2 José A. Arz,2 Penny J. Barton,3 Paul R. Bown,4Timothy J. Bralower,5 Gail L. Christeson,6 Philippe Claeys,7 Charles S. Cockell,8 Gareth S. Collins,9Alexander Deutsch,10 Tamara J. Goldin,11 Kazuhisa Goto,12 José M. Grajales-Nishimura,13Richard A. F. Grieve,14 Sean P. S. Gulick,6 Kirk R. Johnson,15 Wolfgang Kiessling,16Christian Koeberl,11 David A. Kring,17 Kenneth G. MacLeod,18 Takafumi Matsui,19 Jay Melosh,20Alessandro Montanari,21 Joanna V. Morgan,9 Clive R. Neal,22 Douglas J. Nichols,15Richard D. Norris,23 Elisabetta Pierazzo,24 Greg Ravizza,25 Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra,26Wolf Uwe Reimold,16 Eric Robin,27 Tobias Salge,28 Robert P. Speijer,29 Arthur R. Sweet,30Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi,31 Vivi Vajda,32 Michael T. Whalen,33 Pi S. Willumsen32

The Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary ~65.5 million years ago marks one of the three largest massextinctions in the past 500 million years. The extinction event coincided with a large asteroidimpact at Chicxulub, Mexico, and occurred within the time of Deccan flood basalt volcanism inIndia. Here, we synthesize records of the global stratigraphy across this boundary to assess theproposed causes of the mass extinction. Notably, a single ejecta-rich deposit compositionally linkedto the Chicxulub impact is globally distributed at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Thetemporal match between the ejecta layer and the onset of the extinctions and the agreement ofecological 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.

Paleontologists have long recognized theglobal scale and abruptness of the majorbiotic turnover at the Cretaceous-Paleogene

(K-Pg, formerly K-T) boundary ~65.5 millionyears ago (Ma). This boundary represents one ofthe most devastating events in the history of life(1) and abruptly ended the age of the dinosaurs.Thirty years ago, the discovery of an anomalouslyhigh abundance of iridium and other platinumgroup elements (PGEs) in the K-Pg boundaryclay led to the hypothesis that an asteroid ~10 kmin diameter collided with Earth and rendered manyenvironments uninhabitable (2, 3).

The occurrence of an impact is substantiatedby the recognition of impact ejecta includingspherules, shocked minerals, and Ni-rich spinelsin many K-Pg boundary event deposits [e.g.,(4, 5)]. The ejecta distribution points to an impactevent in the Gulf of Mexico–Caribbean region;this prediction is reinforced by the discovery ofthe ~180- to 200-km-diameter Chicxulub craterstructure on the Yucatan peninsula, Mexico (6).Modeling suggests that the size of the crater andthe release of climatically sensitive gases fromthe carbonate- and sulfate-rich target rocks couldhave caused catastrophic environmental effects

such as extended darkness, global cooling, andacid rain (7–9). These effects provide an arrayof potential mechanisms for the ecologicallydiverse but selective abrupt extinctions (Fig. 1)(10–13).

Notwithstanding the substantial evidence sup-porting an impact mechanism, other interpre-tations of the K-Pg boundary mass extinctionremain. Stratigraphic and micropaleontologicaldata from the Gulf of Mexico and the Chicxulubcrater have instead been used to argue that thisimpact preceded the K-Pg boundary by severalhundred thousand years and therefore could nothave caused the mass extinction [e.g., (14)]. Inaddition, the approximately one-million-year-longemplacement of the large Deccan flood basaltsin India spans the K-Pg boundary (Fig. 1); therelease of sulfur and carbon dioxide during thesevoluminous eruptions may have caused severeenvironmental effects (15) that have also beenproposed as triggers for the mass extinction atthe K-Pg boundary (16).

Here, we assess the observational support forthese divergent interpretations by synthesizingrecent stratigraphic, micropaleontological, petro-logical, and geochemical data from the globallydistributed K-Pg boundary event deposit. Impactand volcanism as extinction mechanisms areevaluated in terms of their predicted environ-mental perturbations and, ultimately, the dis-tribution of life on Earth before and after theK-Pg boundary.

What Is the Evidence for Correlating the Impactwith the K-Pg Boundary?The Upper Cretaceous and lower Paleogenesediments bracketing the K-Pg boundary eventdeposits are among the most intensively in-vestigated deposits in the geological record.More than 350 K-Pg boundary sites are cur-rently known, and these sites show a distinctejecta distribution pattern related to distancefrom the Chicxulub crater (Fig. 2 and table

REVIEW

1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,Schlossgarten 5, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. 2Departamentode Ciencias de la Tierra e Instituto Universitario de Inves-tigación de Ciencias Ambientales de Aragón, Universidad deZaragoza, Pedro Cerbuna 12, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain. 3De-partment of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, CambridgeCB2 3EQ, UK. 4Department of Earth Sciences, University CollegeLondon, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. 5Department ofGeosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA16802, USA. 6Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geo-sciences, University of Texas at Austin, J.J. Pickle ResearchCampus, 10100 Burnet Road 196-ROC, Austin, TX 78759, USA.7Earth System Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. 8Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space andAstronomical Research, Open University, Milton Keynes MK76AA, UK. 9Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial CollegeLondon, London SW7 2BP, UK. 10Institut für Planetologie, Uni-versität Münster, D-48149 Münster, Germany. 11Department ofLithospheric Research, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. 12Tsunami Engineering Laboratory,Disaster Control Research Center, Graduate School of Engineer-ing, Tohoku University, 6-6-11-1106 Aoba, Aramaki, Sendai980-8579, Japan. 13Programa de Geología de Exploracíon yExplotacíon, Dirección de Investigación y Posgrado, Instituto

Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Lázaro Cárdenas No. 152, C.P. 07730,México City, México. 14Earth Sciences Sector, Natural ResourcesCanada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4, Canada. 15Research andCollections Division, Denver Museum of Nature and Science,2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, USA. 16Museumfür Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute at the Humboldt UniversityBerlin, Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany. 17Centerfor Lunar Science and Exploration, Universities Space ResearchAssociation–Lunar and Planetary Institute, 3600 Bay Area Boule-vard, Houston, TX 77058–1113, USA. 18Department ofGeological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO65211, USA. 19Planetary Exploration Research Center, ChibaInstitute of Technology, 2-17-1 Tsudanuma, Narashino, Chiba275-0016, Japan. 20Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, PurdueUniversity, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907–2051, USA. 21Osservatorio Geologico di Coldigioco, 62021 Apiro(MC), Italy. 22Department of Civil Engineering and GeologicalSciences, 156 Fitzpatrick Hall, University of Notre Dame, NotreDame, IN 46556, USA. 23SIO Geological Collections, 301Vaughan Hall, MS-0244, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, LaJolla, CA 92093–0244, USA. 24Planetary Science Institute, 1700East Fort Lowell Road, Suite 106, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.25Department of Geology and Geophysics, School of Ocean andEarth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, Manoa,

Honolulu, HI 96822, USA. 26Unidad de Ciencias del Agua,Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, A.C., Calle 8, No.39, Mz. 29, S.M. 64, Cancún, Quintana Roo, 77500, México.27Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement,Institut Pierre et Simon Laplace, Commission à l’ÉnergieAtomique/CNRS/Université de Versailles Saint Quentin enYveunes–UMR 1572, Avenue de la Terrasse, F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. 28Bruker Nano GmbH, Schwarzschildstraße12, D-12489 Berlin, Germany. 29Department of Earth andEnvironmental Sciences, K.U.Leuven, Box 2408, Celestijnenlaan200E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 30Natural Resources Canada,Geological Survey of Canada Calgary, 3303 33rd Street NW,Calgary, AB T2L 2A7, Canada. 31Laboratorio de Paleomagnetismoy Paleoambientes, Programa Universitario de Perforaciones enOceanos y Continentes, Instituto de Geofísica, UniversidadNacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), DF 04510 Mexico,Mexico. 32Department of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, LundUniversity, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62 Lund, Sweden. 33Departmentof Geology and Geophysics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK99775, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:[email protected]. The remaining authorscontributed equally to this work.

5 MARCH 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1214

on

Mar

ch 4

, 201

0 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


S1) (17, 18). Accordingly, the K-Pg boundarysites can be divided into four groups (Fig. 2and table S1): (i) In very proximal settings upto 500 km from Chicxulub, impact depositsare quite thick. Cores recovered close to thecrater rim inside the Chicxulub impact struc-ture include a >100-m-thick impact-breccia se-quence, and 1-m- to >80-m-thick ejecta-richdeposits are present in the surrounding CentralAmerican region [e.g., (19–21)]. (ii) In prox-imal areas around the northwestern Gulf ofMexico from 500 to 1000 km from Chicxulub,the K-Pg boundary is characterized by a seriesof cm- to m-thick ejecta spherule-rich, clasticevent beds indicative of high-energy sedimenttransport, for example, by tsunamis and gravityflows (18, 22, 23). (iii) At intermediate distancesfrom Chicxulub (~1000 to ~5000 km), the K-Pgboundary deposit consists of a 2- to 10-cm-thickspherule layer topped by a 0.2- to 0.5-cm-thicklayer anomalously rich in PGEs with abun-dant shocked minerals, granitic clasts, and Ni-rich spinels (Fig. 3) (12, 24–26). (iv) In distalmarine sections more than 5000 km fromChicxulub, a reddish, 2- to 5-mm-thick claylayer rich in impact ejecta material is usuallypresent at the K-Pg boundary [e.g., (17)]. The

bedding plane between the impact-ejecta-richred clay layer and the underlying Cretaceousmarls coincident with the abrupt mass extinc-tion in the El Kef section, Tunisia, is alsothe officially defined base of the Paleogene(fig. S1) (27). This definition implies that theimpact-generated sediments in the K-Pg bound-ary interval stratigraphically belong to thePaleogene (Fig. 2).

The pattern of decreasing ejecta-layer thick-ness with increasing distance from the impactcrater is consistent with the Chicxulub impact asthe unique source for the ejecta in the K-Pgboundary event deposit (Figs. 2 and 3 and tableS1). Additional support for this genetic link de-rives from the distribution, composition, anddepositional mode of the ejecta. First, the sizeand abundance of spherules and ballisticallyejected shocked quartz grains, which are resistantto alteration, decrease with increasing distancefrom Chicxulub (18, 28). Second, the specificcomposition [e.g., silicic spherules, shockedlimestone, and dolomite and granitic clasts(Fig. 3 and figs. S2 to S4)] (29) and age dis-tribution (table S2) of the ejecta match the suiteof Chicxulub target rocks. Lastly, the presenceof the high-energy clastic unit at proximal

K-Pg boundary sites, interca-lated between two layers rich inChicxulub ejecta, suggests that theChicxulub impact caused a col-lapse of the Yucatan carbonateplatform and triggered mass flowsand tsunamis in the Gulf ofMexico and adjacent areas (Fig.2 and figs. S3 to S8) (17, 18, 30).Therefore, the K-Pg boundaryclastic unit, up to 80 m thickin places, was deposited in theextremely brief period betweenthe arrival of coarse-grainedspherules and the subsequent,longer-term deposition of thefiner-grained PGE- and Ni-richejecta phases (Fig. 2) (22).

A contrasting hypothesis isfounded on the interpretation thatthe clastic unit is a long-term dep-ositional sequence geneticallyunrelated to the Chicxulub impactevent (14, 31); lenslike spheruledeposits locally present belowthe clastic unit in Mexico wouldthen correlate to the base of theuppermost Cretaceous plankticforaminiferal zone (14, 31). Thisinterpretation also proposes alatest Cretaceous age for the im-pact breccia found within theChicxulub crater with the impli-cation that all intermediate todistal K-Pg boundary sites lackthe resolution and completenessto firmly establish a correlationto the Chicxulub impact event

(14, 32). Additionally, the assertion that theChicxulub impact preceded the K-Pg massextinction by ~300 thousand years predicts thatthe PGE anomaly at the top of the clastic unitresulted from a second large impact event (14).In this scenario, either the second impact eventor the Deccan flood basalt eruptions caused theK-Pg mass extinction (14).

However, sedimentological and petrologicaldata suggest that the lenslike ejecta depositsin Mexico were generated by impact-relatedliquefaction and slumping, consistent with thesingle very-high-energy Chicxulub impact (figs.S5 to S9) (23). A range of sedimentary struc-tures and the lack of evidence for ocean floorcolonization within the clastic unit in northeast-ern Mexico indicate rapid deposition (figs. S6 toS8) (22, 23). Moreover, the presence of shallow-water benthic foraminifera in the clastic unit (33)contradicts a long-term depositional sequence(14); if in situ, their presence requires un-realistically rapid relative sea-level changes of>500 m. Lastly, high-resolution planktic forami-niferal analyses in the southern Mexican sectionsdemonstrate that the Chicxulub-linked clastic unitis biostratigraphically equivalent to the officiallydefined base of the Paleocene (i.e., the red clay

65

--

---

-

-

---

--

65.5

66

Fauna and FloraC

reta

ceo

us

Pal

eog

ene

Calcite (wt%)

(Ma)

–1 0 1 2 20 40 60 80 0 0.5 1 1.5

Deccan trapsGeochemistry and mineralogy

δ13C (V-PDB)

Per

iod

Age

Iridium (ppb)Volume

(x 103 km3)

A B C D E F G

200

165

100

100

4010

10

150

2525

25

1501000

m

?

?

?

Fig. 1. Stratigraphy and schematic record of biotic events across the K-Pg boundary correlated to the chemical andmineralogical records of a core from the North Atlantic [Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 207] and the major eruptiveunits of the Deccan flood basalt province, India. Many (>60%) Cretaceous species experienced mass extinction at theboundary (A), whereas successive blooms of opportunistic species (B) and radiation of new species (C) occurred in theEarly Paleogene. V-PDB indicates the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite; wt %, weight %; and ppb, parts per billion. The massextinction coincides with a major perturbation of the global carbon cycle as indicated by a negative d13C anomaly (D), amajor drop of carbonate sedimentation in the marine realm (E), and the enrichment of PGEs in Chicxulub ejecta deposits(F) (25, 26). Composite stratigraphic column of the formations of the main Deccan Trap flood basalt province showingtheir cumulative thickness and estimated basalt volumes (G) (15). Note that the exact stratigraphic onset and end of themain Deccan flood basalt sequence and the precise position of the K-Pg boundary in the formations have yet to bedetermined, as indicated by the question marks (16). However, the onset of the main eruption phase is ~400 to 600thousand years before the K-Pg boundary as is also shown by Os isotope data (38).

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 327 5 MARCH 2010 1215

REVIEW

on

Mar

ch 4

, 201

0 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


layer) in the El Kef section, Tunisia (Fig. 2 andfig. S1) (20).

