The first day of the Cenozoic

Sean P. S. Gulick, Timothy J. Bralower, Jens Ormö, Brendon Hall, Kliti Grice, Bettina Schaefer, Shelby Lyons, Katherine H. Freeman, Joanna V. Morgan, Natalia Artemieva, Pim Kaskes, Sietze J. de Graaff, Michael T. Whalen, Gareth S. Collins, Sonia M. Tikoo, Christina Verhagen, Gail L. Christeson, Philippe Claeys, Marco J. L. Coolen, Steven Goderis, Kazuhisa Goto, Richard A. F. Grieve, Naoma McCall, Gordon R. Osinski, Auriol S. P. Rae, Ulrich Riller, Jan Smit, Vivi Vajda, Axel Wittmann, and the Expedition 364 Scientists
PNAS September 24, 2019 116 (39) 19342-19351; first published September 9, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909479116

  1. Edited by Michael Manga, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved July 30, 2019 (received for review June 5, 2019)

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Significance

Chicxulub impact crater cores from the peak ring include ∼130 m of impact melt rock and breccia deposited on the first day of the Cenozoic. Within minutes of the impact, fluidized basement rocks formed a ring of hills, which were rapidly covered by ∼40 m of impact melt and breccia. Within an hour, ocean waters flooded the deep crater through a northeast embayment, depositing another 90 m of breccia. Within a day, a tsunami deposited material from distant shorelines, including charcoal. Charcoal and absence of sulfur-rich target rocks support the importance of impact-generated fires and release of sulfate aerosols for global cooling and darkness postimpact.

Abstract

Highly expanded Cretaceous–Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary section from the Chicxulub peak ring, recovered by International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP)–International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP) Expedition 364, provides an unprecedented window into the immediate aftermath of the impact. Site M0077 includes ∼130 m of impact melt rock and suevite deposited the first day of the Cenozoic covered by <1 m of micrite-rich carbonate deposited over subsequent weeks to years. We present an interpreted series of events based on analyses of these drill cores. Within minutes of the impact, centrally uplifted basement rock collapsed outward to form a peak ring capped in melt rock. Within tens of minutes, the peak ring was covered in ∼40 m of brecciated impact melt rock and coarse-grained suevite, including clasts possibly generated by melt–water interactions during ocean resurge. Within an hour, resurge crested the peak ring, depositing a 10-m-thick layer of suevite with increased particle roundness and sorting. Within hours, the full resurge deposit formed through settling and seiches, resulting in an 80-m-thick fining-upward, sorted suevite in the flooded crater. Within a day, the reflected rim-wave tsunami reached the crater, depositing a cross-bedded sand-to-fine gravel layer enriched in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons overlain by charcoal fragments. Generation of a deep crater open to the ocean allowed rapid flooding and sediment accumulation rates among the highest known in the geologic record. The high-resolution section provides insight into the impact environmental effects, including charcoal as evidence for impact-induced wildfires and a paucity of sulfur-rich evaporites from the target supporting rapid global cooling and darkness as extinction mechanisms.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: sean{at}ig.utexas.edu.

  • ↵2A complete list of the Expedition 364 Scientists can be found in SI Appendix.

  • Author contributions: S.P.S.G., J.V.M., and G.L.C. designed research; S.P.S.G., T.J.B., J.O., B.H., K. Grice, B.S., S.L., K.H.F., J.V.M., N.A., P.K., S.J.d.G., M.T.W., G.S.C., S.M.T., C.V., G.L.C., P.C., M.J.L.C., S.G., K. Goto, N.M., G.R.O., A.S.P.R., U.R., J.S., V.V., A.W., and E.364.S. performed research; S.P.S.G., T.J.B., J.O., K. Grice, B.S., S.L., K.H.F., J.V.M., N.A., P.K., M.T.W., G.S.C., S.M.T., C.V., G.L.C., P.C., M.J.L.C., S.G., R.A.F.G., N.M., G.R.O., A.S.P.R., U.R., V.V., and A.W. analyzed data; and S.P.S.G., T.J.B., and J.V.M. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • Data deposition: All data are deposited with the International Ocean Discovery Program, iodp.pangea.de (Expedition 364).

