Abstract

The Cretaceous/Palaeogene mass extinction eradicated 76% of species on Earth1,2. It was caused by the impact of an asteroid3,4 on the Yucatán carbonate platform in the southern Gulf of Mexico 66 million years ago5, forming the Chicxulub impact crater6,7. After the mass extinction, the recovery of the global marine ecosystem—measured as primary productivity—was geographically heterogeneous8; export production in the Gulf of Mexico and North Atlantic–western Tethys was slower than in most other regions8,9,10,11, taking 300 thousand years (kyr) to return to levels similar to those of the Late Cretaceous period. Delayed recovery of marine productivity closer to the crater implies an impact-related environmental control, such as toxic metal poisoning12, on recovery times. If no such geographic pattern exists, the best explanation for the observed heterogeneity is a combination of ecological factors—trophic interactions13, species incumbency and competitive exclusion by opportunists14—and ‘chance’8,15,16. The question of whether the post-impact recovery of marine productivity was delayed closer to the crater has a bearing on the predictability of future patterns of recovery in anthropogenically perturbed ecosystems. If there is a relationship between the distance from the impact and the recovery of marine productivity, we would expect recovery rates to be slowest in the crater itself. Here we present a record of foraminifera, calcareous nannoplankton, trace fossils and elemental abundance data from within the Chicxulub crater, dated to approximately the first 200 kyr of the Palaeocene. We show that life reappeared in the basin just years after the impact and a high-productivity ecosystem was established within 30 kyr, which indicates that proximity to the impact did not delay recovery and that there was therefore no impact-related environmental control on recovery. Ecological processes probably controlled the recovery of productivity after the Cretaceous/Palaeogene mass extinction and are therefore likely to be important for the response of the ocean ecosystem to other rapid extinction events.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Jablonski, D. in Extinction Rates (eds Lawton, J. H. & May, R. M.) 25–44 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1995).

  2. 2.

    Schulte, P. et al. The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Science 327, 1214–1218 (2010).

  3. 3.

    Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F. & Michel, H. V. Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction. Science 208, 1095–1108 (1980).

  4. 4.

    Smit, J. & Hertogen, J. An extraterrestrial event at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary. Nature 285, 198–200 (1980).

  5. 5.

    Renne, P. R. et al. Time scales of critical events around the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Science 339, 684–687 (2013).

  6. 6.

    Hildebrand, A. R. et al. Chicxulub crater: a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater in the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Geology 19, 867–871 (1991).

  7. 7.

    Morgan, J. V. et al. The formation of peak rings in large impact craters. Science 354, 878–882 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Hull, P. M. & Norris, R. D. Diverse patterns of ocean export productivity change across the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary: new insights from biogenic barium. Paleoceanography 26, PA3205 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Alegret, L. & Thomas, E. Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary bathyal paleo-environments in the central North Pacific (DSDP site 465), the northwestern Atlantic (ODP site 1049), the Gulf of Mexico, and the Tethys: the benthic foraminiferal record. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 224, 53–82 (2005).

  10. 10.

    Alegret, L., Molina, E. & Thomas, E. Benthic foraminifera at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary around the Gulf of Mexico. Geology 29, 891–894 (2001).

  11. 11.

    Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., Arz, J. A. & Molina, E. Foraminiferal event-stratigraphy across the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary. Neues Jahrb. Geol. Paläontol. Abh. 231, 25–50 (2004).

  12. 12.

    Jiang, S., Bralower, T. J., Patzkowsky, M. E., Kump, L. R. & Schueth, J. D. Geographic controls on nannoplankton extinction across the Cretaceous/Palaeogene boundary. Nat. Geosci. 3, 280–285 (2010).

  13. 13.

    Solé, R. V., Montoya, J. M. & Erwin, D. H. Recovery after mass extinction: evolutionary assembly in large-scale biosphere dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357, 697–707 (2002).