A pre–K-Pg boundary age for the Chicxulubevent has also been argued on the basis of thesequence at a Brazos River site in Texas andfrom within the crater. If a 3-cm-thick clay layerinterbedded in Upper Cretaceous shales at theBrazos River site originated from the Chicxulubimpact, the impact occurred significantly beforethe K-Pg boundary (31). Yet, in this clay layerthere are no spherules or shocked minerals thatwould provide evidence for animpact origin, and its high san-idine and quartz content sup-ports a local volcanic originsimilar to ash layers found belowthe K-Pg boundary in Mexicoand Haiti (table S3 and figs.S10 to S12).

Within the Chicxulub crater,an ~50-cm-thick dolomitic sand-stone unit between the impactbreccias and the lower Paleo-cene postimpact crater infill hasbeen interpreted as undisturbedsediments deposited immedi-ately after the impact (fig. S13)(32). Rare uppermost Cretaceousplanktic foraminifera within thisunit were proposed as evidencethat the impact preceded theK-Pg mass extinction (32). How-ever, this sandstone unit is inpart cross-bedded, contains ejec-ta clasts (fig. S14), and also in-cludes planktic foraminifera ofEarly Cretaceous age (figs. S14and S15) (34, 35). These obser-vations, as well as grain-size data(36), indicate that deposition ofthis sequence was influenced byerosion and reworking after theimpact and therefore provide noevidence for a long-term post-impact and pre–K-Pg boundarydeposition.

In addition, multiple indepen-dent lines of evidence place theChicxulub event at the K-Pgboundary. Geochronologic datademonstrate that the Chicxulubimpact correlates to the K-Pgboundary at ~65.5 Ma (29). De-tailed investigation of continuoussequences from globally distrib-uted marine and terrestrial sitesyield no chemical or physical evi-dence of a large impact in thelast million years of the Creta-ceous other than the Chicxulubevent (table S1 and fig. S16)(25, 37, 38). Lastly, orbital cyclesin deep-sea sites [(39) and ref-erences therein] demonstrate thatthere is neither a proposed global

300-thousand-year gap (14) nor a hiatus betweenthe Chicxulub impact and the K-Pg boundary.

What Were the Initial Consequencesof the Impact?Asteroid impact models [e.g., (40)] predict that animpact large enough to generate the Chicxulubcrater would induce earthquakes (magnitude > 11),shelf collapse around the Yucatan platform, andwidespread tsunamis sweeping the coastal zones ofthe surrounding oceans (7). Moreover, models

suggest the Chicxulub impact had sufficient en-ergy to eject and distribute material around theglobe (7), possibly enhanced by decompositionof the volatile-rich carbonate and sulfate sediments(41). Near-surface target material was ejected bal-listically at velocities up to a few km/s as part ofthe ejecta curtain. This yielded the thick spherulelayer at proximal sites and the basal spherulelayer at intermediate distance sites (Fig. 2) (41).Parts of the ejecta would be entrained withinthe impact plume: a complex mixture of hot air;

0 -

1 -

2 -

3 -

4 -

5 -

6 -

7 -

AtlanticPacific IndianOceanOcean

New Zealand

Seymour Island

Spain

FranceItaly

Bulgaria

Kazakhstan

Denmark

Tunisia

Japan

130

198

86

62

91

114

113

72 208

74

159

122

WesternInterior

Gulf ofMexico

Caribbean207

GPC3

145

Ocean

A

B

Cre

ta-

ceo

us

Pal

eog

ene

K-P

g b

ou

nd

ary

even

t d

epo

sit

20 -

10 -

0 -

30 -

40 -

50 -

60 -

(m)

(m)

(cm)

Ni-rich spinels

Ejecta spherules

Igneous clasts

Bioturbation

Accretionary lapilli

Iridium

Lignite

Clastic unit

Ripples

Slumps

Shocked minerals

Breccia

Marl

Red boundary clay

Sandstone

Clay

Limestone

Very proximal Proximal Intermediate Distal

0 -

1 -

2 -

3 -

(cm)0 -

1 -

2 -

3 -

4 -

High-energyclastic

unitGradedclastic

unit(massflows)

Guayal, S Mexico El Mimbral, NE Mexico Agost, SpainWestern Interior

India

Fig. 2. (A) Global distribution of key K-Pg boundary locations. Deep-Sea drill sites are referred to by the cor-responding Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and ODP Leg numbers. The asterisk indicates the location of the Chicxulubimpact structure. Colored dots mark the four distinct types of K-Pg boundary event deposit related to distance from theChicxulub crater (table S1): magenta, very proximal (up to 500 km); red, proximal (up to 1000 km); orange,intermediate distance (1000 to 5000 km); and yellow, distal (>5000 km). Schematic lithologs of the four groups of K-Pgboundary event deposits (B) highlighting high-energy event beds (clastic unit) proximal to the crater and thedepositional sequence of different materials that originated in one single impact in proximal to distal sites.


REVIEW

on

Mar

ch 4

, 201

0 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


projectile material; and impact-vaporized, shock-melted, and fragmented target rocks that expandedrapidly by several km/s up to velocities greaterthan Earth’s escape velocity of 11 km/s. Projectile-rich impact plume deposits form the upper layerin intermediate-distance K-Pg sections and con-tribute to the single red K-Pg boundary clay layerat distal sites, enriching both in PGEs and shockedminerals (Fig. 2).

Detailed multiphase flow models suggestthat the atmospheric reentry of the ejectaspherules may have caused a global pulse ofincreased thermal radiation at the ground (42).Such a thermal pulse is below the lower limitsof woody biomass ignition, in agreement withstudies yielding no evidence for widespreadlarge wildfires at the K-Pg boundary (43), with apossible exception for the Gulf of Mexico regionclose to the impact site [(9) and referencestherein]. However, the modeled level of radiationis expected to have resulted in thermal damage tothe biosphere even if the maximum radiationintensity was only sustained for a few minutes.

Geophysical models indicate that the impactrelease of large quantities of water, dust, andclimate-forcing gases would dramatically alter theclimate system (7, 8). The estimated amount of thesilicic sub-micrometer-sized dust input of 0.01 to0.1 Gt (1 Gt = 1015g) is considered to be too lowby itself to cause a catastrophic impact winter (44).

However, abundant sub-micrometer-sized partic-ulate carbonates in the ejecta (26) and soot, astrong absorber of short-wave radiation, derivedfrom burning of targeted carbonaceous sedimentsmay have greatly amplified the effects of dustinjection (43). In addition, there are estimates of atleast 100 to 500 Gt of sulfur released nearlyinstantaneously (7, 8). These figures are likely tobe conservative given new larger estimates of thevolume of water and sulfur-bearing sedimentswithin Chicxulub’s 100-km-diameter transient cra-ter (45). The sulfur was probably rapidly trans-formed to sunlight-absorbing sulfur aerosols withthe capacity to cool Earth’s surface for years todecades by up to 10°C (8, 10). Temperatures of thedeep ocean, however, remained largely unaffectedby the impact because of the ocean’s large thermalmass (46), contributing to a rapid recovery of theglobal climate. The sulfur release also generatedacid rain, which, although not sufficient to com-pletely acidify ocean basins, would have severelyaffected marine surface waters and/or poorly buf-fered continental catchments and watersheds (9).

Although currentmodels cannot fully assess thecombined environmental consequences of theChicxulub impact (7, 9), the extremely rapid injec-tion rate of dust and climate-forcing gases wouldhave magnified the environmental consequencescompared with more-prolonged volcanic eruptions,particularly when compounded by the additional

adverse effects of a large impact (e.g., heat wave,soot, and dust release) that are absent during floodbasalt volcanism. Specifically, the injection of ~100to 500 Gt of sulfur into the atmosphere withinminutes after the Chicxulub impact contrasts withvolcanic injection rates of 0.05 to 0.5Gt of sulfur peryear during the ~1-million-year-long main phase ofDeccan flood basalt volcanism (Fig. 1 and fig. S16)(15, 16). Indeed, an only moderate climate change(~2°Cwarming) during the last 400 thousand yearsof the Cretaceous has been interpreted to resultfrom Deccan flood basalt volcanism [e.g., (47)].

What Does the Fossil Record Reveal Aboutthe Global Consequences for Life?The scale of biological turnover between the Cre-taceous and Paleogene is nearly unprecedented inEarth history (1). A number ofmajor animal groupsdisappeared across the boundary (e.g., the nonaviandinosaurs, marine and flying reptiles, ammonites,and rudists) (48), and several other major groupssuffered considerable, but not complete, species-level extinction (e.g., planktic foraminifera, calcar-eous nannofossils, land plants) (12, 13, 37, 49).Even the groups that showed negligible extinc-tions exhibited substantial changes in assemblagecomposition (e.g., benthic foraminifera) (50).

For marine phytoplankton, major driversof ocean productivity, darkness, and suppres-sion of photosynthesis were likely major killing

SP

Pal

eog

ene

Cre

tace

ou

s

K-Pg boundaryevent deposit

A B C

DO

CC

CC

Q1 cm 100 µm 10 µm

1259C Core 8R-390 to 106 cm

SP

SP

SP

SP

AC

Ca-KαSi-K

Mg-KFe-Kα

Fig. 3. The K-Pg boundary at ODP Leg 207, western North Atlantic (A).An energy-dispersive element distribution map of the box in (A) showsthe transition from the top of the spherule-rich graded ejecta sequence(SP) to the lowermost Paleogene sediments (B). Note abundant calcite(blue) and dolomite (turquoise) ejecta material as well as occurrence of

shocked quartz grains (red) in the uppermost 0.5 mm. A backscatteredelectron image of the box in (B) shows a rounded dolomite clast (DO)with a Ca-rich clay shell (between arrows), a rounded calcite clast (CC), anaccretionary calcite clast (AC), and quartz (Q) interpreted to be of shock-metamorphic origin resulting from the Chicxulub impact (C).

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 327 5 MARCH 2010 1217

REVIEW

on

Mar

ch 4

, 201

0 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


mechanisms (9). There is a clear separation inextinction rate between strongly affected phyto-plankton groups with calcareous shells and groupsthat had organic or siliceous shells. Although thepossible effects of surface ocean acidification afterthe impact may have been an additional stressfactor, this selectivity seems to have favored traitscontributing to survival of acute stress (11, 13).For example, cyst-forming dinoflagellates per-sisted through the K-Pg boundary, although as-semblage changes suggest a brief cooling phaseafter the impact [(51) and references therein].

The extinction of calcareous primary producersmust have caused major starvation higher up in thefood chain. This would explain the extinctions ofanimals relying on plankton as their food source,the survival of organisms living in detritus-basedfood chains, and the dwarfing in evolutionarylineages observed in marine biota after the K-Pgboundary (9, 52, 53). The abrupt drop in planktonproductivity was apparently short-lived as shownby marine biomarker data (54). The negative shiftof the stable carbon isotopic value (d13C) (Fig. 1)and the surface to deepwater d13Cgradient collapseis indicative of a major disruption to marineproductivity and the ocean’s biological pump (11).However, the large magnitude of the d13C anomalysuggests that the release of methane, input of soot,or the dependency of the isotopic signal on themetabolism of different species may have con-tributed to the anomaly (50).

On land, the loss of the diverse vegetation andthe onset of the fern-spore spike following theK-Pg boundary indicates instantaneous (days tomonths) destruction of diverse forest communitiescoincident with deposition of ejecta from theChicxulub impact (fig. S17) (12, 37, 55). Ashutdown of photosynthesis because of low lightlevels is also indicated by high abundances offungal spores in a thin layer of sediment precedingthe recovery succession of ferns at a NewZealand K-Pg boundary site (56). Analogous tothe marine environment, the abrupt eliminationof the forest communities may have had simi-larly catastrophic effects on animals relying onprimary producers (e.g., the herbivorous dino-saurs), whereas detritus-based food chains (e.g.,in lakes) were apparently less affected (52).

Faunal and floral changes during the Late Cre-taceous do occur [e.g., (12, 47)] but are clearlydistinguishable from the abruptmass extinction andecosystem disruption coincident with the K-Pgboundary, as indicated by high-resolution records ofmarine planktonicmicrofossils and terrestrial pollenand spores (12, 13, 25, 37, 55, 57). Productivityproxies (e.g., carbonate content) linked to orbitallytuned stratigraphic time scales provide no evidencefor major changes preceding the boundary (39).Claims of gradual or stepwise extinctions duringthe Late Cretaceous culminating in the K-Pg massextinction (14) and survivorship through the K-Pgboundary may be explained by short-term survivalwith greatly reduced population sizes, samplingartifacts, or reworking of Cretaceous fossils [e.g.,(57)]. In addition, the global onset of opportunistic

species blooms and the evolutionary radiation ofnew taxa started consistently after the K-Pg bound-ary mass extinction (Fig. 1 and fig. S17) (49, 55).

What Do We Need to Look at Next?The correlation between impact-derived ejecta andpaleontologically defined extinctions at multiplelocations around the globe leads us to conclude thatthe Chicxulub impact triggered themass extinctionthat marks the boundary between the Mesozoicand Cenozoic eras ~65.5 million years ago. Thisconclusion is reinforced by the agreement ofecological extinction patterns with modeledenvironmental perturbations. Although the relativeimportance of the different impact-inducedenvironmental effects on the K-Pg mass extinctionis still under scrutiny, alternative multi-impact orvolcanic hypotheses fail to explain the geographicand stratigraphic distribution of ejecta and itscomposition, the timing of the mass extinction,and the scale of environmental changes required tocause it. Future geophysical, geological, anddrilling studies of the Chicxulub structure willfurther constrain the impact process and theamount and nature of environment-altering gasesgenerated by this so far unparalleled combinationof a large impact into ~3- to 4-km-thick carbonate-and sulfate-rich target rocks. Research focused onhigh-resolution studies of the ejected material,integrated climate models, and detailed study ofrelated fossil successions will help reveal thephysical and biological mechanisms of the K-Pgmass extinction and may also aid in understand-ing other mass extinction events in Earth history.

References and Notes1. J. Alroy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (suppl. 1),

11536 (2008).2. L. W. Alvarez, W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, Science

208, 1095 (1980).3. J. Smit, J. Hertogen, Nature 285, 198 (1980).4. A. Montanari et al., Geology 11, 668 (1983).5. B. F. Bohor, Tectonophysics 171, 359 (1990).6. A. R. Hildebrand et al., Geology 19, 867 (1991).7. O. B. Toon, K. Zahnle, D. Morrison, R. P. Turco, C. Covey,

Rev. Geophys. 35, 41 (1997).8. E. Pierazzo, A. N. Hahmann, L. C. Sloan, Astrobiology 3,

99 (2003).9. D. A. Kring, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.

255, 4 (2007).10. K. O. Pope, K. H. Baines, A. C. Ocampo, B. A. Ivanov,

J. Geophys. Res. 102, (E9), 21645 (1997).11. S. D'Hondt, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 295 (2005).12. A. R. Sweet, D. R. Braman, Can. J. Earth Sci. 38, 249 (2001).13. P. Bown, Geology 33, 653 (2005).14. G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, D. Stüben, Earth Sci.

