A Theory Set in Stone: An Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs, After All

A single asteroid impact near the Yucatan remains the best explanation for the massive
Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, scientists conclude in a new, deep review

By Katherine Harmon
A single asteroid impact near the Yucatan remains the best explanation for the massive Cretaceous-Paleogene
extinction, scientists conclude in a new, deep review
By Katherine Harmon

DEEP IMPACT: Evidence from around the globe seems to point to a massive asteroid impact as the cause of the major extinction event
on earth 65.5 million years ago. That rock was likely about 10 kilometers across and created a crater more than 100 kilometers wide.
DON DAVIS/NASA

Although any T. Rex–enthralled kid will tell you that a gigantic asteroid wiped the dinosaurs off the planet, scientists
have always regarded this impact theory as a hypothesis subject to revision based on further evidence gathered
from around the globe. Other possible causes, such as volcanism and smaller, multiple asteroid strikes, never
actually went away, and over the years researchers raised important points that did not fully jibe with a history-
changing celestial impact near the Yucatan peninsula one awful day some 65.5 million years ago.

A group of 41 researchers have pored over the evidence and decided that—in accordance with the original
postulate put forth 30 years ago by a team led by father and son researchers Luis and Walter Alvarez—it was,
indeed, a massive asteroid that slammed into Earth, creating Chicxulub Crater on Mexico's Gulf Coast, that killed
off many of the species on the planet, including the non-avian dinosaurs.

The review, published online March 4 in Science, evaluated the whole picture, according to Kirk Johnson of the
Research and Collections Division at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and co-author of the paper. And
that meant assessing the other theories that have been put forth about what spelled death for the dinosaurs.

Fiery failures
The researchers dismiss the theory that the volcanism that produced the great Deccan Trap formation in western
India at the end of the Cretaceous period might have produced enough sulfur and carbon dioxide to initiate a
massive shift in climate. They note that pinpointing the times when the heavy volcanism occurred is sketchy, and it
likely kicked off some 400,000 years before the extinction event. In fact, as Johnson noted in a March 3 conference
call with reporters, the emissions from these volcanoes likely warmed the planet slightly, actually making life easier
for many animals and encouraging diversification and dispersion over wider geographical areas.

Some scientists have pointed to multiple layers of impact residue as evidence that there was more than one
asteroid involved in generating the extinction. This theory did not seem to measure up, either. Johnson says they
see "no evidence for multiple impacts," and sites that had turned up these various layers were so close to
Chicxulub itself that the chaotic event likely churned the layers into different locations in the sediment.
An assertion that the impact occurred hundreds of thousands of years before the extinctions also failed to hold
water with the researchers. Evidence of Cretaceous period shells on top of the impact crater are likely not a sign
that the animals persisted after the impact, but rather that they got "washed into the hole," Johnson noted.

Global ground zero

The researchers assessed reports from some 350 sites all over the globe that had evidence of the impact—
whether it was a dusting of iridium (an element much more common in extraterrestrial objects) or bits of shocked
quartz—and could be traced back to the Chicxulub location. In some areas near the crater, the layer was 80 meters
thick, pointing to one single devastating day for life on the planet.

"That's the single best explanation for the extinction of so many groups," says Neil Landman, a curator at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York City and was not involved in the review, about the single impact
theory.

"We've examined sites around the world," he notes of his study of ammonoids, which are shelled cephalopods that
went extinct after the Cretaceous. And from the work he and his colleagues have done, he says, the evidence for
the Chicxulub asteroid impact is the most consistent. "I'm very comfortable with this explanation."

A massive blow
Based on the size of material from rocky shrapnel and the crater diameter, researchers have estimated the dino-
demolishing object to be some 10 kilometers across. And when it struck—at about 20 kilometers per second—it
created an instant crater about 100 kilometers wide and 25 to 30 kilometers deep "almost piercing the crust of the
Earth," Johnson noted. The final crater that formed after the initial impact was about 180 kilometers across and two
kilometers deep, which is still close to the depth of the Grand Canyon, Johnson pointed out.

The impact spewed rock so high, some of it likely was shot into orbit, whereas other pieces entered the upper
atmosphere, reheating as they fell back to the ground. The jolt would have spurred massive earthquakes—some
surpassing magnitude 11—tsunamis and landslides. While examining ammonoid fossils in southeastern Missouri,
Landman says, he found a shallow water site that was "just immediately covered over by a jumble of stuff," he
says. "I think what we're seeing is a tsunami," which might have reached as far from the Yucatan impact site as
southern Illinois.

Perhaps most devastating, however, the crash would have caused acid rain and darkness, as particulate matter
blocked sunlight, prohibiting photosynthesis in both land and water ecosystems, effectively shutting down large
swaths of the food chain. Directly after the extinction event, ferns (which reproduce from spores) proliferated and
species that depended on detritus seemed to survive.