  14. 14.

    Schueth, J. D., Bralower, T. J., Jiang, S. & Patzkowsky, M. E. The role of regional survivor incumbency in the evolutionary recovery of calcareous nannoplankton from the Cretaceous/Paleogene (K/Pg) mass extinction. Paleobiology 41, 661–679 (2015).

  15. 15.

    Hull, P. M. Norris, R.D., Bralower, T. J. & Schueth, J.D. A role for chance in marine recovery from the end-Cretaceous extinction. Nat. Geosci. 4, 856–860 (2011).

  16. 16.

    Yedid, G., Ofria, C. A. & Lenski, R. E. Selective press extinctions, but not random pulse extinctions, cause delayed ecological recovery in communities of digital organisms. Am. Nat. 173, E139–E154 (2009).

  17. 17.

    Gulick, S., Morgan, J., Mellett, C. L. & the Expedition 364 Scientists. Expedition 364 Preliminary Report: Chicxulub: Drilling the K-Pg Impact Crater (International Ocean Discovery Program, College Station, TX, 2017).

  18. 18.

    Wade, B. S., Pearson, P. N., Berggren, W. A. & Pälike, H. Review and revision of Cenozoic tropical planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and calibration to the geomagnetic polarity and astronomical time scale. Earth Sci. Rev. 104, 111–142 (2011).

  19. 19.

    Bralower, T. J., Paull, C. K. & Leckie, R. M. The Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary cocktail: Chicxulub impact triggers margin collapse and extensive sediment gravity flows. Geology 26, 331–334 (1998).

  20. 20.

    Olsson, D. K., Hemleben, C., Berggren, W. A. & Huber, B. T. Atlas of Paleocene Planktonic Foraminifera (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1999).

  21. 21.

    Gulick, S. P. S. et al. Importance of pre-impact crustral structure for the asymmetry of the Chicxulub impact crater. Nat. Geosci. 1, 131–135 (2008).

  22. 22.

    Sohl, N. F., Martínez, E. R., Salmerón-Ureña, P. & Soto-Jaramillo, F. in Geology of North America, Volume J: Gulf of Mexico Basin (ed. Salvador, A.) 205–244 (Geological Society of America, Boulder, 1991).

  23. 23.

    Abramov, O. & Kring, D. A. Numerical modeling of impact-induced hydrothermal activity at the Chicxulub crater. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 42, 93–112 (2007).

  24. 24.

    Cockell, C. S. The origin and emergence of life under impact bombardment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 361, 1845–1856 (2006).

  25. 25.

    Poag, C. W. in The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes (The Geological Society of America Special Paper 458) (eds Gohn, G. S. et al.) 747–773 (Geological Society of America, Boulder, 2009).

  26. 26.

    Leckie, R. M. & Olson, H. C. In Micropaleontologic Proxies for Sea-level Change and Stratigraphic Discontinuities (SEPM Special Publication 75) (eds. Olson, H. C. & Leckie, R. M.) 5–19 (Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, 2003).

  27. 27.

    Alegret, L. & Thomas, E. Upper Cretaceous and lower Paleocene benthic foraminifera from northeastern Mexico. Micropaleontology 47, 269–316 (2001).

  28. 28.

    Buzas, M. A. Another look at confidence limits for species proportions. J. Paleontol. 64, 842–843 (1990).

  29. 29.

    Berggren, W. A. & Pearson, P. N. A revised tropical and subtropical Paleogene planktonic foraminiferal zonation. J. Foraminiferal Res. 35, 279–298 (2005).

  30. 30.

    Dorador, J. & Rodríguez-Tovar, F. Digital image treatment applied to ichnological analysis of marine core sediments. Facies 60, 39–44 (2014).

  31. 31.

    Dorador, J. & Rodríguez-Tovar, F. J. Stratigraphic variation in ichnofabrics at the “Shackleton Site” (IODP Site U1385) on the Iberian Margin: paleoenvironmental implications. Mar. Geol. 377, 118–126 (2016).