Rev. 62, 327 (2003).15. S. Self, M. Widdowson, T. Thordarson, A. E. Jay, Earth

Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 518 (2006).16. A.-L. Chenet et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, (B6), B06103 (2009).17. J. Smit, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 75 (1999).18. P. Claeys, W. Kiessling, W. Alvarez, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc.

Am. 356, 55 (2002).19. J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi, L. E. Marín, A. Trejo-Garcia,

Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1565 (1996).20. I. Arenillas et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 249, 241 (2006).21. K. Goto et al., Cretaceous Res. 29, 217 (2008).22. J. Smit, W. Alvarez, A. Montanari, P. Claeys,

J. M. Grajales-Nishimura, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am.307, 151 (1996).

23. P. Schulte, A. Kontny, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 384,191 (2005).

24. R. D. Norris, B. T. Huber, B. T. Self-Trail, Geology 27, 419(1999).

25. K. G. MacLeod, D. L. Whitney, B. T. Huber, C. Koeberl,Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119, 101 (2007).

26. P. Schulte et al.,Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73, 1180 (2009).27. E. Molina et al., Episodes 29, 263 (2006).28. J. V. Morgan et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 264 (2006).29. Materials and methods are available as supporting

material on Science Online.30. T. J. Bralower, C. K. Paull, R. M. Leckie, Geology 26, 331

(1998).31. G. Keller et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339 (2007).32. G. Keller et al., Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 1127 (2004).33. L. Alegret, E. Molina, E. Thomas, Geology 29, 891 (2001).34. J. A. Arz, L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39,

1099 (2004).35. J. Smit, S. V. D. Gaast, W. Lustenhouwer, Meteorit. Planet.

Sci. 39, 1113 (2004).36. T. J. Bralower et al., Geology, in press.37. D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Plants and the K-T Boundary

(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008), p. 280.38. N. Robinson, G. Ravizza, R. Coccioni, B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink,

R. D. Norris, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 281, 159 (2009).39. T. Westerhold et al., Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.

Palaeoecol. 257, 377 (2008).40. B. Ivanov, Sol. Syst. Res. 39, 381 (2005).41. N. Artemieva, J. Morgan, Icarus 201, 768 (2009).42. T. J. Goldin, H. J. Melosh, Geology 37, 1135 (2009).43. M. C. Harvey, S. C. Brassell, C. M. Belcher, A. Montanari,

Geology 36, 355 (2008).44. K. O. Pope, Geology 30, 99 (2002).45. S. P. S. Gulick et al., Nat. Geosci. 1, 131 (2008).46. T. Luder, W. Benz, T. F. Stocker, J. Geophys. Res. 108,

(E7), 5074 (2003).47. P. Wilf, K. R. Johnson, B. T. Huber, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U.S.A. 100, 599 (2003).48. D. E. Fastovsky, P. M. Sheehan, GSA Today 15, 4 (2005).49. I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, E. Molina, C. Dupuis,

Micropaleontology 46, 31 (2000).50. E. Thomas, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 424, 1 (2007).51. P. S. Willumsen, Cretaceous Res. 27, 954 (2006).52. P. M. Sheehan, P. J. Coorough, D. E. Fastovsky, Spec. Pap.

Geol. Soc. Am. 307, 477 (1996).53. M. Aberhan, S. Weidemeyer, W. Kiessling, R. A. Scasso,

F. A. Medina, Geology 35, 227 (2007).54. J. Sepúlveda, J. E. Wendler, R. E. Summons, K.-U. Hinrichs,

Science 326, 129 (2009).55. V. Vajda, J. I. Raine, C. J. Hollis, Science 294, 1700 (2001).56. V. Vajda, S. McLoughlin, Science 303, 1489 (2004).57. C. R. C. Paul, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.

224, 291 (2005).58. D.J.N. passed away during the final revision of this paper.

His more than 30 years of work on the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary influenced the data, ideas, andthesis of this paper. This research used samples andphotos provided by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)and the International Continental Scientific DrillingProgram (ICDP) and was funded by the DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft, the Austrian ScienceFoundation (FWF), Danish Carlsberg Foundation,European Social Fund, Research Foundation Flanders,Mexican Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, NASA,Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, JointOceanographic Institutions, K.U.Leuven Research Fund,UK Natural Environment Research Council, NSF, theSwedish Research Council (VR) and the Royal SwedishAcademy of Sciences through the Knut and AliceWallenberg Foundation, and the Spanish Ministerio deCiencia e Innovación. We are grateful to E. Thomas andan anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and thankG. Izett for providing support and photos.

Supporting Online Materialwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1Materials and MethodsSOM TextFigs. S1 to S17Tables S1 to S3References

10.1126/science.1177265


REVIEW

on

Mar

ch 4

, 201

0 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1

Supporting Online Material for

The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary

Peter Schulte,* Laia Alegret, Ignacio Arenillas, Jose A. Arz, Penny J. Barton, Paul R. Bown, Timothy J. Bralower, Gail L. Christeson, Philippe Claeys, Charles S. Cockell,

Gareth S. Collins, Alexander Deutsch, Tamara J. Goldin, Kazuhisa Goto, José M. Grajales-Nishimura, Richard A. F. Grieve, Sean P. S. Gulick, Kirk R. Johnson, Wolfgang Kiessling, Christian Koeberl, David A. Kring, Kenneth G. MacLeod, Takafumi Matsui,

Jay Melosh, Alessandro Montanari, Joanna V. Morgan, Clive R. Neal, Douglas J. Nichols, Richard D. Norris, Elisabetta Pierazzo, Greg Ravizza, Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra, Wolf Uwe Reimold, Eric Robin, Tobias Salge, Robert P. Speijer, Arthur R. Sweet, Jaime

Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Vivi Vajda, Michael T. Whalen, Pi S. Willumsen

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Published 5 March 2010, Science 327, 1214 (2010) DOI: 10.1126/science.1177265

This PDF file includes:

Materials and Methods SOM Text Figs. S1 to S17 Tables S1 to S3 References

Materials and Methods

1. Mineralogy – The mineral composition of samples from the Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) Leg 207 Site 1259C and the Brazos River Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) sections was determined at the University of Erlangen on wet powdered samples (grain size <10 !m obtained with a McCrone Micromill) (S1) with a Siemens D5000 X-ray diffractometer. Powdered samples were scanned from 5° to 85° 2! with steps of 0.2° and a scanning time

of 4 seconds. Spectra were evaluated by the quantitative Rietveld analysis with the BGMN Version 4.1.1 software (www.bgmn.de). The analytical error is <3% relative. Within BGMN, we used corrections for tube tails, sample zero point and sample eccentricity. The background was reduced to a 5-fold polynome to accommodate disordered phases. In addition, only the range between 10 and 65° 2! was fitted with BGMN to avoid problems in

the high-angle range. The total number of parameters was 102-148, depending on automatic reducing the order of preferred orientation correction in cases of low phase content.

2. Stable isotopes – Samples from the K-Pg transition in the ODP Leg 207 Site 1259C were disintegrated in deionized water using a small amount of H2O2 then washed over a 63 µm sieve. Subsequently, the fine fraction (<63 !m) was separated and powdered. The fine fraction powder reacted with 100% phosphoric acid at 75°C using a Kiel III online carbonate preparation line connected to a ThermoFinnigan 252 mass spectrometer at the University of Erlangen (Germany). All values are reported in ‰ relative to VPDB by assigning a "13C value

of +1.95 ‰ and a "18O value of –2.20 ‰ to NBS19. Reproducibility was determined by

replicate analysis of laboratory standards and is better than ±0.05 and 0.06 ‰ (1") for "13C

and "18O, respectively.

3. Electron microprobe: Wavelength-dispersive (WDS) and energy-dispersive (EDS) electron microprobe (EMP) analyses, as well as back-scattered electron (BSE) images of ejecta components were performed with the JEOL JXA-8200 Superprobe (GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen), equipped with four WDS spectrometers, an EDS system and an electron backscatter detector. In addition, at BRUKER AXS Microanalysis GmbH, Berlin, fast high-resolution element scans were conducted with a JEOL JSM-6490LV electron microscope equipped with a Quantax EDS system including a liquid nitrogen free XFlash 4010 and 4030 EDS silicon drift detector (SDD) and the Esprit 1.8 software using 15 kV acceleration voltage, counting rates between 100 and 220 kcps, and integration times of 10–20 min for a mapping resolution of 1600 x1200 pixel.

Supporting Online Material: Chicxulub impact and mass extinction at the K-Pg boundary

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 2

Supporting Text, Tables and Figures

Definition of the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary

The base of the Danian Stage, i.e. Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg; formerly K-T) boundary was formally delineated by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) at the base of the dark clay bed commonly called the “K-Pg boundary clay” in the Cretaceous-Paleogene Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) at El Kef, Tunisia (S2). It is an undisturbed and continuos K-Pg boundary section and shows the coincidence of the mass extinction of marine plankton (calcareous nannofossils and planktonic foraminifera), ecological disruption at the sea floor (benthic foraminifera), drop in carbonate content, and perturbation of the global carbon cycle at the impact level [Fig. S1, (S2)]. This impact level, which we correlate to the Chicxulub impact, is present at base of the boundary clay and is characterized by a millimeter thick red clay layer that includes an Ir anomaly, ejecta spherules, and Ni-rich spinel (S2). There is no evidence for major extinctions or trends indicating ecological stress such as temperature change foreshadowing the K-Pg event in this section (S3-S5). Meanwhile, several auxiliary K-Pg boundary sections have been proposed and correlated to the El Kef section, including the Aïn Settera and Ellès sections (Tunisia), the Caravaca and Zumaya sections (Spain), the Bidart section (France), and the El Mulato and Bochil sections (Mexico) (S6).

Chicxulub impact ejecta at the K-Pg boundary

The petrography, composition, and age of ejecta material present in K-Pg boundary sites match the suite of target rocks within the Chicxulub crater. These target rocks include granitic to gneissic basement of Pan-African or older age, and Jurassic-Cretaceous carbonates, black shales, and evaporites (e.g., S7-S9).

(i) Shocked zircons from the ejecta deposits in Beloc, Haiti, and the K-Pg boundary event deposit in several sites in North America yield common U-Pb ages of 545±5 million years ago (Ma), in agreement with the Pan-African basement ages reported from crystalline clasts in breccias from the Chicxulub crater (Table S2) (S10).

(ii) Relict glass particles and vesicular ejecta spherules with a composition similar to Chicxulub melt rocks and unshocked feldspar and gneiss fragments that match the granitic to gneissic basement of Chicxulub are present in the event deposit at several intermediate distance and distal K-Pg boundary sites (Fig. S3) (S11-S16).



(iii) Accretionary calcite and dolomite clasts showing evidence of strong thermal metamorphism and fragments of shallow water limestone and dolomite are present in the event deposit at several proximal to intermediate distance K-Pg boundary sites, e.g., from all K-Pg sites in northeastern Mexico, from Brazos, Texas (S17), Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 171, northwestern Atlantic (S12), ODP Leg 174AX, northwestern Atlantic (S17), ODP Site 207, tropical western North Atlantic (Fig. 3 and Figs. S3 to S5) (S16). The presence of textures indicative of shock-metamorphism and thermal alteration in these carbonate clasts suggest that they were ejected by the Chicxulub impact.

(iv) High concentrations of carbon cenospheres and soot in the red K-Pg boundary clay from several sites in North America, Denmark, and New Zealand are interpreted to derive from incomplete combustion of coal or petroleum droplets, probably from Jurassic-Cretaceous black shales in the Yucatán carbonate platform close to Chicxulub (S18, S19).

(v) Kuiper et al. (S20) used a combination of orbital chronology and geochronology to arrive at a new estimate for the absolute age of the K-Pg boundary of ~65.95 million years ago. These authors provided also an assessment of geochronologic data constraining the ages of the Chicxulub impact crater and spherules from proximal to intermediate K-Pg boundary sections (see Table 1 in S20). Kuiper et al. (S20) concluded that there is no indication that the age of the Chicxulub impact melt lithologies predate the K-Pg boundary by 300 thousand years and indicated that rather the available ages of Chicxulub melt rocks and the shocked minerals and ejecta spherules from the K-Pg boundary in Northern America are indistinguishable within an uncertainty of <100 thousand years.

(vi) Alvarez et al. (S21) report a one million year-long iridium record from Gubbio, Italy, demonstrating that this well documented pelagic sequence contains no evidence of multiple Ir anomalies. This result was recently confirmed by additional high resolution iridium data from a nearby section and two additional ocean drilling sites complemented by associated Os isotope data (S22) (see also Fig. S16 for a partial reproduction of the Os isotope data).



Figure S1. Integrated stratigraphy and geochemistry across the K-Pg boundary in the El Kef GSSP section (#13C data derived from bulk rock analysis; data compiled from S2, S5, S23, S24).



!"#$

!"#$%&%'( )*+ ,-) ./"0"12 3"4/"5$678"9:&;+)%&'() %&'() %**+) %,)%-./0123)

0

0

0

0

0

0

4.00

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

07.0

06.0

0

9.0

0

005.0

04.0

%:)

17"

18

1;<7

;;6=+

>17

)/:#*5:%17

<*&:%':9:

=*9"*9

>**7#/"5$#"*9

?#/*#"'/*8$(

8 68 48 =8 06 07 8 7 8 78 68 8 98 788 7988 6 4?@"$A

;$"B3CD'E#+"'CD,

Figure S2: Backscattered-electron (BSE) images of typical ejecta spherules from the K-Pg event deposit. (A) and (B) Rounded and vesicular spherules from the Shell Creek site, Alabama (see S25 for locality and lithology) that consist of a smectite shell and a calcite infilling. Note welding of two spherules in (B). (C) A dumbell-shaped spherule from the La Popa Basin, Mexico (sample from the base of section E4 in S26). The bright gray appearance of the spherule results from the high Fe- and Mg-contents that is a typical feature of the spherules in northeastern Mexico (S27). (C) Two smectite spherules from the ODP Leg 207, Demerara Rise, western tropical North Atlantic. Difference in grey tones result from different smectite compositions with the spherule to the right showing significant higher Fe- and Mg-contents than the spherule to the left. Note also presence of smectite pseudomorphs after lath-shaped crystals which represent a primary feature that reflects rapid cooling from a melt (S16).



! "

# $

Figure S3: Accretionary carbonate clasts from the K-Pg event deposit. (A) and (B) BSE images of typical carbonate clasts from the Shell Creek site, Alabama which are similar to the carbonate clasts described from the Brazos site, Texas (S17). (C) to (F) BSE image and energy-dispersive (EDS) elemental maps from two accretionary carbonate clasts from the topmost 0.5 mm of the event deposit in ODP Leg 207, Demerara Rise, West Atlantic (see also Fig. 3). Note slight enrichment of Mg in the left clast. Spectrum from black to blue, green, and red corresponds to increasing element abundance.