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1909479116/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. H. J. Melosh
    , Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process (Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989), vol. 11, p. 253.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. J. V. Morgan et al
    ., The formation of peak rings in large impact craters. Science 354, 878–882 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. The Expedition 364 Scientists
    1. J. Morgan,
    2. S. Gulick,
    3. C. L. Mellett,
    4. S. L. Green
    ; The Expedition 364 Scientists, “Chicxulub: Drilling the K-Pg impact crater” in Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program (International Ocean Discovery Program, 2017), vol. 364.
  4. ↵
    1. G. L. Christeson et al
    ., Extraordinary rocks from the peak ring of the Chicxulub impact crater: P-wave velocity, density, and porosity measurements from IODP/ICDP Expedition 364. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 495, 1–11 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. G. S. Collins,
    2. H. J. Melosh,
    3. J. V. Morgan,
    4. M. R. Warner
    , Hydrocode simulations of Chicxulub crater collapse and peak-ring formation. Icarus 157, 24–33 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. IODP–ICDP Expedition 364 Science Party
    1. U. Riller et al
    .; IODP–ICDP Expedition 364 Science Party, Rock fluidization during peak-ring formation of large impact structures. Nature 562, 511–518 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. U. W. Reimhold,
    2. R. L. Gibson
    1. P. J. Barton et al
    ., “Seismic images of Chicxulub impact melt sheet and comparison with the Sudbury structure” in Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV, U. W. Reimhold, R. L. Gibson, Eds. (Geological Society of America Special Paper 465, Denver, CO, 2010), pp. 103–113.
  8. ↵
    1. J. V. Morgan et al
    ., Full waveform tomographic images of the peak ring at the Chicxulub impact crater. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 116, B06303 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. S. P. S. Gulick et al
    ., Geophysical characterization of the Chicxulub impact crater. Rev. Geophys. 51, 31–52 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. E. M. Shoemaker,
    2. E. C. Chao
    , New evidence for the impact origin of the Ries Basin, Bavaria, Germany. J. Geophys. Res. 66, 3371–3378 (1961).
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. P. Claeys,
    2. S. Heuschkel,
    3. E. Lounejeva‐Baturina,
    4. G. Sanchez‐Rubio,
    5. D. Stöffler
    , The suevite of drill hole Yucatán 6 in the Chicxulub impact crater. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 38, 1299–1317 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. D. Fettes,
    2. J. Desmons
    1. D. Stöffler,
    2. R. Grieve
    , “Impactites” in Metamorphic Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms, Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences, D. Fettes, J. Desmons, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007), pp. 82–125.
  13. ↵
    1. G. R. Osinski,
    2. R. A. Grieve,
    3. J. G. Spray
    , The nature of the groundmass of surficial suevite from the Ries impact structure, Germany, and constraints on its origin. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 1655–1683 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. C. Meyer,
    2. M. Jébrak,
    3. D. Stöffler,
    4. U. Riller
    , Lateral transport of suevite inferred from 3D shape-fabric analysis: Evidence from the Ries impact crater, Germany. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 123, 2312–2319 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. D. A. Kring
    , Hypervelocity collisions into continental crust composed of sediments and an underlying crystalline basement: Comparing the Ries (∼ 24 km) and Chicxulub (∼ 180 km) impact craters. Geochemistry 65, 1–46 (2005).
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. N. A. Artemieva,
    2. K. Wünnemann,
    3. F. Krien,
    4. W. U. Reimold,
    5. D. Stöffler
    , Ries crater and suevite revisited—observations and modeling. Part II. Modeling. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 590–627 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. D. Stöffler et al
    ., Ries crater and suevite revisited—observations and modeling. Part I. Observations. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 515–589 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. J. Ormö,
    2. E. Sturkell,
    3. M. Lindström
    , Sedimentological analysis of resurge deposits at the Lockne and Tvären craters: Clues to flow dynamics. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 42, 1929–1943 (2007).
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. J. Ormö,
    2. E. Sturkell,
    3. J. W. Horton Jr,
    4. D. S. Powars,
    5. L. E. Edwards
    , Comparison of clast frequency and size in the resurge deposits at the Chesapeake Bay impact structure (Eyreville a and Langley cores): Clues to the resurge process. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 458, 617–632 (2009).
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. J. W. Horton et al
    ., Origin and emplacement of impactites in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, Virginia, USA. Sedimentary Record Meteorite Impacts 437, 73–97 (2007).
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. G. R. Osinski,
    2. R. A. Grieve,
    3. A. Chanou,
    4. H. M. Sapers