  32. 32.

    Knaust, D. Atlas of Trace Fossils in Well Core: Appearance, Taxonomy and Interpretation (Springer, New York, 2017).

  33. 33.

    Lu, Z., Jenkyns, H. C. & Rickaby, R. E. M. Iodine to calcium ratios in marine carbonate as a paleo-redox proxy during oceanic anoxic events. Geology 38, 1107–1110 (2010).

  34. 34.

    Hardisty, D. S. et al. Perspectives on Proterozoic surface ocean redox from iodine contents in ancient and recent carbonate. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 463, 159–170 (2017).

  35. 35.

    Farley, K. A. & Eltgroth, S. F. An alternative age model for the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum using extraterrestrial 3He. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 208, 135–148 (2003).

  36. 36.

    Patterson, D. B. & Farley, K. A. Extraterrestrial 3He in seafloor sediments: evidence for correlated 100 kyr periodicity in the accretion rate of interplanetary dust, orbital parameters, and Quaternary climate. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 62, 3669–3682 (1998).

  37. 37.

    Mukhopadhyay, S. Farley, K. A. & Montanari, A. A 35 Myr record of helium in pelagic limestones from Italy: implications for interplanetary dust accretion from the early Maastrichtian to the middle Eocene. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 65, 653–669 (2001).

  38. 38.

    Mukhopadhyay, S., Farley, K. A. & Montanari, A. A short duration of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary event: evidence from extraterrestrial helium-3. Science 291, 1952–1955 (2001).

  39. 39.

    Morgan, J., Gulick, S., Mellet, C.L., Green, S.L. & Expedition 364 Scientists. Chicxulub: Drilling the K-Pg Impact Crater. Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program 364 (International Ocean Discovery Program, College Station, 2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research used samples and data provided by the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP). IODP Expedition 364 was jointly funded by the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) and International Continental Drilling Program (ICDP), with contributions and logistical support from the Yucatán State Government and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). We thank T. Cayton for assistance with crushing and washing samples; S. Dameron, R. Moura de Mello and M. Leckie for helpful discussions on benthic foraminifer taxonomy; J. Maner for assistance with the UT ESEM laboratory and R. Martindale for assistance with petrographic microscope imaging. We are particularly grateful for assistance of the staff of the IODP Core Repository in Bremen, Germany for their assistance taking these samples and running shipboard analyses. The authors acknowledge Post-Expedition Awards from the US Science Support Program for C.M.L. and T.J.B., NSF OCE 1737351, and NASA NNX16AJ60G. Funding for F.J.R.-T. was provided by Project CGL2015-66835-P (Secretaría de Estado de I+D+I, Spain), and Scientific Excellence Unit UCE-2016-05 (Universidad de Granada).

Reviewer information

Nature thanks B. Huber and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    • Christopher M. Lowery
    • , Sean P. S. Gulick
    • , Gail L. Christeson
    •  & Cornelia Rasmussen
  2. Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    • Timothy J. Bralower
    •  & Heather Jones
  3. Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science and National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    • Jeremy D. Owens
  4. Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    • Francisco J. Rodríguez-Tovar
  5. Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences (FALW), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    • Jan Smit
  6. Department of Geosciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA

    • Michael T. Whalen
  7. Analytical, Environmental and Geo-Chemistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    • Phillipe Claeys
    •  & Johan Vellekoop
  8. Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, MS 170-25, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    • Kenneth Farley
  9. Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    • Joanna V. Morgan
    •  & Auriol S. P. Rae
  10. British Geological Survey, Edinburgh, UK

    • Sophie Green
  11. Biogéosciences Laboratory, Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France

    • Elise Chenot
  12. UK Centre for Astrobiology, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    • Charles S. Cockell
  13. School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, WA-Organic and Isotope Geochemistry Centre (WA-OIGC), Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia

    • Marco J. L. Coolen
  14. Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria

    • Ludovic Ferrière
  15. Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre of Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

    • Catalina Gebhardt
  16. International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

    • Kazuhisa Goto
  17. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, USA

    • David A. Kring
  18. Géosciences Montpellier, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    • Johanna Lofi
  19. Groupe de Physico-Chimie de l´Atmosphère, L’Institut de Chimie et Procédés pour l’Énergie, l’Environnement et la Santé (ICPEES), Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    • Rubén Ocampo-Torres
  20. Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, Mexico City, Mexico

    • Ligia Perez-Cruz
    •  & Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi
  21. School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    • Annemarie E. Pickersgill
  22. Argon Isotope Facility, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC), East Kilbride, UK

    • Annemarie E. Pickersgill
  23. Department of Geology, University of Freiburg, Frieburg, Germany

    • Michael H. Poelchau
  24. Independent consultant, Cancun, Mexico

    • Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra
  25. Institut für Geologie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    • Ulrich Riller
  26. Ocean Resources Research Center for Next Generation, Chiba Institute of Technology, Chiba, Japan

    • Honami Sato
  27. Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    • Sonia M. Tikoo
  28. Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Kochi, Japan

    • Naotaka Tomioka
  29. LeRoy Eyring Center for Solid State Science, Physical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    • Axel Wittmann
  30. Planetary Science Institute, School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China

    • Long Xiao
  31. Department of Chemistry, Toho University, Chiba, Japan

    • Kosei E. Yamaguchi
  32. NASA Astrobiology Institute, Mountain View, CA, USA

    • Kosei E. Yamaguchi
  33. CNRS, Institut pour la Recherche et le Développement, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France

    • William Zylberman

Authors

  1. Search for Christopher M. Lowery in:

  2. Search for Timothy J. Bralower in:

  3. Search for Jeremy D. Owens in:

  4. Search for Francisco J. Rodríguez-Tovar in:

  5. Search for Heather Jones in:

  6. Search for Jan Smit in:

  7. Search for Michael T. Whalen in:

  8. Search for Phillipe Claeys in:

  9. Search for Kenneth Farley in:

  10. Search for Sean P. S. Gulick in:

  11. Search for Joanna V. Morgan in:

  12. Search for Sophie Green in:

  13. Search for Elise Chenot in:

  14. Search for Gail L. Christeson in:

  15. Search for Charles S. Cockell in:

  16. Search for Marco J. L. Coolen in:

  17. Search for Ludovic Ferrière in:

  18. Search for Catalina Gebhardt in:

  19. Search for Kazuhisa Goto in:

  20. Search for David A. Kring in:

  21. Search for Johanna Lofi in:

  22. Search for Rubén Ocampo-Torres in:

  23. Search for Ligia Perez-Cruz in:

  24. Search for Annemarie E. Pickersgill in:

  25. Search for Michael H. Poelchau in:

  26. Search for Auriol S. P. Rae in:

  27. Search for Cornelia Rasmussen in:

  28. Search for Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra in:

  29. Search for Ulrich Riller in:

  30. Search for Honami Sato in:

  31. Search for Sonia M. Tikoo in:

  32. Search for Naotaka Tomioka in:

  33. Search for Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi in:

  34. Search for Johan Vellekoop in:

  35. Search for Axel Wittmann in:

  36. Search for Long Xiao in:

  37. Search for Kosei E. Yamaguchi in:

  38. Search for William Zylberman in:

Contributions

All authors participated in sampling and data collection offshore and/or onshore during IODP–ICDP Expedition 364. C.M.L., T.J.B., F.J.R.-T., H.J. and J.S. collected and analysed microfossil data, M.T.W. provided detailed sedimentology, and J.D.O., P.C. and K.F. collected trace element, X-ray fluorescence and He isotope data, respectively. All authors contributed to writing and/or editing of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher M. Lowery.