! "

# $

% &

!"#$% '(

)*#+

Figure S4: BSE image and EDS elemental maps showing the topmost 0.5 mm of the event deposit in ODP Leg 207, Demerara Rise, tropical western North Atlantic. Note complex composition of the event bed with various types of accretionary carbonate clasts, dolomite clasts, large lithic, quartz grains, and a large lithic clast in the lower part consisting of feldspar, mica, and quartz. This grain is 200 x 350 !m in size and probably a gneiss clast (S16). For additional details see Fig. 3.



! "

# $

!""#$% %&

'(#)

Figure S5: Overview map of the K-Pg boundary sections in NE Mexico. Note that slumped, lens-like ejecta deposits within upper Maastrichtian marls have only been reported from two outcrops (La Sierrita and El Peñón) (S28, S29).



!"#!$%&'()#

*+,-./)

!"#$%&'

($%)*$

012!3%45.(%)

+,#-&.,%&/,'

01%2,'

+$-&31$/$

4$#56$%/,'

6)!6)7%##)

8( .-5 ! .

9 ! 5 :+ ! ;

% + ( ( ) ! $) 1( + ! <

( % + -5 ) #

63"#$

"#!=+>?-6)!;%+((%5)

7$81&%*$'+9#:&;

"#!@.(.;)-5)!*./+"#!@+4.#.5+

(&#&%$/<&%=#>//&#:&

!$5?'),#:":$

4$#5@,A&%-,

BC

BC

DE

FC

GE

"#!$A#)5."#!B-1%.3+-)1.

6)=.C)

+"#$

HE IC CE5J.

KLM25-%$#'"-",#5N"-35)/$'-")51#"-

*)-4:.!DA+E.

6./!*)&.-+/

4"&%%$5:&4$#56$%/,'

!$56,.$

4"&%%$5:&<$.$1/"O$'

CDCF

BC

$.-5+((+,

Figure S6: Schematic lithological columns of the clastic unit in NE Mexico. This transect spans the northernmost K-Pg boundary sections outcrops in the La Popa Basin up to the El Mimbral outcrop. Note similarity of the depositional sequence across a distance of 300 km (compiled from S26, S27, and S30). The sedimentary sequence in the La Popa basin is distinct as this is a inner neritic setting, compared to the bathyal settings of all other K-Pg sites in NE Mexico. Ir abundance schematically drawn after Smit et al. (S30) for the El Mimbral sections, and after Lindenmaier et al. (S31) for the La Lajilla sections. Ni-rich spinel data are from Rocchia et al. (S24).



!"#$%&'($

)"'&*+,-&"'(."//0$%1%2

3-+0450-%&%!-#"(-&"'(62-0$3-+06-(7%&'($

!48450-%&"54*("&%"##4846-(7940"#$%&'($40-9$+

6"0&%&'($:'+-#"(";$+-<%-(7%&'($

=0-(&4+$#-"(%

>+-7"(?

$%&'()*+

!&,

!&- 6!!

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

@4<

<

<

A4<

B4<

C4<

D4<

E4<

F4<

G4<

H4<

I#J

./(012(*34

K<=?4$L$(&47$/'%"&4I50-%&"54*("&J4-(74M$0-%5'4:#N

'1%(*5(+(

O$/&2

"015(

:'+#-&N

3P(7$Q4:#N

61+27*&83(9*#1&'*:1 #1<%%1

!&=

!&-

!&,

$%&>*/* #1&"<(//<01

!&,

!&- 6!!6!!

!&-

!&,

$%&?<@A/1%

!&-

!&,

6!!

!&=

!&=

!&=

!&,

.%140<2&3+<0

!&=!&=

!&-

62'5R$74#"($+-0% S"<+"524%/"($0 T+"7"*#!-/"00"

60*#/%U40"V*$;-5&"'(

6/2$+*0$%

W*##'5R9% 62$0042-%2

Figure S7: (caption on next page)



! "

# $

% &

' (

Figure S7 (page 11): Outcrop photos of the clastic unit and the disturbed Chicxulub ejecta deposit in the La Sierrita area (for additional details see S28, S29). (A) Succession of hills showing from right to left the Loma and the two Loma Cerca hills with the K-Pg clastic unit on top. (B) View on the Northern Loma Cerca showing the excellent exposures of the upper Maastrichtian marls along the flanks of the hills. No evidence for multiple laterally continuos “layers” of ejecta spherules is present. (C) Clastic deposit on top of the Loma Cerca. (D to G) Large “blobs” of slump folds and marl-spherule mixtures that are irregularly exposed for a few centimeters to several meters along the south-western flank of the Loma Cerca indicating pervasive soft-sediment deformation. (H) Thin red siltstone layers that are intercalated within the upper Maastrichtian marls below the spherule deposit. Their strike and dip (125°/40°) is clearly different from the nearly horizontally-lying clastic unit and indicates remobilization of upper Maastrichtian Méndez marls before deposition of the clastic unit. Hammer for scale (30 cm), top of hammer shows upsection.



Figure S8 (caption on next page).



! "

# $

% &

' (

Figure S8 (page 13): Outcrop photos of the clastic unit and the disturbed ejecta deposit in the El Peñón area. (A) Clastic deposit in the main quarry section. Note different dip directions of the lower part compared to the upper part of the section; hammer marks the base of the clastic deposit. (B) Detail of the basal part of the clastic deposit showing the spherule layer intercalated by a 10 cm-thick calcareous sandstone layer. (C) Detail of the calcareous sandstone showing large rip-up clasts at the base and faint lamination in the upper part. (D) The famous single J-shaped structure in the calcareous sandstone layer that was interpreted by Keller et al. (S32) as a burrow and as evidence for long-term deposition. However, besides this single structure at El Peñón, no evidence for bioturbation was observed in the up to 10 m thick, massive sands of the clastic unit in the outcrops of the La Popa, Rancho Nuevo, La Sierrita, El Mulato, La Lajilla, El Mimbral, or La Ceiba area (Figs. S6 to S8) (S27, S30, S33). Obviously, the presence of tracemakers is an extremely rare phenomenon in the northeastern Mexican clastic unit and confined to the top of the clastic unit. (E) Base of the spherule deposit with intercalated 3-cm thick layer of accretionary calcite spherules. (F and G) Slumped spherule deposit with large marl clasts about 200 m to the southeast of the main quarry outcrop showing doubling of spherule layer and mixing with upper Maastrichtian marls. (H) About 400 m from the main quarry outcrop to the southeast, the spherule deposit is again overlain by sandstone from the clastic unit (additional details in S27).



Figure S9 (caption on next page).



!

"

#

$

%

&

!"##

!"##

Figure S9 (page 15): Outcrop and corresponding thin-section photos of the basal ejecta bed of the clastic unit in northeastern Mexico. (A) Spherule deposit at El Mimbral at meter-mark 6. Note through-like wavy upper surface of the Méndez marls and presence of thin bentonite layer (at top of the hammer) below the laminated spherule bed similar to yellow clay layer the Cottonmouth Creek, Brazos (see Fig. S11). (B) Graded and laminated spherule deposit at El Mimbral. Note coarse, cm-sized ejecta (spherules and carbonate clasts), as well as marl clasts at the base. (C) Photomicrograph showing abundant spherules, limestone clasts, and blocky carbonate. (D) Spherule deposit at the Mesa Juan Perez 1A section showing alternating layers of weathered marl and spherule layers under- and overlying the indurated calcareous spherule layer. (F) Close-up of the laminated spherule layers showing alternating white layers of carbonaceous and spherule-rich ejecta. (G) Photomicrograph showing ejecta spherules, carbonate clasts, and minor fine-grained terrigeneous debris (e.g., quartz, feldspar). The presence of delicate petrographical structures, the compositional complexity of the deposit, and the absence of abrasion features or sorting suggests that this is a primary deposit with only minor transport at the seafloor.



Figure S10: The K-Pg boundary in the Cottonmouth Creek, Brazos. A similar iridium distribution has been reported by Hansen et al. (S34) and Heyman et al. (S35).



!""#$%&'($&")

*")&")

!"

#$%&'

##'()*!"#$%&'($)$*+

!%

,!%

+,-)&#-.

#-./01232)$-.4250-3

605507)894:9.

+%&,&-. /010),

&

&

&

')&

&

%)&

;)&

*4+

!233-#4#5%"62#72-$'%28#605<-=-7>

?9==9.*%@A@2B):+

C23/93)95)2=D*%@AEB)%@@;+

?9==9.)23F)G2..9.2*%@@"+

92%".&)&:0%"

;<=170>0)$,082#&$

H-11<02)95)2=D*%@@(+

"*II:+

%"DJ %DJ &J &K &; &' &% " %*L)M!NG+

OP503150-3)-Q#.95219-R/I=23S501

Q-.24030Q9.2TUV

?@A7"),7 ?BC

K;)/I9109/

3-).91-W9.>

2=4-/5):2..93

'J)/I9109/)03)=2/5)"D()4B)031.92/9)03)->/59./

X4I-W9.0/<9F)Q2R32)Y05<)'")/I9109/

X31.92/9F)/I9109/).01<39//)

%AZ%;#

KJ

K(

D$"10

92%".E

F"))2E

92%."$E

*08$(

G0-5R.:250-3

[<2=9)1=2/5/

CR44-1S>/

[<9==)<2/<

[I<9.R=9/

[<2=9

82.=

[23F

\9==-Y)1=2>)=2>9.

62I0==0

Figure S11: The K-Pg boundary at Brazos, Texas. (A) Overview of the K-Pg boundary interval at the Cottonmouth Creek, Brazos. (B) The upper Maastrichtian yellow clay layer was considered by Keller et al. (S36) as original Chicxulub ejecta. Our petrographical and mineralogical analysis – showing high quartz and sanidine contents – clearly contrasts with data for the Chicxulub ejecta layer (Table S3 and Fig. S12) and strongly indicate a volcanic origin of this yellow clay layer. Similar thin ash layers have been observed in upper Maastrichtian sections in northeastern Mexico and Haiti (Fig. S9) (S37, S38). (C) Disturbed uppermost Maastrichtian shales with large shale clasts separated by reddish, shell-rich clasts. (D) The K-Pg boundary event deposit consisting of a normally-graded, basal conglomeratic layer (“CO”) with ejecta spherules, concretions, and shell hash, overlain by the spherule deposit (“SP”) followed sequentially upward by repeated upward fining units of hummocky cross-bedded and laminated silicic and calcareous sands (“HCS”), which are burrowed in their uppermost parts, and then by a upward-fining silty shale unit (Fig. S7) (S34, S35, S39-S41). The K-Pg boundary is placed at the base of the ejecta-rich clastic unit (e.g., S30, S41-S43).



! "

# $

%&'"

%&'#%&'$

(#)

)*

#+

Figure S12: Mineralogy of the Brazos K-Pg section. (A) Bulk rock mineralogy and (B) clay mineralogy of the K-Pg boundary ejecta bed, the upper Maastrichtian yellow clay layer, and the background shales from the Cottonmouth Creek K-Pg section, Brazos, compared to the Cheto smectite from Arizona as reference (source clay SAz-2 as provided by the Clay Minerals Society, S44). Note differences in XRD patterns and specifically the high sanidine content of the yellow clay layer and absence of calcite, strongly suggesting a volcanic origin.



!"#$%&'()*'&)+"$,

!

"!!!

#!!!

$!!!

%!!!

&!!!

-./0)%1'.'2+13)$ "! #! $!

!0)%"'24)+%5%)6)7)*)$+)'289.:

;)33"<'+31='31=)*

2(0)*#3)',)("&5%

>1+?@*"#$,'&013)&

!"#$%&'()*'&)+"$,

!

#!!

%!!

'!!

(!!

"!!!

"#!!

"%!!

"'!!

"(!!

#!!!

-./0)%1'.'2+13)$ "! #! $!

!0)%"'24)+%5%)6)7)*)$+)'289.:

;)33"<'+31='31=)*

2(0)*#3)',)("&5%

>1+?@*"#$,'&013)&

8

>

)*+,-.-+/0!!"1

)*+,-.-+

0!!"1

)*+,-.-+/0!!#1

233.-+/0!!"1

233.-+/0!!"1

)*+,-.-+/0!!$1

)*+,-.-+/0!!&1

4563.7.-+/0!!"1

895:-;/0!!"1

<=>?9*/0!!"1

895:-;/0!!#1

895:-;/0!!#1

895:-;/0!!"1

@53,.-+/0"!%1

)57.A.7+/0"!%1

Figure S13: K-Pg boundary in core Yaxcopoil-1 – Photograph of the transition from the Chicxulub impact breccia to the lower Paleocene (modified after S45) showing observations from Goto et al. (S46), Arz et al., (S47), and Smit et al. (S48) versus Keller et al. (S49). The magnetostratigraphy is from Rebolledo-Vieyra and Urrutia-Fucugauchi (S50). Note that a distinct K-Pg boundary red clay layer (i.e., with an Ir anomaly, shocked minerals etc.) is lacking. Arz et al. (S47), Goto et al. (S46), and Smit et al. (S48) located the K-Pg boundary at the base of the impact sequence (at 894,94 m in core depth), according to the original definition of this boundary in the El Kef section, Tunisia (S2).



!"#$%&'&()#*+,$-#-.

!"#$%&'(

!"#$)&'(

!"#$#&'(

!"#$*&'(

!"#$+&'(

!"#$,&'(

!"#$&&'(!/01

!/21

34,

34$

5,-.)6,,7-8#$"-#,9):;<9.)!=)4>

=.?)8.?<[email protected]

+',9@-<9#$

B<8,*#9#B.8,

<B)C'(#,9)-<

6,,7-8#$"-#,9

,D.

-./01234567'8425098/56:

-./01234567'8425098/56:

-./01234567'8425098/56:

-./01234567'8425098/56:

;425098/56:

<23:63=6:'./>69

;0992?=

-./01234567'8425098/56:

@8.4A06'86::43B

C/D43/56:':2.2=5236

E6?29F6:'4DG/15456

<92=='./D43/54237'1.4D843B'94GG.6

<92=='./D43/54237'1.4D843B'94GG.6

E6?29F6:'4DG/15456

E6?29F6:'4DG/15456

;0992?'H

;96114/5423'/3:I9/BD635/54237'D4329'G2==48.6'80992?

<./>'./>692D4==423'=09I/16

34(

!"#$%&'():EFGH2)6,>

I.''.8).-),'H):/JJG>K<-<).-),'H):/JJG>

L*#-).-),'H):/JJG>

!"8<9

CD.

M9#-7!<8.

+"<-<)

34$

N<)B<8,*#9#B.8,

!/2N

<296':6G5J'KD6569='86.2?'B9203:'=09I/16L

5<?.8*<7-)3,'.<D.9.