    , The “suevite” conundrum. Part 1. The Ries suevite and Sudbury Onaping Formation compared. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 2316–2333 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. K. Wohletz,
    2. G. Heiken
    , Volcanology and Geothermal Energy (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1992), vol. 432.
  23. ↵
    1. R. A. Grieve,
    2. D. E. Ames,
    3. J. V. Morgan,
    4. N. Artemieva
    , The evolution of the Onaping Formation at the Sudbury impact structure. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 45, 759–782 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. A. Wittmann,
    2. T. Kenkmann,
    3. L. Hecht,
    4. D. Stöffler
    , Reconstruction of the Chicxulub ejecta plume from its deposits in drill core Yaxcopoil-1. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119, 1151–1167 (2007).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. P. Schulte et al
    ., The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Science 327, 1214–1218 (2010).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. J. G. Ogg et al
    1. F. M. Gradstein
    , Geologic Time Scale 2012, J. G. Ogg et al., Eds. (Elsevier, 2012).
  27. ↵
    1. J. Smit
    , The global stratigraphy of the Cretaceous-tertiary boundary impact ejecta. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 75–113 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. J. Bourgeois,
    2. T. A. Hansen,
    3. P. L. Wiberg,
    4. E. G. Kauffman
    , A tsunami deposit at the cretaceous-tertiary boundary in Texas. Science 241, 567–570 (1988).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. P. Schulte et al
    ., Tsunami backwash deposits with Chicxulub impact ejecta and dinosaur remains from the Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary in the La Popa Basin, Mexico. Sedimentology 59, 737–765 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. J. Vellekoop et al
    ., Rapid short-term cooling following the Chicxulub impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 7537–7541 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. R. A. Denne et al
    ., Massive Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary deposit, deep-water Gulf of Mexico: New evidence for widespread Chicxulub-induced slope failure. Geology 41, 983–986 (2013).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. P. R. Renne et al
    ., Multi-proxy record of the Chicxulub impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary from Gorgonilla Island, Colombia. Geology 46, 547–550 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. J. C. Sanford,
    2. J. W. Snedden,
    3. S. P. Gulick
    , The Cretaceous‐Paleogene boundary deposit in the Gulf of Mexico: Large‐scale oceanic basin response to the Chicxulub impact. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 1240–1261 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. A. R. Hildebrand et al
    ., Chicxulub crater: A possible Cretaceous/tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Geology 19, 867–871 (1991).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. D. A. Kring,
    2. W. V. Boynton
    , Petrogenesis of an augite-bearing melt rock in the Chicxulub structure and its relationship to K/T impact spherules in Haiti. Nature 358, 141–144 (1992).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. J. Urrutia‐Fucugauchi,
    2. J. Morgan,
    3. D. Stöffler,
    4. P. Claeys
    , The Chicxulub scientific drilling project (CSDP). Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 787–790 (2004).
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. L. W. Alvarez,
    2. W. Alvarez,
    3. F. Asaro,
    4. H. V. Michel
    , Extraterrestrial cause for the cretaceous-tertiary extinction. Science 208, 1095–1108 (1980).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. R. Brett
    , The Cretaceous-tertiary extinction: A lethal mechanism involving anhydrite target rocks. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 56, 3603–3606 (1992).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. H. Sigurdsson,
    2. S. D’Hondt,
    3. S. Carey
    , The impact of the Cretaceous/Tertiary bolide on evaporite terrane and generation of major sulfuric acid aerosol. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 109, 543–559 (1992).
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. E. Pierazzo,
    2. D. A. Kring,
    3. H. J. Melosh
    , Hydrocode simulation of the Chicxulub impact event and the production of climatically active gases. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 103, 28607–28625 (1998).
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. C. Bell,
    2. J. V. Morgan,
    3. G. J. Hampson,
    4. B. Trudgill
    , Stratigraphic and sedimentological observations from seismic data across the Chicxulub impact basin. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 1089–1098 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    1. D. A. Kring
    , The Chicxulub impact event and its environmental consequences at the Cretaceous–tertiary boundary. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 255, 4–21 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. S. P. Gulick et al
    ., Importance of pre-impact crustal structure for the asymmetry of the Chicxulub impact crater. Nat. Geosci. 1, 131–135 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. T. Kenkmann,
    2. A. Wittmann,
    3. D. Scherler
    , Structure and impact indicators of the Cretaceous sequence of the ICDP drill core Yaxcopoil‐1, Chicxulub impact crater, Mexico. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 1069–1088 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. J. Belza,