Extended data figures and tables

  1. Extended Data Fig. 1 Location of site M0077 in the Chicxulub crater as seen using gravity data.

    Black dots are cenotes. Modified from Gulick et al. 21.

  2. Extended Data Fig. 2 Trace fossils in core 40 section 1 of IODP hole M0077A.

    Discrete burrows in the upper transitional unit and the lower limestone are circled and labelled by the genus. Above the base of the limestone, trace fossils are abundant; representative examples are highlighted in the lower 10 cm of this interval. Ch, Chondrites; Pl, Planolites; Pa, Palaeophycus.

  3. Extended Data Fig. 3 Reworked Cretaceous foraminifera in the transitional unit.

    a, Globigerinelloides sp., sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 55–56 cm. b, Heterohelix sp., sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 104–105 cm. c, Clast of pelagic limestone containing older Cretaceous planktic foraminifera, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 106–110 cm. d, Praegublerina pseudotessera, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 118–129 cm. e, Racemiguembelina powelli, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 118–129 cm. f, Globotruncana bulloides, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 110–118 cm. g, Globotruncanita stuartiformis, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 118–129 cm. h, Globotruncanita elevata, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 118–129 cm. Scale bars, 100 μm.

  4. Extended Data Fig. 4 Scanning electron micrographs of planktic foraminifera from core 40.

    a, b, Examples of common reworked Cretaceous biserials, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1, 102–103 cm. c, Muricohedbergella monmouthensis, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 102–103 cm. d, Muricohedbergella holmdelensis, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 44–45 cm. e, Guembelitria cretacea, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 44–45 cm. f, G. cretacea, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 29–30 cm. g, G. cretacea, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 29–30 cm. h, Parvularugoglobigerina eugubina 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 31–32 cm. i, P. eugubina, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 31–32 cm. j, Globoconusa daubjergensis, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 31–32 cm. k, Eoglobigerina eobulloides, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 29–30 cm. l, Eoglobigerina edita, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 29–30 cm. m, Praemurica taurica, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 10–11 cm. n, Chiloguembelina morsei, sample 364-M0077A-40R-1-W, 10–11 cm.

  5. Extended Data Fig. 5 Small and regular-sized nannofossils in the transitional unit.

    All photographs from core 364-M0077-40R-1-W. Measurements in centimetres refer to depth in section 1 of core 40. ak, Images of small Micula spp.: a, 55–56 cm; b, 41–42 cm; c, 95–96 cm; d, 41–42 cm; e, 90–91 cm; f, 94–95 cm; g, 91–92 cm; h, 91–92 cm; i, 45–46 cm; j, 100–101 cm; k, 81–82 cm. lq, Images of regular-sized Micula spp.: l, 44–45 cm; m, 41–42 cm; n, 51–52 cm; o, 105–106 cm; p, 97–98 cm; q, 36–37 cm. s, t, Images of regular-sized Retecapsa spp.: s, 85–86 cm; t, 100–101 cm. rv, Images of small Retecapsa spp.: r, 100–101 cm; u, 71–72 cm, v, 100–101 cm. Scale bar, 2 μm.

  6. Extended Data Fig. 6 Relative abundances of major Maastrichtian calcareous nannoplankton.

    Small blue squares are Maastrichtian sites from a global compilation12; larger red squares are from the transitional unit at site M0077. These data demonstrate the unusual abundance of Watznaueria and Retecapsa at site M0077.

  7. Extended Data Table 1 3He data

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    This file contains Helium Isotope Age Model, Age Interpretations and References (39–41)

  2. Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Table

    This file contains Supplementary Table S1—Foraminifer abundance data in the study interval

  4. Supplementary Table

    This file contains Supplementary Table S2—Calcareous nannoplankton abundance data in the study interval

  5. Supplementary Table

    This file contains Supplementary Table S3—I/Ca data in the study interval

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0163-6

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.