C8O).-),'H):/JJG>P.+-"

<296;96/F'

Q

M':/9F'1./>'./>69

M9#-)J

M9#-)4

B<8,*#9#B.8,R8#$")*,8'7

J4/50=

Figure S14: K-Pg boundary in core Yaxcopoil-1 – Close up photographs from (A) the lower part of unit 0 showing climbing ripples and cm-thick layers of ejecta-rich material, (B) the middle part of unit 0 with lamination and intercalated layers of ejecta-rich material; note that there is no bioturbation in the greenish sandstone layer, only the tube-like structure to the upper right may be a burrow (C) the condensed clay layer that overlies the uppermost part of unit 0 with an irregular erosion surface (modified after S45).



!"#$

! " #

Figure S15: K-Pg boundary in core Yaxcopoil-1 – (A) Photographs of the washed residue showing abundant dolomite crystals as well as amalgamated dolomite crystals in a sample from the 794.55 m in core depth. This sample is equivalent to the sample Yax-20 of Keller et al. (S49) in which they allegedly identified the greatest planktonic foraminiferal diversity. (B) Scanning electron microscope image of an amalgamated dolomite clast that superficially resembles a planktonic foraminifer (at 794.55 m in core depth).



!"#$%"&'(#%%

Figure S16: Compilation of the stratigraphic data for the emplacement phases of the Deccan flood basalts in southwest India. (A) Overview on stratigraphy, thickness, and volume of the lava flows (e.g., S51). Because the C29r/C29n reversal occurs in the lower Mahabaleshwar, the K-Pg boundary is most likely likely within the Poladpur and Ambenali formations marked in red, although the exact stratigraphic position has not been determined. (B) Os isotope data that are interpreted to show the onset of massive Deccan volcanism during the lower part of magnetochron C29r (S22).



!"#$%&

!""

#$%

#""

#""

&"

#"!%

#"

#%"

!%!%

#%" #"""'(

'()

*"+(,(#(

-(#.$/()

0&11(+23"+4)+&+4(#25#""627(.(#4

)*+,-./01/2/

3/1/4/2*+15/-

8%/&+(#)

9"#(6:$;

6,+1*

71/08/2/619(/+1/0:/-

;1/:,-</89

=*-/2>?/@A,-9

B/51/-

<;"$:=$/><;"$: 5";%(4)"+ ?@)1A+&..3BCD

3EFD

3BCG

H

H

$%CD'E

$$C#'E

->9I/"$+6(;J

=K20!9

"C!% "CD" "CD% "C&" "C&% "C%" "C%% "C$" "C$%

" !" &" $" F" #"" #!"

$%C%

$$

$$C%

$G

8I&2LM(N

8I&2LM(N

3EFD

3BCG

O;2L+IPIN

7"44(1)"+&2->9I2/"$+6(;JQ2<$//)"Q2O4(#JRSTU.PRSSU.

)*HH/0E908,H*8#FGI+J#FFI+'8*H290*

)K50'+*H@9K0'L@/92MKN'7E.?'4K,08/-O

9(A/H@'I+*PH,-+9K0'/089-989,('A*/:

8 7

QP'#"D':(DR

Figure S17: The K-Pg boundary in the Western Interior. (A) Schematic lithology of the K-Pg boundary interval at the Starkville North site, 5 km south of Trinidad, Colorado. The large black dots and the solid line show the iridium concentration, the open circles and the dashed line show the fern spore percentages (modified after S52). (B) Polished surface of the dual-layer K-Pg boundary claystone at the Teapot Dome site, Wyoming. Green arrows show ejecta spherules that are now altered to alumino-phosphate (gorceixite, goyzite) in the lower claystone. Black arrows show detrital quartz (shocked and unshocked) that is abundant in the upper claystone. Two large rip-up claystone clasts are marked with “R”. Photo courtesy of Glen A. Izett. (C) Polished surface of the K-Pg boundary interval at the Clear Creek North site, Colorado. The lower K-Pg claystone bed consists of kaolinite clay and minor amounts of illite-smectite (I-S) mixed-layer phyllosilicates. Typically, this bed contains shreds and deformed laminae of vitrinite. This bed also contains ejecta spherules altered to kaolinite and alumino-phosphate. The upper part of the K-Pg claystone couplet is again compositionally and texturally different from the lower bed. It consists predominantly of illite-smectite (I-S) mixed-layer phyllosilicates and minor kaolinite and contains an assemblage of detrital silicate mineral grains (shocked and unshocked). Highest concentrations of the platinum group elements (PGEs) are usually present in the upper layer. Photo courtesy of Glen A. Izett.



! "

#

!"#$#%&'())*+

,-".'/)0"-/'(1+

2324

2 52 62 72 82 422

234 4 42

Cretaceo

usPa

leog

ene

9:'9

:'9

42'9

4:'9

52'9

5:'9

;2'9

;:'9

62'9

:2'9

6:'9

(<&+

942'9

94:'9

952'9

95:'9

9;2'9

9;:'9

=#>.#?-

@A.$/?0.- @#B?/?0.-

@)C-"%B-/ @C0<D-$'&#.-"AB/

@CAB-

EA0B#.#?#<'*0%.$A"F'<BAF

GA"*0.A<-0%/'/CAB-H#?C'B#>.#?-'/?"-AD/

Table S1: Key locations that show a detailed and expanded record across the K-Pg boundary including evidence for the presence of impact ejecta. See Fig. 1 for location of DSDP and ODP sites; color code for comparison with Fig. 2.

Region and K-Pg boundary sites Distance* Impact

ejecta**Max. Iridium

concentration Setting*** References

(km) (ppb)

Very proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositVery proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositVery proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositVery proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositVery proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositVery proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositSouthern Mexico and CubaSouthern Mexico and CubaGuayal, Tabasco 300 SP, SQ, NI 0.8 Bathyal (S53-S55)

Bochil, Chiapas 300 SP, SQ, NI 1.5 Bathyal (S6, S53-S55)

Albion Island, Belize 300 SP, SQ n.a. Terrestrial (S56-S58)

Moncada, Cuba 400 SP, SQ 0.5 Bathyal (S59)

Loma Capiro, Santa Isabel, Peñalver, Cacarajícara, and Cidra, Cuba

400 SP, SQ n.a. Bathyal (S59-S62)

Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event depositGulf of MexicoBeloc, Haiti 500 SP, SQ, NI 28 Bathyal (S63-S65)

La Ceiba, Mexico 700 SP, SQ, NI n.a. Lower bathyal (S30, S33, S66)

El Mimbral, Mexico 700 SP, SQ, NI 0.5 Lower bathyal (S27, S30, S66)

La Lajilla, Mexico 750 SP, AC 0.25 Lower bathyal (S30, S66)

El Mulato, Mexico 780 SP, AC 1 Lower bathyal (S6, S30)

El Peñón, Mexico 800 SP, AC n.a. Middle bathyal (S27, S30, S66)

La Sierrita, Mexico 800 SP, AC 0.3 Middle bathyal (S27, S28, S66)

La Popa Basin, Mexico 800 SP, AC n.a. Inner neritic (S26, S67)

Brazos River, Texas 900 SP, AC n.a. Neritic (S17, S30, S41, S43)

Stoddard County, Missouri 900 SP n.a. Neritic (S68)

Mussel Creek, Shell Creek, Antioch Church Core, Millers Ferry, Alabama

900 SP, AC n.a. Neritic (S25, S30, S69)

Caribbean SeaODP Leg 165: Site 999 and 1001 600 SP n.a. Bathyal (S70)

Intermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositIntermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositIntermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositIntermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositIntermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositIntermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositWestern Interior (USA and Canada)Western Interior (USA and Canada)Western Interior (USA and Canada)Sugarite, Raton Basin, New Mexico 2100 SP, SQ (FS) 2.7 Terrestrial (S71-S73)

Starkville South, Raton Basin, Colorado 2250 SP, SQ (FS) 56 Terrestrial (S71-S73)

Starkville North, Raton Basin, Colorado 2250 SP, SQ (FS) 6 Terrestrial (S71-S73)






(km) (ppb)

Long Canyon, Raton Basin, Colorado 2250 SQ (FS) 8.2 Terrestrial (S73, S74)

Berwind Canyon, Raton Basin, Colorado 2250 SP, SQ (FS) 27 Terrestrial (S72, S73, S75)

West Bijou Site, Denver Basin, Colorado 2250 SQ (FS) 0.68 Terrestrial (S73, S76)

Dogie Creek, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 2500 SP, SQ (FS) 20.8 Terrestrial (S73, S77)

Teapot Dome, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 2500 SP, SQ (FS) 22 Terrestrial (S73, S78)

Sussex, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 2500 SQ (FS) 26 Terrestrial (S73, S79)

Mud Buttes, Williston Basin, SW North Dakota 2700 SP, SQ (FS) 1.36 Terrestrial (S73, S80)

Brownie Butte, Hell Creek area, Montana 3100 SP, SQ (FS) 1.04 Terrestrial (S52, S73, S81, S82)

Knudsen’s Farm, Western Canada 3400 SQ (FS) 3.4 Terrestrial (S73, S83)

Morgan Creek, Saskatchewan, Western Canada

3400 SQ (FS) 3 Terrestrial (S73, S84)

Frenchman River, Saskatchewan 3400 SP 1.35 Terrestrial (S72, S85)

Northwest Atlantic OceanNorthwest Atlantic OceanDSDP Leg 93 Site 603 2600 SP, SQ n.a. Bathyal (S72, S86, S87)

ODP Leg 171 Site 1049, 1050, 1052 2400 SP, SQ 1.3 Lower bathyal (S88)

ODP Leg 174AX Bass River 2500 SP, SQ, AC n.a. Neritic (S89)

ODP Leg 207 Site 1258; 1259, 1260 4500 SP, SQ, AC 1.5 Bathyal (S16, S90, S91)

Distal to Chicxulub: mm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositDistal to Chicxulub: mm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositDistal to Chicxulub: mm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositDistal to Chicxulub: mm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositDistal to Chicxulub: mm-thick K-Pg boundary event depositSouth Atlantic OceanDSDP Leg 75 Site 524 9600 n.a. 3 Abyssal (S92)

ODP Leg 113 Site 690 11000 n.a. 1.5 Abyssal (S93, S94)

ODP Leg 208 Site 1262, 1267 9400 SP, SQ n.a. Abyssal (S90, S95)

Europe, Africa, AsiaGubbio and Petriccio, Italy 9200 SP, SQ, NI 8 Bathyal (S96, S97)

Stevns Klint and Nye Kløv, Denmark 10200 SP, SQ, NI 48 Neritic (S97-S101)

Bidart, France 9500 NI 6 Upper-middle bathyal (S6, S102-S104)






(km) (ppb)

Caravaca, Spain 8200 SP, SQ, NI 56 Bathyal (S6, S105-S107)

Agost, Spain 8300 SP, SQ, NI 24.4 Upper-middle bathyal (S105, S108-S110)

Bjala, Bulgaria 9500 SP, SQ, NI 6.1 Bathyal (S111)

El Kef, Ellés, Tunisia 9100 SP, NI 18 Outer neritic – upper bathyal (S2, S6, S23)

Aïn Settara, Tunisia 9100 SP, SQ, NI 11 Outer neritic – upper bathyal (S6, S112, S113)

Pacific OceanLL44-GPC 3 7200 SP, SQ, NI 12 Abyssal (S114)

DSDP Leg 62 Site 465 7900 SP, SQ, NI 54 Lower bathyal (S114-S117)

DSDP Leg 86 Site 576, 577 9300 SP, SQ, NI 13.4 Abyssal (S114, S118, S119)

DSDP Leg 91 Site 596 9700 SP, SQ, NI 10.8 Abyssal (S120)

ODP Leg 119 Site 738 10500 – 18 Abyssal (S121-S123)

ODP Leg 130 Site 803, 807 11000 SP, SQ, NI 10.8 Abyssal (S114, S124)

ODP Leg 145 Site 886 6450 SP, SQ, NI 3.6 Abyssal (S114, S125)

ODP Leg 198 Site 1209 to 1212 11400 – n.a. Abyssal (S43, S126)

Woodside Creek, New Zealand 10500 SP, SQ, NI

(FS) 70 Bathyal (S14, S90, S127, S128)

Mid-Waipara, New Zealand 10500 SP (FS) 0.49 Neritic (S129-S134)

Flaxbourne River, New Zealand 10500 SP 21 Upper-middle

bathyal (S14, S135)

Moody Creek Mine, New Zealand 10500 SP (FS) 4.1 Terrestrial (S136)

* Estimated paleodistance to the center of the Chicxulub crater structure.

** SP, spherules; SQ, shocked quartz; NI, Ni-rich spinel; (FS), fern spore spike.*** We used the bathymetric division as defined in Van Morkhoven et al. (S137): neritic (0-200 m),

upper bathyal (200-600 m), middle bathyal (600-1000 m), lower bathyal (1000-2000 m), upper abyssal (2000-3000 m), lower abyssal (>3000 m).



Table S2: Compilation of U-Pb ages from zircons from the Chicxulub impact crater, various K-Pg boundary sites, and the potential basement of the Yucatán target region (Maya Mountains, Belize).

Locality MaterialBasement age (Ma)

± 2!*Method References

Chicxulub crater impactites; spherule deposit Beloc, Haiti; laminated clay layer at K-Pg boundary in Colorado

Shocked zircons

545 ± 5; 418 ± 6 U-Pb (S10)

Laminated clay layer at K-Pg boundary, Colorado

Shocked zircons

550 ± 10; 571 ± 6 U-Pb (S138, S139)

Laminated clay layer at K-Pg boundary, Saskatchewan

Shocked zircons

548 ± 8 U-Pb (S140)

Silurian plutons, Maja Mountains Zircons 418 ± 4; 404 ± 3 U-Pb (S141)

Paleozoic granite Zircons 595 ± 69; 680 ± 69 U-Pb (S142)

* number refers to the last significant digits



Table S3: Quantitative mineralogy of the K-Pg boundary ejecta bed, the upper Maastrichtian ash layer, the background shales and a reference Cheto smectite from Arizona.

Mineral phases(wt%)

Cheto smectite Reference clay

SAz-1Yellow ash layer Spherule deposit Background

shales

Quartz 1.2 5.5 1.9 17.4

Orthoclase <0.1 0.4 0.5 1.4

Microcline 0.7 0.5 1.3 1.3

Plagioclase 9 1.6 5.7 5.5

Anorthite 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.8

Sanidine 1 3.5 <0.1 1.9

Calcite 0.6 2.2 5 7.5

Dolomite <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2

Smectite 81.8 63.5 74.8 28.1

Illite1Md 4.8 13.9 5.3 28.8

Kaolinite <0.1 1.3 2 5.4

Gypsum 0.2 4.6 0.7 0.3

Pyrite <0.1 0.2 2.1 1.1

Goethite <0.1 0.4 0.6 <0.1

Jarosite 0.7 1.6 <0.1 0.2



Supporting References

S1.! J. Srodon, V. A. Drits, D. K. McCarty, J. C. C. Hsieh, D. D. Eberl, Clays Clay Miner. 49, 514

(2001).