    2. S. Goderis,
    3. E. Keppens,
    4. F. Vanhaecke,
    5. P. Claeys
    , An emplacement mechanism for the mega‐block zone within the Chicxulub crater, Yucatán, Mexico based on chemostratigraphy. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 47, 400–413 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. A. E. M. Nairn,
    2. F. G. Stehli
    1. E. L. Ramos
    , “Geological summary of the Yucatan Peninsula” in The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, A. E. M. Nairn, F. G. Stehli, Eds. (Springer, Boston, 1975), pp. 257–282.
  47. ↵
    1. M. Rebolledo-Vieyra,
    2. J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi
    , Magnetostratigraphy of the Cretaceous/tertiary boundary and early Paleocene sedimentary sequence from the Chicxulub impact crater. Earth Planets Space 58, 1309–1314 (2006).
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. J. Brugger,
    2. G. Feulner,
    3. S. Petri
    , Baby, it’s cold outside: Climate model simulations of the effects of the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 419–427 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Expedition 364 Science Party
    1. N. Artemieva,
    2. J. Morgan
    , Expedition 364 Science Party, Quantifying the release of climate‐active gases by large meteorite impacts with a case study of Chicxulub. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 10–180 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. G. S. Collins et al
    ., Numerical simulations of Chicxulub crater formation by oblique impact. Presented at the 48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 20 to 24 March 2017 (Abstract 1832) (2017). https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/pdf/1832.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2017.
  51. ↵
    1. E. Ferrow,
    2. V. Vajda,
    3. K. Bender-Koch,
    4. B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink,
    5. P. Willumsen
    , Multiproxy analysis of a new terrestrial and a marine Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary site from New Zealand. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 75, 657–672 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. V. Vajda,
    2. A. Ocampo,
    3. E. Ferrow,
    4. C. Bender-Koch
    , Nano particles as the primary cause for long-term sunlight suppression at high southern latitudes following the Chicxulub impact –evidence from ejecta deposits in Belize and Mexico. Gondwana Res. 27, 1079–1088 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. R. S. Lewis,
    2. E. Anders,
    3. E. Anders
    , Cretaceous extinctions: Evidence for wildfires and search for meteoritic material. Science 230, 167–170 (1985).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. H. J. Melosh,
    2. N. M. Schneider,
    3. K. J. Zahnle,
    4. D. Latham
    , Ignition of global wildfires at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Nature 343, 251–254 (1990).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. O. B. Toon,
    2. K. Zahnle,
    3. D. Morrison,
    4. R. P. Turco,
    5. C. Covey
    , Environmental perturbations caused by the impacts of asteroids and comets. Rev. Geophys. 35, 41–78 (1997).
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. D. A. Kring,
    2. D. D. Durda
    , Trajectories and distribution of material ejected from the Chicxulub impact crater: Implications for postimpact wildfires. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 107, 6–22 (2002).
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. D. D. Durda,
    2. D. A. Kring
    , Ignition threshold for impact‐generated fires. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 109, E08004 (2004).
  58. ↵
    1. J. Morgan,
    2. N. Artemieva,
    3. T. Goldin
    , Revisiting wildfires at the K‐Pg boundary. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 1508–1520 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. C. G. Bardeen,
    2. R. R. Garcia,
    3. O. B. Toon,
    4. A. J. Conley
    , On transient climate change at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary due to atmospheric soot injections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, E7415–E7424 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Gulick et al
    ., “Expedition 364 methods. Chicxulub: Drilling the K-Pg impact crater” in Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program, J. Morgan, S. Gulick, C. L. Mellett, S. L. Green; Expedition 364 Scientists, Eds. (International Ocean Discovery Program, College Station, TX, 2017), vol. 364.
  61. ↵
    1. C. M. Lowery et al
    ., Rapid recovery of life at ground zero of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. Nature 558, 288–291 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. P. D. Trask
    1. J. Hjulstrom
    , “Transportation of detritus by moving water” in Recent Marine Sediments, P. D. Trask, Ed. (The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Recent Marine Sediments, Broken Arrow, OK, 1955), vol. 4.
  63. ↵
    1. L. Marynowski,
    2. B. R. Simoneit
    , Widespread upper triassic to lower jurassic wildfire records from Poland: Evidence from charcoal and pyrolytic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Palaios 24, 785–798 (2009).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. E. H. Denis et al
    ., Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in lake sediments record historic fire events: Validation using HPLC-fluorescence detection. Org. Geochem. 45, 7–17 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. A. T. Karp,
