Geological and Biological Consequences of Giant Impacts

McLaren, D. J.; Goodfellow, Wayne D.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.18.050190.001011

Cited by 100 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The record of large impacts on Earth is rather poorly preserved owing to plate tectonic activity (subduction) and erosion (McLaren and Goodfellow, 1990), subsequent burial of an impact crater by younger sediments (e.g. the EVT boundary Chixulub structure, Hildebrand et al, 1991), and tectonic deformation (e.g.…”

Section: Impact Events In the Geological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barlow, 1990) and that since then, large impacts have been less frequent. Estimates of impact rates in the Phanerozoic based on the Earth's cratering record and the number of asteroids and comets in Earth crossing orbits (Shoemaker et al 1988) range from one every 7 to 14 Myr for bolides with a diameter 2 5 km and one every 55 to 100 Myr for 10 km diameter bolides (Shoemaker, 1983;McLaren and Goodfellow, 1990).…”

Section: Impact Events In the Geological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Massively Parallel Global Climate Model for Paleoclimate Applications

Boslough¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Impact Events In the Geological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Events In the Geological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Massively Parallel Global Climate Model for Paleoclimate Applications

Boslough¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, the Alvarez theory has rapidly been established as the leading concept for the K-Pg mass extinction, explaining in addition not only other Phanerozoic biotic crises, but also introducing eventually the new catastrophism paradigm in geosciences (e.g., Berggren and Van Couvering 1984;Alvarez et al 1989;Hsü 1989;Marvin 1990;Ager 1993;Glen 1994;Palmer 2003;Reimold 2007). Many workers have looked for comparable extraterrestrial evidence at all known extinction horizons and have frequently claimed compelling multi−disciplinary evi− dence of "impact crises" (see exemplary reviews in McLaren andGoodfellow 1990 andHaggerty 1996a). The desperate search for a widespread cosmic signature was most notably a priori reasoned by notion highlight in the popu− lar book of Raup (1991) that no global stress triggers other than different−magnitude impacts could be responsible for both "background" and mass extinctions (see also McLaren and Goodfellow 1990;Raup 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many workers have looked for comparable extraterrestrial evidence at all known extinction horizons and have frequently claimed compelling multi−disciplinary evi− dence of "impact crises" (see exemplary reviews in McLaren andGoodfellow 1990 andHaggerty 1996a). The desperate search for a widespread cosmic signature was most notably a priori reasoned by notion highlight in the popu− lar book of Raup (1991) that no global stress triggers other than different−magnitude impacts could be responsible for both "background" and mass extinctions (see also McLaren and Goodfellow 1990;Raup 1992). This "revolution" in mainstream geosciences and space sciences was also espe− cially striking when paired with purportedly cyclical collisions with Earth−crossing asteroids and comets, as manifested by the "Shiva Hypothesis" of Rampino and Haggerty (1996b), evolving rapidly into "a unified theory of impact crises and mass extinctions" of Rampino et al (1997) and, finally, into "the galactic theory of mass extinctions" of Rampino (1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts and Mass Extinctions Revisited

Morrow¹

2006

PALAIOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne's Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.The Alvarez impact theory of mass extinction; limits to its applicability and the "great expectations syndrome" GRZEGORZ RACKI Racki, G. 2012. The Alvarez impact theory of mass extinction; limits to its applicability and the "great expectations syn− drome". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57 (4): 681-702.For the past three decades, the Alvarez impact theory of mass extinction, causally related to catastrophic meteorite im− pacts, has been recurrently applied to multiple extinction boundaries. However, these multidisciplinary research efforts across the globe have been largely unsuccessful to date, with one outstanding exception: the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. The unicausal impact scenario as a leading explanation, when applied to the complex fossil record, has resulted in force−fitting of data and interpretations ("great expectations syndrome". The misunderstandings can be grouped at three successive levels of the testing process, and involve the unreflective application of the impact paradigm: (i) factual misidentification, i.e., an erroneous or indefinite recognition of the extraterrestrial record in sedimentological, physical and geochemical contexts, (ii) correlative misinterpretation of the adequately documented impact signals due to their in− correct dating, and (iii) causal overestimation when the proved impact characteristics are doubtful as a sufficient trigger of a contemporaneous global cosmic catastrophe. Examples of uncritical belief in the simple cause−effect scenario for the Frasnian-Famennian, Permian-Triassic, and Triassic-Jurassic (and the Eifelian-Givetian and Paleocene-Eocene as well) global events include mostly item−1 pitfalls (factual misidentification), with Ir enrichments and shocked minerals frequently misidentified. Therefore, these mass extinctions are still at the first test level, and only the F-F extinction is po− tentially seen in the context of item−2, the interpretative step, because of the possible causative link with the Siljan Ring crater (53 km in diameter). The erratically recognized cratering signature is often marked by large timing and size uncer− tainties, and item−3, the advanced causal inference, is in fact limited to clustered impacts that clearly predate major mass extinctions. The multi−impact lag−time pattern is particularly clear in the Late Triassic, when the largest (100 km diame−...

show abstract

“…Consequently, it is clear that there should now be several levels of research on "extinctions." First, further attention should be given to McLaren's conclusion (1985;McLaren and Goodfellow, 1990) that there is a geologically instantaneous event affecting the global biomass ofa limited number of abundant taxa. Boucot (1990) referred to this as community collapse involving the cosmopolitan eurytopes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%