S2.! E. Molina et al., Episodes 29, 263 (2006).

S3.! J. J. Pospichal, Geology 22, 99 (1994).

S4." S. Gardin, S. Monechi, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 169, 709 (1998).

S5.! I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, E. Molina, C. Dupuis, Micropaleontology 46, 31 (2000).

S6.! E. Molina et al., Episodes 32, 84 (2009).

S7.! W. C. Ward, G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, Geology 23, 873 (1995).

S8.! B. Kettrup, A. Deutsch, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 38, 1079 (2003).

S9.! S. P. S. Gulick et al., Nature Geosci. 1, 131 (2008).

S10.! T. E. Krogh, S. L. Kamo, V. L. Sharpton, L. E. Marin, A. R. Hildebrand, Nature 366, 731 (1993).

S11.! V. L. Sharpton, B. C. Schuraytz, K. Burke, A. V. Murali, G. Ryder, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap.

247, 349 (1990).

S12.! R. D. Norris, B. T. Huber, B. T. Self-Trail, Geology 27, 419 (1999).

S13.! B. Bauluz, D. R. Peacor, W. C. Elliott, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 182, 127 (2000).

S14.! B. Bauluz, D. R. Peacor, C. J. Hollis, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 219, 209 (2004).

S15." M. Ortega-Huertas, F. Martínez-Ruiz, I. Palomo-Delgado, H. Chamley, Clay Minerals 37, 395

(2002).

S16.! P. Schulte et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73, 1180 (2009).

S17.! T. E. Yancey, R. N. Guillemette, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 120, 1105 (2008).

S18.! M. C. Harvey, S. C. Brassell, C. M. Belcher, A. Montanari, Geology 36, 355 (2008).

S19.! C. M. Belcher, P. Finch, M. E. Collinson, A. C. Scott, N. V. Grassineau, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.

106, 4112 (2009).

S20.! K. F. Kuiper et al., Science 320, 500 (2008).

S21.! W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, A. Montanari, Science 250, 1700 (1990).

S22.! N. Robinson, G. Ravizza, R. Coccioni, B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, R. D. Norris, Earth Planet. Sci.

Lett. 281, 159 (2009).

S23.! G. Keller, M. Lindinger, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 73, 243 (1989).

S24.! R. Rocchia, E. Robin, L. Froget, J. Gayraud, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 307, 279 (1996).

S25.! D. T. King,Jr., L. W. Petruny, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 437, 179 (2007).

S26.! T. F. Lawton, K. W. Shipley, J. L. Aschoff, K. A. Giles, F. J. Vega, Geology 33, 81 (2005).

S27.! P. Schulte, A. Kontny, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 384, 191 (2005).

S28.! A. R. Soria et al., Geology 29, 231 (2001).

S29.! P. Schulte et al., Intern. Jour. Earth Sci. 92, 114 (2003).

S30.! J. Smit, W. Alvarez, A. Montanari, P. Claeys, J. M. Grajales-Nishimura, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec.

Paper 307, 151 (1996).



S31.! F. Lindenmaier et al., Chemostratigraphy of the K/T-boundary at La Sierrita and La Lajilla, NE

Mexico. (Abstracts, Geol. Soc. Am., Boulder, Colorado, 1999), pp. 123.

S32." G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, D. Stüben, Earth-Sci. Rev. 62, 327 (2003).

S33.! J. A. Arz et al., J. South Am. Earth Sci. 14, 505 (2001).

S34.! T. A. Hansen, B. Upshaw III, E. G. Kauffman, W. Gose, Cretaceous Res. 14, 685 (1993).

S35.! D. Heymann et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 62, 173 (1998).

S36.! G. Keller et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339 (2007).

S37.! J. Smit et al., Geology 20, 99 (1992).

S38.! D. A. Kring, A. R. Hildebrand, W. V. Boynton, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 128, 629 (1994).

S39.! T. A. Hansen, R. B. Farrand, H. A. Montgomery, H. G. Billman, G. L. Blechschmidt,

Cretaceous Res. 8, 229 (1987).

S40.! T. E. Yancey, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 46, 433 (1996).

S41.! P. Schulte, R. P. Speijer, H. Mai, A. Kontny, Sedim. Geol. 184, 77 (2006).

S42.! P. Schulte et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 269, 613 (2008).

S43.! T. J. Bralower et al., Geology (in press) (2010).

S44.! S. J. Chipera, D. L. Bish, Clays Clay Miner. 49, 308 (2001).

S45.! K. Goto, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan 111, 193 (2005).

S46.! K. Goto et al., Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1233 (2004).

S47.! J. A. Arz, L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1099 (2004).

S48.! J. Smit, S. V. D. Gaast, W. Lustenhouwer, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1113 (2004).

S49.! G. Keller et al., Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1127 (2004).

S50.! M. Rebolledo-Vieyra, J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 821 (2004).

S51.! S. Self, M. Widdowson, T. Thordarson, A. E. Jay, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 518 (2006).

S52.! R. H. Tschudy, C. L. Pillmore, C. J. Orth, J. S. Gilmore, J. D. Knight, Science 225, 1030

(1984).

S53." J. M. Grajales-Nishimura, G. Murillo-Muñetón, C. Rosales-Domínguez, E. Cedillo-Pardo, J.

García-Hernández, AAPG Mem. 79, 312 (2003).

S54.! I. Arenillas et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 249, 241 (2006).

S55." T. Salge, The ejecta blanket of the Chicxulub impact crater, Yucatán, Mexico – Petrographic

and chemical studies of the K-P section of El Guayal and UNAM boreholes (PhD, Humboldt-

Universität, Berlin, Germany, 2007), pp. 190. http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/docviews/abstract.php?

lang=ger&id=27753.

S56.! K. O. Pope et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 170, 351 (1999).

S57.! K. O. Pope et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 384, 171 (2005).

S58.! B. W. Fouke et al., Sedimentology 49, 117 (2002).

S59.! R. Tada et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 356, 109 (2002).

S60.! S. Kiyokawa et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 356, 125 (2002).

S61.! L. Alegret et al., Geology 33, 721 (2005).



S62.! K. Goto et al., Cretaceous Res. 29, 217 (2008).

S63.! G. A. Izett, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 20879 (1991).

S64.! H. Leroux et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 131, 255 (1995).

S65.! B. F. Bohor, B. P. Glass, Meteoritics 30, 182 (1995).

S66.! L. Alegret, E. Molina, E. Thomas, Geology 29, 891 (2001).

S67.! J. L. Aschoff, K. A. Giles, AAPG Bulletin 89, 447 (2005).

S68.! C. E. Campbell, F. E. Oboh-Ikuenobe, T. L. Eifert, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 437, 189 (2007).

S69.! P. Schulte, R. Speijer, Geologica Acta 7, 11 (2009).

S70.! H. Sigurdsson, R. M. Leckie, G. D. Acton, Proc. ODP Init. Rep. 165, 377 (1997).

S71.! C. L. Pillmore, R. H. Tschudy, C. J. Orth, J. S. Gilmore, J. D. Knight, Science 223, 1180

(1984).

S72.! G. A. Izett, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 249, 100 (1990).

S73.! D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Plants and the K-T boundary (Cambridge University Press,

2008), pp. 280.

S74.! D. J. Nichols, C. L. Pillmore, LPI Contribution 38, 3120 (2000).

S75.! C. J. Orth, J. S. Gilmore, J. D. Knight, New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 38, 265

(1987).

S76.! R. S. Barclay, K. R. Johnson, Geol. Soc. Am. Field Guide 5, 59 (2004).

S77.! B. F. Bohor, D. M. Triplehorn, D. J. Nichols, H. T. Millard,Jr., Geology 15, 896 (1987).

S78.! J. A. Wolfe, Nature 352, 420 (1991).

S79.! D. J. Nichols, J. L. Brown, M. Attrep,Jr., C. J. Orth, Cretaceous Res. 13, 3 (1992).

S80.! D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 361, 95 (2002).

S81.! B. F. Bohor, G. A. Izett, Lunar Planet. Sci. 17, 68 (1986).

S82.! A. R. Sweet, D. R. Braman, J. F. Lerbekmo, Can. J. Earth Sci. 36, 743 (1999).

S83.! A. R. Sweet, D. R. Braman, Cretaceous Res. 13, 31 (1992).

S84.! D. J. Nichols, D. M. Jarzen, C. J. Orth, P. Q. Oliver, Science 231, 714 (1986).

S85.! D. A. Kring, D. D. Durda, J. Geophys. Res. 107, 6 (2002).

S86.! G. T. Klaver, T. M. G. Van Kempen, F. R. Bianchi, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 93, 1039

(1987).

S87.! D. A. Kring, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 16979 (1995).

S88." F. Martínez-Ruiz, M. Ortega-Huertas, I. Palomo-Delgado, J. Smit, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper

356, 189 (2002).

S89.! R. K. Olsson, K. G. Miller, J. V. Browning, D. Habib, P. J. Sugarmann, Geology 25, 759 (1997).

S90.! J. V. Morgan et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 264 (2006).

S91.! K. G. MacLeod, D. L. Whitney, B. T. Huber, C. Koeberl, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119, 101 (2007).

S92." K. J. Hsü et al., Science 216, 249 (1982).

S93.! H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, W. Alvarez, L. W. Alvarez, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 113, 159

(1990).



S94.! L. D. Stott, J. P. Kennett, Nature 342, 526 (1989).

S95.! L. Alegret, E. Thomas, Mar. Micropal. 64, 1 (2007).

S96.! A. Montanari, Jour. Sedim. Petrol. 61, 315 (1991).

S97.! J. Smit, Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 75 (1999).

S98.! F. T. Kyte, Z. Zhou, J. T. Wasson, Nature 288, 651 (1980).

S99.! B. Schmitz, P. Andersson, J. Dahl, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 52, 229 (1988).

S100.! R. Frei, K. M. Frei, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 203, 691 (2002).

S101." A. Trinquier, J.-L. Birck, C. J. Allègre, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 241, 780 (2006).

S102.! J. Smit, W. G. H. Z. ten Kate, Cretaceous Res. 3, 307 (1982).

S103.! L. Alegret, M. A. Kaminski, E. Molina, Palaios 19, 574 (2004).

S104.! N. Gallala, D. Zaghbib-Turki, I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, E. Molina, Mar. Micropal. 72, 196 (2009).

S105." F. Martínez-Ruiz, M. Ortega-Huertas, I. Palomo-Delgado, P. Acquafredda, Sedim. Geol. 113,

137 (1997).

S106.! K. Kaiho et al., Paleoceanography 14, 511 (1999).

S107.! J. Smit, Journal of Iberian Geology 31, 179 (2005).

S108." F. Martínez-Ruiz, M. Ortega-Huertas, I. Palomo-Delgado, M. Barbieri, Chem. Geol. 95, 265

(1992).

S109.! L. Alegret, E. Molina, E. Thomas, Mar. Micropal. 48, 251 (2003).

S110.! E. Molina, L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, Journal of Iberian Geology 31, 137 (2004).

S111.! A. Preisinger et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 356, 213 (2002).

S112." C. Dupuis et al., Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de

la Terre 71, 169 (2001).

S113.! D. Peryt, L. Alegret, E. Molina, Terra Nova 14, 101 (2002).

S114.! J. A. Bostwick, F. T. Kyte, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 307, 403 (1996).

S115.! H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, W. Alvarez, L. W. Alvarez, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 62, 847

(1981).

S116.! P. Giblin, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 62, 851 (1981).

S117.! L. Alegret, E. Thomas, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 224, 53 (2005).

S118.! A. A. Wright et al., Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 86, 799 (1985).

S119.! H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, W. Alvarez, L. W. Alvarez, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 86, 533

(1985).

S120.! F. T. Kyte, J. A. Bostwick, L. Zhou, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 307, 389 (1996).

S121.! B. Schmitz, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, H. R. Thierstein, B. T. Huber, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill.

Prog. 119, 719 (1991).

S122.! B. T. Huber, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 119, 451 (1991).

S123.! A. Abrajevitch, K. Kodama, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 269 (2009).

S124.! R. M. Corfield, J. E. Cartlidge, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 130, 259 (1993).

S125.! B. L. Ingram, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 145, 399 (1995).



S126.! T. J. Bralower, I. Premoli Silva, M. J. Malone, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 198, 1 (2006).

S127.! R. R. Brooks et al., Geology 13, 738 (1985).

S128.! R. R. Brooks et al., Science 226, 539 (1984).

S129.! R. R. Brooks et al., Geology 14, 727 (1986).

S130.! P. S. Willumsen, GFF 122, 180 (2000).

S131.! P. S. Willumsen, Journal of Micropalaeontology 23, 119 (2004).

S132.! P. S. Willumsen, Alcheringa (in press) (2010).

S133.! C. J. Hollis, C. P. Strong, New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 46, 243 (2003).

S134.! V. Vajda, J. I. Raine, New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 46, 255 (2003).

S135.! C. J. Hollis, C. P. Strong, K. A. Rodgers, K. M. Rogers, New Zealand Journal of Geology &

Geophysics 46, 177 (2003).

S136.! V. Vajda, J. I. Raine, C. J. Hollis, C. P. Strong, in Global effects of the Chicxulub impact on

terrestrial vegetation: Review of the palynological record from New Zealand Cretaceous/

Tertiary boundary, H. Dypvik, M. J. Burchell, P. Claeys, Eds. (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2004),

pp. 57-74.

S137." F. P. C. M. Van Morkhoven, B. W.A., S. A. Edwards, Bull. Centr. Rech. Explor. - Production Elf-

Aquitaine, Mémoir 11, 1 (1986).

S138.! T. E. Krogh, S. L. Kamo, B. F. Bohor, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 119, 425 (1993).

S139.! W. R. Premo, G. A. Izett, G. P. Meeker, Lunar Planet. Sci. 26, 1139 (1995).

S140.! S. L. Kamo, T. E. Krogh, Geology 23, 281 (1995).

S141.! M. B. Steiner, J. D. Walker, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 17727 (1996).