From Landman's study of ammonoids, he points out that even for groups that eventually went extinct after the
collision (producing the so-called K–T boundary in the fossil record), the asteroid's impact did not mean sudden
eradication. "There seems to be some suggestion of some survival for awhile after the event," he says. Fossils
found above the iridium layer show that ammonoids might have survived "for tens to possibly hundreds of years
afterward" perhaps because "things in the marine realm were a little more insulated," he explains.

Although these estimates might seem rough for such a dramatic event, revealing details on the resolution of years
and months "was unimaginable" in decades past, he says. "It's one of the best studied intervals of the geologic
record," he notes. And all of this attention has led to increasing nuance in the timeline.

"This is not geologic time—this is instant time," Johnson said, acknowledging that it is a very tricky task to pin down
a single event from 65.5 million years ago. But, judging from the chemical, geochemical and geochronological
evidence, he said, "The Chicxulub Crater really is the culprit."

Did the Dino Die-Off Make Room for Mammals?

In a word: No. New diversification "supertree" overturns long-held theory
By Nikhil Swaminathan
PREVIOUS INHABITANT: Contrary to previous belief, a new study finds that the death of the dinosaurs did not result in the sudden
diversification of modern-day mammals.
It seemed like a plausible idea: a massive asteroid crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula 65 millions years ago,
wiping out dinosaursand clearing the way for mammals to replace them as Earth's highest profile life form.
The theory was accepted widely enough that even cartoon faves The Simpsons pondered it.
But new evidence uncovered during a decadelong study challenges the long-held belief. The finding was part
of an effort to explore the evolutionary relationships among all extant (living) mammal species over the past
160 million years.

As part of this project, a collection of researchers from five countries (the U.S., U.K., Germany, Australia and
Canada) compared molecular evidence (based on the evolution of 66 genes found in all mammals) with the
fossil records to create a so-called "supertree"—a chart of the diversification of a particular lineage, in this case
4,500 extant mammals. Their findings, published in the current issue of Nature, suggest that although the
ancestors of modern-day mammals, were already present during the mass extinction, they did not rapidly
evolve until roughly 10 million to 15 million years after the dinosaur die-off.
The new study stems from initial efforts by teams at Imperial College London and the University of Georgia.
The project ballooned from there, incorporating more contributors, until an entire construction of mammals
was cobbled together from the different sources.

"We fully expected that we would find the peak [of mammalian diversification] right after the K-T boundary"
[(the transition from the Cretaceous to the Tertiary period)], "when the mass extinction event occurred," says
lead study author Olaf Bininda-Emonds, an evolutionary biologist currently completing a scholarship at the
University of Jena in Germany. "When we didn't find it, we immediately went back and checked our results."

Bininda-Emonds says that although the supertree shows a spike at the K-T boundary, theanimals involved in
the rapid speciation are now largely extinct—examples include the rodentlike multituberculates, a wolflike
cow called Andrewsarchus and the plesiadapiformes, animals similar to primates but not part of the primate
lineage.
Bininda-Emonds says that the current ancestral species of modern mammals "did exist," prior to the K-T
boundary and, according to the supertree, are at least 75 million years old "but were in such small numbers
that they weren't likely to fossilize." He adds that there was a point about 50 million to 55 million years ago
during the Eocene epoch (34 million to 56 million years ago) when mammals began to rapidly evolve.

To pin down these dates, the researchers compared the sequences of 66 genes found in all living mammals.
For instance, the human version of cytochrome b, (according to Bininda-Emonds the most frequently
sequenced mammalian gene, which is associated with electron transport in mitochondria) could be compared
with its chimp counterpart. The number of changes in the two varieties of that particular gene (plus the other
65) between the two species could allow researchers to approximate a divergence time. Estimates of these
divergence times were adjusted according to the fossil record—for instance, whereas the molecular evidence
indicated two species diverged 80 million years ago, if study of a known fossil stated the split took place 60
million years ago, the latter number was used.
"The only truly controversial part of this study is whether orders of extant mammals began to appear in the
early part of the Late Cretaceous [about 90 million years ago]," says J. David Archibald, an evolutionary
biologist at San Diego State University, whose own research supports the conclusion that they may have
existed during that time period. As to the findings on mammalian evolution at the K-T boundary, he believes
the new analysis clearly suggests a need to reformulate previous notions about the effects of the dinosaur
mass extinction.

"The big question now is what took the ancestors of modern mammals so long to diversify," says co-author
Ross MacPhee, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "It's as though they
came to the party after the dinosaurs left, but just hung around while all their distant relatives were having a
good time."
The researchers speculate that a spike in atmospheric temperatures caused more floral diversity, giving
mammals a new and plentiful food source.

Bininda-Emonds says the supertree is already being used by the London-based EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct
& Globally Endangered) program, which is an effort designed to establish a list of the 100
endangered animals most in need of protection. He says the supertree can be used to determine how
"evolutionarily unique" a species is.
For example, the endangered red panda of northern India and southern China is 39 million years removed
from its closest relative, according to the new research. "One might argue that it might be more worthwhile to
save the red panda than an endangered species of mouse or rat, which may have diverged one million years
ago," says Bininda-Emonds.