    2. A. K. Behrensmeyer,
    3. K. H. Freeman
    , Grassland fire ecology has roots in the late Miocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 12130–12135 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. K. Grice et al
    ., New insights into the origin of perlyene in geological samples. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73, 6531–6543 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. ↵
    1. A. Kowitz et al
    ., Revision and recalibration of existing shock classifications for quartzose rocks using low-shock pressure (2.5–20 GPa) recovery experiments and mesoscale numerical modeling. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 1741–176 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. S. C. Gupta,
    2. T. J. Ahrens,
    3. W. Yang
    , Shock-induced vaporization of anhydrite and global cooling from the K/T impact. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 188, 399–412 (2001).
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. C. Prescher,
    2. F. Langenhorst,
    3. U. Hornemann,
    4. A. Deutsch
    , Shock experiments on anhydrite and new constraints on the impact‐induced SOx release at the K‐Pg boundary. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 46, 1619–1629 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. E. J. Liu,
    2. K. V. Cashman,
    3. A. C. Rust,
    4. S. R. Gislason
    , The role of bubbles in generating fine ash during hydromagmatic eruptions. Geology 43, 239–242 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. G. S. Collins et al
    ., Dynamic modeling suggests terrace zone asymmetry in the Chicxulub crater is caused by target heterogeneity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 270, 221–230 (2008).
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. R. A. DePalma et al
    ., A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 8190–8199 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. C. Koeberl,
    2. K. G. MacLeod
    1. V. V. Shuvalov,
    2. N. A. Artemieva
    , “Atmospheric erosion and radiation impulse induced by impacts” in Catastrophic Events and Mass Extinctions: Impacts and Beyond, C. Koeberl, K. G. MacLeod, Eds. (Geological Society of America Special Paper, Denver, CO 2002), vol. 356, pp. 695–703.
  74. ↵
    1. C. M. Belcher et al
    ., An experimental assessment of the ignition of forest fuels by the thermal pulse generated by the Cretaceous–Palaeogene impact at Chicxulub. J. Geol. Soc. London 172, 175–185 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. N. J. de Winter,
    2. P. Claeys
    , Micro X‐ray fluorescence (μ XRF) line scanning on Cretaceous rudist bivalves: A new method for reproducible trace element profiles in bivalve calcite. Sedimentology 64, 231–251 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. B. Hall et al
    ., Dual energy CT-scanning and processing of core from the peak ring of the Chicxulub impact structure: Results from IODP-ICDP Expedition 364. Presented at the 48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 20 to 24 March 2017 (Abstract 1697) (2017). https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/pdf/1697.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2017.
  77. ↵
    1. S. Siddiqui,
    2. A. A. Khamees
    , “Dual energy CT-scanning applications in rock characterization” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (2004).
  78. ↵
    1. E. Sturkell,
    2. J. Ormö,
    3. A. Lepinette
    , Early modification stage (preresurge) sediment mobilization in the Lockne concentric, marine‐target crater, Sweden. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 321–338 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. J. Mazzullo,
    2. A. G. Graham,
    3. C. Braunstein
    , Handbook for Shipboard Sedimentologists (Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, TX, 1988).
  80. ↵
    1. K. Simonyan,
    2. A. Zisserman
    , Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv:1409.1556 (4 September 2014).
  81. ↵
    1. B. Hariharan,
    2. P. Arbelaez,
    3. R. Girshick,
    4. J. Malik
    , “Hypercolumns for object segmentation and fine-grained localization” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, (IEEE, 2015), pp. 447–456.
  82. ↵
    1. B. Krishnapuram
    1. T. Chen,
    2. C. Guestrin
    , “XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, B. Krishnapuram, Ed. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2016), pp. 785–794.
  83. ↵
    1. P. Krähenbühl,
    2. V. Koltun
    , Efficient inference in fully connected CRFs with Gaussian edge potentials. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 24, 109–117 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  84. ↵
    1. scikit-image contributors
    1. S. van der Walt et al
    .; scikit-image contributors, scikit-image: Image processing in Python. PeerJ 2, e453 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. J. L. Kirschvink
    , The least‐squares line and plane and the analysis of palaeomagnetic data. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 62, 699–718 (1980).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. ↵
    1. J. J. Stoker
    , Water Waves. The Mathematical Theory with Applications (Interscience Publ, New York, 1957).
  87. ↵
    1. K. Grice,
    2. B. Nabbefeld,
    3. E. Maslen
    , Source and significance of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments (Hovea-3 well, Perth Basin, Western Australia) spanning the Permian-Triassic boundary. Org. Geochem. 38, 1795–1803 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Full Text

Purchase access

You may purchase access to this article. This will require you to create an account if you don't already have one.
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Request Permissions
The first day of the Cenozoic
Sean P. S. Gulick, Timothy J. Bralower, Jens Ormö, Brendon Hall, Kliti Grice, Bettina Schaefer, Shelby Lyons, Katherine H. Freeman, Joanna V. Morgan, Natalia Artemieva, Pim Kaskes, Sietze J. de Graaff, Michael T. Whalen, Gareth S. Collins, Sonia M. Tikoo, Christina Verhagen, Gail L. Christeson, Philippe Claeys, Marco J. L. Coolen, Steven Goderis, Kazuhisa Goto, Richard A. F. Grieve, Naoma McCall, Gordon R. Osinski, Auriol S. P. Rae, Ulrich Riller, Jan Smit, Vivi Vajda, Axel Wittmann, the Expedition 364 Scientists
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2019, 116 (39) 19342-19351; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1909479116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (42)
Current Issue

Submit

Article Classifications

Jump to section

You May Also be Interested in

Recycling atmospheric CO2 into liquid methanol using artificial marine floating islands. Image courtesy of Novaton.
Solar methanol islands
Recycling atmospheric CO2 into liquid methanol using artificial marine floating islands.
Image courtesy of Novaton.

Similar Articles