S142.! R. Lopez, K. L. Cameron, N. W. Jones, Precambrian Res. 107, 195 (2001).



www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 21 MAY 2010 973

LETTERSedited by Jennifer Sills

987

Evolutionarygames

Lightweightmetals

Synchronizedbehavior

COMMENTARY

977LETTERS I BOOKS I POLICY FORUM I EDUCATION FORUM I PERSPECTIVES

986

CR

ED

IT: G

SF

C/N

ASA

Cretaceous Extinctions: Multiple Causes IN THE REVIEW “THE CHICXULUB ASTEROID IMPACT AND MASS EXTINCTION AT THE CRETACEOUS-Paleogene boundary” (P. Schulte et al., 5 March, p. 1214), the terminal Cretaceous extinctions

were confi dently attributed to a single event, the environmental consequences of the impact

of an extraterrestrial body. The list of 41 authors, although suggesting a consensus, conspicu-

ously lacked the names of researchers in the fi elds of terrestrial vertebrates, including dino-

saurs, as well as freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates. Although we the undersigned differ

over the specifi cs, we have little doubt that an impact played some role in these extinctions.

Nevertheless, the simplistic extinction scenario presented in the Review has not stood up to

the countless studies of how vertebrates and

other terrestrial and marine organisms fared

at the end of the Cretaceous (1–4).

Patterns of extinction and survival were

varied, pointing to multiple causes at this

time—including impact, marine regression,

volcanic activity, and changes in global and

regional climatic patterns (5). It is telling that

in all other instances of mass extinction in

the past 600 million years, no signature of an

extraterrestrial impact has ever been reliably

detected, despite extensive searches. More-

over, there are many other known instances

of large impacts in the geologic record, with

no associated extinctions (6). The general

importance of impacts to extinction is called into question, as well as the importance of

the Cretaceous-Paleogene impact as a single cause (7). By contrast, all of the fi ve widely

accepted mass extinctions occur during or shortly after times of global marine regression (8)

and at least three occur during intervals of massive volcanism (9).

J. DAVID ARCHIBALD,1* W. A. CLEMENS,2 KEVIN PADIAN,2 TIMOTHY ROWE,3

NORMAN MACLEOD,4 PAUL M. BARRETT,4 ANDREW GALE,5 PAT HOLROYD,6

HANS-DIETER SUES,7 NAN CRYSTAL ARENS,8 JOHN R. HORNER,9 GREGORY P. WILSON,10

MARK B. GOODWIN,6 CHRISTOPHER A. BROCHU,11 DONALD L. LOFGREN,12 STUART H. HURLBERT,1

JOSEPH H. HARTMAN,13 DAVID A. EBERTH,14 PAUL B. WIGNALL, 15 PHILIP J. CURRIE,16 ANNE WEIL, 17

GUNTUPALLI V. R. PRASAD,18 LOWELL DINGUS,19 VINCENT COURTILLOT,20 ANGELA MILNER,4

ANDREW MILNER,4 SUNIL BAJPAI,21 DAVID J. WARD,22 ASHOK SAHNI23

1Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4614, USA. 2Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–3140, USA. 3Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 4Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK. 5Department of Earth and Enviromental Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hants PO1 3QL, UK. 6Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–4781, USA. 7Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20013–7012, USA. 8Department of Geoscience, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA. 9Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA. 10Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195–1800, USA. 11Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. 12Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology, Claremont, CA 91711, USA. 13Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202–8358, USA. 14Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, AB T0J 0Y0, Canada. 15School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 16Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada. 17Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA. 18Department of Geology, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India. 19InfoQuest Foundation, 160 Cabrini Boulevard, No. 48, New York, NY 10033, USA. 20Institut de

Physique du Globe de Paris, 75251 Paris, France. 21Depart-ment of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667 (Uttarakhand), India. 22Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Medway Campus, Uni-versity of Greenwich, Chatham, Kent ME4 4AW, UK. 23Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, Lucknow University, Lucknow 226001, India.


References 1. G. P. Wilson, J. Mam. Evol. 12, 53 (2005). 2. J. D. Archibald, D. E. Fastovsky, in The Dinosauria,

D. B. Weishampel et al., Eds. (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2004), pp. 672–684.

3. N. MacLeod et al., J. Geol. Soc. London 154, 265 (1997). 4. P. M. Barrett et al., Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 276,

2667 (2009). 5. N. MacLeod, in Evolution on Planet Earth, L. Rothschild,

A. Lister, Eds. (Academic Press, London, 2003), pp. 253–277.

6. C. W. Poag et al., in Deep-Sea Research, Part II, R. Gersonde et al., Eds. (Pergamon, New York, 2002), pp. 1081–1102.

7. N. C. Arens, I. D. West, Paleobiology 34, 456 (2008). 8. S. E. Peters, Nature 454, 626 (2008). 9. P. B. Wignall, Earth Sci. Rev. 53, 1 (2001).

Cretaceous Extinctions:

The Volcanic Hypothesis

IN THEIR REVIEW “THE CHICXULUB ASTER-oid impact and mass extinction at the

Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary” (5 March,

p. 1214), P. Schulte et al. conclude that “the

Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinc-

tion.” However, the Review does not give suf-

fi cient and accurate consideration to the vol-

canic hypothesis. The authors claim that for

Chicxulub, “the extremely rapid injection rate

of dust and climate-forcing gases would have

magnifi ed the environmental consequences

compared with more-prolonged volcanic

eruptions.” As evidence, they cite our paper

(1), saying, “the injection of ~100 to 500 Gt

of sulfur into the atmosphere within minutes

after the Chicxulub impact contrasts with vol-

canic injection rates of 0.05 to 0.5 Gt of sul-

fur per year during the ~1-million-year-long

main phase of Deccan flood basalt volca-

nism.” This contains a substantial error and a

fundamental misrepresentation of our paper.

Half a Gt per year of sulfur for 1 million years

amounts to 500,000 Gt of sulfur, which in any

Deccan plateau basalts. Lava from Deccan volcanism formed distinct layering.

Published by AAAS

on

June

2, 2

010

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om


21 MAY 2010 VOL 328 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 974

LETTERS

climate model would lead to a “snowball”

Earth! In (1), we estimate the total amount of

SO2 released by the traps at about 10,000 Gt,

less by a factor of 50 than that in Schulte et

al.’s Review. The Deccan erupted in a small

number of short, huge pulses, reducing actual

injection duration to far less than 1 million

years. We and others (2, 3) have argued that

two main phases likely lasted a few thousand

to tens of thousands of years, during which

individual flows would have reached vol-

umes of 10,000 km3 and released up to 100

Gt of sulfur in one or a few decades (based on

analysis of paleomagnetic secular variation).

Schulte et al. use our study to show that vol-

canism did not lead to the extinction, yet we

showed that injection of SO2 by a single vol-

canic pulse could have had a climatic impact

similar to Chicxulub. We estimated (1) that

the largest Deccan pulses emitted up to 100 Gt

of sulfur at 0.5 Gt per year for a few decades

to tens of decades, implying a radiative effect

slightly lower but lasting substantially longer

than in the impact case. Whereas impact was

a single event, some 30 volcanic pulses emit-

ted total amounts of SO2 not very different

from Chicxulub. Their sequence would have

generated a runaway effect not allowed by a

single impact or volcanic pulse. Evidence of

an association between extinctions and con-

tinental flood basalts (CFBs) arising from

eruption has been proposed since at least

1986 (4–7). Subsequent work has shown that

all extinction or oceanic anoxia events in the

past 300 million years are associated with a

large accumulation of igneous material of

the same age within uncertainties (8). No

conclusive impact has been demonstrated at

any mass extinction boundary other than the

Cretaceous-Paleogene. The case of the larg-

est CFB (Siberian traps) and mass extinction

(Permo-Triassic ~250 million years ago) is

now generally accepted. Without challenging

the existence or age of the Chicxulub impact,

we believe that it is increasingly arguable that

it could not by itself have caused a mass extinc-

tion, but that because it took place demonstra-

bly during Deccan eruptions (9, 10), it con-

tributed signifi cantly to the mass extinction, as

yet another giant lava fl ow could have, in an

already very weakened environment.VINCENT COURTILLOT* AND FRÉDÉRIC FLUTEAU

Institut de Physique du Globe, Paris, France.


References 1. A.-L. Chenet et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, B06103,

10.1029/2008JB005644 (2009). 2. S. Self, T. Thordarson, M. Widdowson, A. Jay, Earth

Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 518 (2006). 3. G. Keller, T. Adatte, S. Gardin, A. Bartolini, S. Bajpai,

Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 268, 293 (2008). 4. V. Courtillot et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 80, 361 (1986). 5. M. R. Rampino, R. B. Stothers, Science 241, 663 (1988). 6. V. Courtillot, Isr. J. Earth Sci. 43, 255 (1994). 7. V. Courtillot, Evolutionary Catastrophes: The Science of

Mass Extinctions (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999).

8. V. Courtillot, P. Renne, C. R. Acad. Sci. 335, 113 (2003). 9. N. Bhandari, P. N. Shukla, Z. G. Ghevariya, S. M.

Sundaram, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 433 (1995). 10. V. Courtillot et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 182, 137 (2000).

Cretaceous Extinctions:

Evidence Overlooked

IN THEIR REVIEW “THE CHICXULUB ASTEROID impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous-

Paleogene boundary” (5 March, p. 1214),

P. Schulte et al. analyzed the 30-year-old

controversy over the cause of the end-Cre-

taceous mass extinction and concluded that

the original theory of 1980 was right: A large

asteroid impact on Yucatan was the sole cause

for this catastrophe. To arrive at this conclu-

sion, the authors used a selective review of

data and interpretations by proponents of this

viewpoint. They ignored the vast body of evi-

dence inconsistent with their conclusion—

evidence accumulated by scientists across

disciplines (paleontology, stratigraphy, sed-

imentology, geochemistry, geophysics, and

volcanology) that documents a complex

long-term scenario involving a combination

of impacts, volcanism, and climate change.

Here, we point out some of the key evidence

that Schulte et al. overlooked.

The underlying basis for Schulte et al.’s

claim that the Chicxulub impact is the sole

cause for the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg)

mass extinction is the assumption that the irid-

ium (Ir) anomaly at the K-Pg boundary and

Chicxulub are the same age. There is no evi-

dence to support this assertion. No Ir anomaly

has ever been identifi ed in association with

undisputed Chicxulub impact ejecta (impact

glass spherules), and no impact spherules have

ever been identifi ed in the Ir-enriched K-Pg

boundary clay in Mexico or elsewhere (1, 2).

In rare deep-sea sites where the Ir anomaly is

just above impact spherules, it is due to con-

densed sedimentation and/or nondeposition.

A Chicxulub impact–generated tsunami is

another basic assumption of Schulte et al. to

account for the impact spherules in late Maas-

trichtian sediments (including a sandstone

complex) in Mexico and Texas. Multiple lines

of evidence contradict this assumption and

demonstrate long-term deposition before the

K-Pg, including burrowed horizons, multiple

impact spherule layers separated by limestone,

and spherule-rich clasts that indicate the origi-

nal deposition predates the K-Pg and excludes

tsunami deposition (1–4).

Evidence of the pre–K-Pg age of the

Chicxulub impact can also be found in sedi-

ments above the sandstone complex in Texas

and northeastern Mexico and above the

impact breccia in the Chicxulub crater. Evi-

dence shows that the K-Pg boundary is not

linked to the sandstone complex and impact

spherules (1, 2, 4–7).

Evidence that supports the pre–K-Pg age

of the Chicxulub impact is also found in the

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

Reports: “Cryogenian glaciation and the onset of carbon-isotope decoupling” by N. L. Swanson-Hysell et al. (30 April, p. 608). A typographical error in the Fig. 2 caption was introduced to the print edition during page proofs. The correct fi nal sentence of the Fig. 2 caption is, “An increase in k

w and in the relative burial of C as organic matter can result in a

decrease in CO2, as shown for the Mesoproterozoic �Tonian � Cryogenian, without changes in volcanic CO

2 input.” The

caption is correct in the HTML version online.

Cover caption: (23 April, p. 397). The cover image showed children studying chemistry, not nuclear physics.

Reports: “Protein kinase C-θ mediates negative feedback on regulatory T cell function” by A. Zanin-Zhorov et al. (16 April, p. 372). In the fi rst sentence of the second paragraph on p. 372, T

eff should have been defi ned as CD4+ CD25–.

Reports: “Arsenic trioxide controls the fate of the PML-RARα oncoprotein by directly binding PML” by X.-W. Zhang et al. (9 April, p. 240). In the legend for Fig. 3C, the local structure models were described incorrectly; Zn-PML-R is blue and As-PML-R is orange.

Policy Forum: “China’s road to sustainability” by J. Liu (2 April, p. 50). In the fi rst sentence, China refers to the People’s Republic of China. The word “caused” was missing from the sentence “The ‘Great Leap Forward’ movement (1958–1961) caused the loss of at least 10% of China’s forests to fuel backyard furnaces for steel production.”

News Focus: “Immunology uncaged” by M. Leslie (26 March, p. 1573). The article incorrectly stated that the Center for Human Immunology, Autoimmunity, and Infl ammation was part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. It is a separate initiative sponsored by several NIH institutes. The article should also have emphasized that the center is conduct-ing immunological research and is not a technical service facility.

News Focus: “Treatment as prevention” by J. Cohen (5 March, p. 1196). The title on the graphic mistakenly indicated that “incidence” dropped. The researchers did not measure “incidence” but did fi nd a drop in the number of HIV infections detected.

Reports: “Acetylation of metabolic enzymes coordinates carbon source utilization and metabolic fl ux” by Q. Wang et al. (19 February, p. 1004). In Fig. 2B, the inhibitor used to mimic the cobB mutation was NAM (nicotinamide) not NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide).

Published by AAAS

on

June

2, 2

010

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om


www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 21 MAY 2010 975

LETTERSC

RE

DIT

: N

ASA

presence of a spherule layer in late Maastrich-

tian sediments below the sandstone complex

in northeastern Mexico and Texas (2, 4, 8).

Deccan volcanism is dismissed by Schulte

et al. as much older and of no consequence

in the K-Pg mass extinction. Recent Deccan

volcanism studies show the contrary (9–11).

These studies link the mass extinction with

the main phase of Deccan eruptions.

When this evidence is taken into account,

it is clear that the massive Chicxulub and

Deccan database indicates a long-term mul-

ticausal scenario and is inconsistent with the

model proposed by Schulte et al.

GERTA KELLER,1* THIERRY ADATTE,2

ALFONSO PARDO,3 SUNIL BAJPAI,4

ASHU KHOSLA,5 BANDANA SAMANT6

1Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Prince-ton, NJ 08544, USA. 2Geological and Paleontological Insti-tute, University of Lausanne, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzer-land. 3Escuela Politécnica Superior de Huesca, Universidad de Zaragoza, Carretera Cuarte s/n 22071, Huesca, Spain. 4Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Tech-nology, Roorkee 247 667, Uttarakhand, India. 5Center for Advanced Study in Geology, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India. 6Department of Geology, Nagpur University, Nagpur 440 001, Maharashtra, India.


References 1. G. Keller, Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 437, 147 (2008). 2. G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, D. Stueben, Earth

Sci. Rev. 62, 327 (2003). 3. A. A. Ekdale, W. Stinnesbeck, Palaios 13, 593 (1998). 4. G. Keller et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339 (2007). 5. G. Keller et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 3753

(2004). 6. W. C. Ward, G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, Geology

23, 873 (1995). 7. M. L. Prauss, Paleogeogr. Paleoclimatol. Paleoecol. 283,

195 (2009). 8. G. Keller, T. Adatte, A. J. Pardo, J. G. Lopez-Oliva, J. Geol.

Soc. London 166, 393 (2009). 9. G. Keller, T. Adatte, S. Gardin, A. Bartolini, S. Bajpai,

Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 268, 293 (2008). 10. A.-L. Chenet, X. Quidelleur, F. Fluteau, V. Courtillot,

S. Bajpai, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 263, 1 (2007). 11. A.-L. Chenet, F. Fluteau, V. Courtillot, M. Gerard, K. V.

Subbarao, J. Geophys. Res. 113, B04101 (2008).

ResponseTHE LETTERS BY ARCHIBALD ET AL., KELLER ET

al., and Courtillot and Fluteau question our

conclusion that the Cretaceous-Paleogene

mass extinction was caused by the asteroid

impact at Chicxulub. All three Letters stress

that Deccan fl ood basalt volcanism played a

major role in the extinction. Keller et al. and

Archibald et al. also mention that climate

change was a factor, and Archibald et al.

point to marine regression as well.

We disagree with the hypothesis that vol-

canic activity can explain the extinction.

First, geographically extensive biotic records

of marine microfossils and terrestrial pollen

and spores that reveal the nature of the Creta-

ceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction with

the greatest fi delity do not contain evidence

of accelerated extinction rates during the last

400 thousand years of the Cretaceous [our

Review and (1, 2)] and therefore do not sup-

port the idea that the biosphere was somehow

destabilized by Deccan volcanism. In fact,

plant macrofossils record a diversifi cation dur-

ing this time (2). Studies of the last 1.5 million

years of the Cretaceous from North America,

Europe, and Asia [e.g., (3, 4)] are compatible

with a sudden extinction scenario for non-

avian dinosaurs. Moreover, the constancy of

late Maastrichtian open ocean sedimentation

(as indicated by climate cycles driven by reg-

ular oscillations in Earth’s orbit) does not

provide evidence for overall declining pro-

ductivity or instability in marine ecosystems

preceding the boundary [e.g., (5)].

Second, recent studies suggest that

the emplacement of the Deccan fl ood

basalts took place during multiple (~30)

large eruptive pulses, most of which

predate the K-Pg boundary by several

hundred thousand years (6). In con-

trast, others have argued that “activ-

ity in the continental fl ood basalt prov-

ince as a whole is likely to have been

quasi-continuous” (7). Nevertheless,

it is extremely diffi cult to reconcile the

protracted Deccan fl ood basalt eruption

history with a single abrupt mass extinc-

tion horizon exactly at the K-Pg bound-

ary. Although it is well documented that

the Chicxulub impact event coincided

precisely with sudden paleontological

and paleoenvironmental changes and

the K-Pg mass extinction [our Review

and (8, 9)], there are no comparable data

demonstrating that a major pulse of Deccan

volcanism coincided with the mass extinction.

Moreover, it remains to be explained why one

eruptive event would have resulted in mass

extinction, whereas multiple earlier eruptive

events of comparable magnitude and duration

occurring up to 500 thousand years before the

K-Pg boundary (6) left few global environ-

mental traces [e.g., (1, 2)].

Third, rates of sulfur injections are criti-

cally important to discriminating between

environmental consequences of impact ver-

sus those of volcanism because the residence

time of sulfur in the atmosphere is short (10).

Courtillot and Fluteau claim that we mis-

represent their 2009 paper (6). However, the

paper includes exactly the numbers (reported

as “0.1 to 1 Gt/a sulfur dioxide”) we stated.

We did not note their fi nding that the sulfur

was released “over durations possibly as short

as 100 years for each single eruptive event”

(6) because this does not affect our conclu-

sions. Maintaining such a sulfur release for

100 years would indeed result in a total sulfur

release of 50 Gt, which is in the order of the

lowest estimate for Chicxulub impact (see our

Review). However, sulfur is removed from

the atmosphere continuously (10) and there-

fore any accumulation in the atmosphere is

unsupported, contrary to the claim made

by Courtillot and Fluteau. We also empha-

size that the instantaneous release of 100 to

500 Gt sulfur is only one consequence of the

Chicxulub impact, and the K-Pg boundary

mass extinction is likely the result of a com-

bination of several impact-induced environ-

mental effects (including the release of sul-

fur, soot, dust, and other effects, as noted in

our Review), whereas the Deccan fl ood basalt

hypothesis relies exclusively on the injection

of sulfur dioxide (6).

With regard to Archibald et al.’s and Cour-

tillot and Fluteau’s comments about other

Phanerozoic mass extinction events that

co-occurred with the emplacement of fl ood

basalt provinces, we note that these extinction

events are commonly associated with oce-

anic anoxia, calcifi cation crises, and strong

global warming—none of which is observed

at the K-Pg boundary (2, 10–13). Further-

more, there is an absence of mass extinctions

during several large fl ood basalt eruptions

(10, 14). Each mass extinction event should

be considered relative to the record for that

event [e.g., (12)], and we stress the unique

aspects of the K-Pg boundary record. Chic-

xulub is by far the largest known impact event

in the Phanerozoic, and the projectile hit an

extraordinarily thick sulfur-rich sedimen-

tary sequence (see our Review). The absence

of evidence for impact phenomena at other

mass extinctions, discussed by Archibald et

al., is irrelevant for our synthesis of the stra-

tigraphy and biotic response to the specifi c

Chicxulub impact event.

The Chicxulub Crater. A computer-generated gravity map image shows the Chicxulub Crater on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.

Published by AAAS

on

June

2, 2

010

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om


21 MAY 2010 VOL 328 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 976

LETTERS

Our work in no way diminishes the impor-

tance of gaining a better understanding of the

environmental consequences of massive vol-

canism. We do not doubt that such volcanism

can signifi cantly perturb the global environ-

ment. However, a robust correlation between

mass extinction and fl ood basalt volcanism

as suggested by Courtillot and Fluteau is

unlikely [see reviews of (10, 14)].

Keller et al. and Archibald et al. men-

tion that climate change contributed to the

extinction. As outlined in our Review and in

(1, 2), climate fl uctuations during the latest

Maastrichtian (minor warming and subse-

quent cooling) and the associated faunal and

floral consequences are clearly separated

from the abrupt mass extinction event at the

K-Pg boundary.

In response to Archibald et al.’s point

about marine regressions, we note that marine

mass extinctions may have coincided with

global sea-level changes [e.g., (15)]. How-

ever, because sea-level changes are numer-

ous (15), this association seems coincidental

rather than causal (16). Sea-level change also

fails to explain the disruption of vegetation

and the faunal change observed in terrestrial

environments at the K-Pg boundary (1).

We disagree with the comments of Keller

et al. regarding the association between

Chicxulub impact ejecta and the K-Pg

boundary, and we point out that our Review

addressed all of the issues to which they

refer. Our Review integrated new data with

previous work in the peer-reviewed litera-

ture to provide substantial corroborating evi-

dence for a global correlation of the Chicxu-

lub impact with the K-Pg boundary.PETER SCHULTE,1* LAIA ALEGRET,2 IGNACIO ARE-

NILLAS,2 JOSÉ A. ARZ,2 PENNY J. BARTON,3

PAUL R. BOWN,4 TIMOTHY J. BRALOWER,5 GAIL

L. CHRISTESON,6 PHILIPPE CLAEYS,7 CHARLES

S. COCKELL,8 GARETH S. COLLINS,9 ALEXANDER

DEUTSCH,10 TAMARA J. GOLDIN,11 KAZUHISA

GOTO,12 JOSÉ M. GRAJALES-NISHIMURA,13

RICHARD A. F. GRIEVE,14 SEAN P. S. GULICK,6

KIRK R. JOHNSON,15 WOLFGANG KIESSLING,16

CHRISTIAN KOEBERL,11 DAVID A. KRING,17

KENNETH G. MACLEOD,18 TAKAFUMI MATSUI,12

JAY MELOSH,19 ALESSANDRO MONTANARI,20

JOANNA V. MORGAN,9 CLIVE R. NEAL,21

RICHARD D. NORRIS,22 ELISABETTA PIERAZZO,23

GREG RAVIZZA,24 MARIO REBOLLEDO-VIEYRA,25

WOLF UWE REIMOLD,16 ERIC ROBIN,26

TOBIAS SALGE,27 ROBERT P. SPEIJER,28

ARTHUR R. SWEET,29 JAIME URRUTIA-

FUCUGAUCHI,30 VIVI VAJDA,31

MICHAEL T. WHALEN,32 PI S. WILLUMSEN31

31

1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schlossgarten 5, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. 2Departa-mento de Ciencias de la Tierra e Instituto Universitario de Investigación de Ciencias Ambientales de Aragón, Univer-sidad de Zaragoza, Pedro Cerbuna 12, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain. 3Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cam-

bridge, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, UK. 4Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. 5Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. 6Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78759, USA. 7Earth System Sci-ence, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brus-sels, Belgium. 8Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space, and Astro-nomical Research, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. 9Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College Lon-don, London SW7 2BP, UK. 10Institut fur Planetologie, Uni-versität Münster, D-48149 Münster, Germany. 11Department of Lithospheric Research, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. 12Planetary Exploration Research Center, Chiba Institute of Technology 2-17-1 Tsudanuma, Narashino, 275-0016 Chiba, Japan. 13Programa de Geología de Exploracíon y Explotacíon, Dirección de Investigación y Posgrado, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Lázaro Cárde-nas No. 152, C.P. 07730, México City, México. 14Earth Sci-ences Sector, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4, Canada. 15Research and Collections Division, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, USA. 16Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute at the Humboldt University Berlin, Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany. 17Center for Lunar Science and Exploration, Universities Space Research Association–Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX 77058–1113, USA. 18Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. 19Earth and Atmospheric Sci-ences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907–2051, USA. 20Osservatorio Geologico di Coldigioco, 62021 Apiro (MC), Italy. 21Department of Civil Engineering and Geologi-cal Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. 22SIO Geological Collections, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92093–0244, USA. 23Plane-tary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA. 24Department of Geology and Geophysics, School of Ocean and Earth Sci-ence and Technology, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hono-lulu, HI 96822, USA. 25Unidad de Ciencias del Agua, Cen-tro de Investigación Científi ca de Yucatán, Cancún, Quintana Roo, 77500, México. 26Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Institut Pierre et Simon Laplace, Com-mission à l’É nergie Atomique/CNRS/Université de Versailles Saint Quentin en Yveunes-UMR 1572, Avenue de la Terrasse, F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. 27Bruker Nano GmbH, Schwarzschildstraße 12, D-12489 Berlin, Germany. 28Depart-ment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, K.U.Leuven, Box 2408, Celestijnenlaan 200E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 29Natu-ral Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Calgary, 3303 33rd Street NW, Calgary, AB T2L 2A7, Canada. 30Labora-torio de Paleomagnetismo y Paleoambientes, Programa Uni-versitario de Perforaciones en Oceanos y Continentes, Insti-tuto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), DF 04510 México, México. 31Department of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62 Lund, Sweden. 32Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA.


References 1. D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Plants and the K-T Boundary

(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008). 2. P. Wilf, K. R. Johnson, B. T. Huber, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U.S.A. 100, 599 (2003). 3. D. E. Fastovsky, P. M. Sheehan, GSA Today 15, 4 (2005). 4. V. Riera, O. Oms, R. Gaete, A. Galobart, Palaeogeogr.

Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 283, 160 (2009). 5. T. D. Herbert, I. Premoli-Silva, E. Erba, A. G. Fischer, Soc.

Econ. Paleont. Mineral. Spec. Publ. 54, 81 (1995). 6. A.-L. Chenet et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, B06103 (2009). 7. A. E. Jay et al., J. Geol. Soc. 166, 13 (2009). 8. T. J. Bralower et al., Geology 38, 199 (2010). 9. S. Jiang et al., Nat. Geosci. 3, 280 (2010). 10. P. B. Wignall, Earth Sci. Rev. 53, 1 (2001). 11. R. V. White, A. D. Saunders, Lithos 79, 299 (2005). 12. V. Vajda, S. McLoughlin, Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 144,

99 (2007). 13. W. Kiessling, C. Simpson, Global Change Biol., published

online 24 February 2010; 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.

02204.x, in press. 14. S. Kelley, J. Geol. Soc. London 164, 923 (2007). 15. K. G. Miller et al., Science 310, 1293 (2005). 16. A. B. Smith, A. S. Gale, N. E. A. Monks, Paleobiology 27,

241 (2001).

Honing the Test-and-Treat

HIV Strategy IN HIS NEWS FOCUS STORY (“TREATMENT AS prevention,” 5 March, p. 1196), J. Cohen

reviews ideas presented at the 17th Conference

on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections

about the use of HIV treatment as prevention.

Enthusiasm for the treatment-as-prevention

approach has grown in recent years as (i) the

drugs have become safer, better tolerated, and

more widely available; (ii) widespread testing

has become cheaper and more effi cient; (iii)

earlier therapy has become desirable; and (iv)

mathematical modeling by some (1) (but by

no means all) has suggested that a test-and-

treat strategy could control the spread of HIV.

Cohen cites an observational analysis,

by Donnell et al., that reported considerable

reduction of HIV transmission in HIV discor-

dant couples when ART was provided to the

HIV-infected index partner (2). This fi nding—

similar to work from Sullivan et al. presented

at Conference on Retroviruses and Opportu-

nistic Infections in 2009 (3)—helps to support

the key assumption that ART reduces infec-

tiousness. However, these studies report only

short-term observations; they do not address

the durability of this effect or the risk of trans-

mitted drug-resistant HIV strains, two critical

considerations for the test-and-treat strategy.TIMOTHY D. MASTRO1* AND MYRON S. COHEN2

1Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. 2Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.


References 1. R. M. Granich, C. F. Gilks, C. Dye, K. M. De Cock,

B. G. Williams, Lancet 373, 48 (2009). 2. D. Donnell et al., abstract 136, presented at the 17th

Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, San Francisco, CA, 16 to 19 February 2010.

3. P. Sullivan et al., abstract 52bLB, presented at the 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Montreal, Canada, 8 to 11 February 2009.

Letters to the EditorLetters (~300 words) discuss material published in Science in the previous 3 months or issues of general interest. They can be submitted through the Web (www.submit2science.org) or by regular mail (1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA). Letters are not acknowledged upon receipt, nor are authors generally consulted before publication. Whether published in full or in part, letters are subject to editing for clarity and space.

Published by AAAS

on

June

2, 2

010

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om


The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction...

Documents

Transcript of The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction...