GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 63, NO.5 (SIPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1998); P 1585-1594,8 FIGS., 2 TABLES.

Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Gauss's theorem, mass deficiency at Chicxulub crater

(Yucatan, Mexico), and the extinction of the dinosaurs

J. 0. Campos-Enriquez *, H. F. Morales-Rodriguez$,
F. Dominguez - Mendez, and F. S. Birch **

Discovery of an iridium anomaly during a paleomagnetic

ABSTRACT
Using Gauss's theorem, we estimated the mass de-
ficiency of the Chicxulub impact structure (Yucatan,
Mexico) from its gravity anomaly. The mass deficiency
obtained from the residual gravity anomaly map ranges
between 1.06 x 10 16 and 1.67 x 10 16 kg. Because the
gravity anomaly has approximately radial symmetry, we
also estimated the mass deficiency from selected profiles.
In this way, we obtained slightly lower mass deficien-
cies (6.16 x 10 15 to 1.35 x 10 16 kg). The central gravity
high, which is supposed to be associated with the central
structural high, has a mean excess mass of 1.93 x 10 14 kg.
By assuming a mean density contrast of 100 kg/m 3 be-
tween the country rock and the sedimentary and brec-
ciated rocks, we estimated the equivalent total mass
(1.60 x 10 17 to 4.34 x 10 17 kg) and volume (6.16 x 10 13
to 1.67 x 10 14 m3 ) of breccias and sedimentary rocks re-
sponsible for the gravity anomaly. These figures repre-
sent lower bounds on the mass and volume ejected from
the impact crater. They represent estimates made from
geophysical principles and data, and compare well with
independent estimates based on other principles such
as scaling relations. According to actual estimations of
the sulfur dioxide mass generated by the Cretaceous-
Tertiary impact and our results, only a small fraction
(about 1%) of the anhydrite in the target strata was
vaporized.
INTRODUCTION
Why did the dinosaurs become extinct? Possible answers
to this question are meteorite impact (Alvarez et al., 1980),
and intense volcanism (Officer and Drake, 1985; Hallam, 1987;
Rampino, 1987). Here, we will only address the impact theory.
study carried out on the Botaccione sequence near the town
of Gubbio (Italy) to study the transition from the Cretaceous
to the Tertiary (K/T) led Alvarez et al. (1980) to propose
a theory relating the massive biota extinction to global cli-
matic changes due to the impact of a major meteorite. At
the same time, gravity and magnetic studies in the Yucatan
platform (Mexico) revealed conspicuous circular anomalies
that Penfield and Camargo (1981) interpreted as the signa-
ture of an impact. These two far-reaching scientific works were
not linked immediately. Indeed, the catastrophic theory of
Alvarez et al. (1980) needed support. This support derived from
subsequent geologic, geochemical, and geochronologic studies
conducted during the 1980s (Hildebrand et al., 1991; Sharpton
et al., 1992; Blum et al., 1993; Koeberl, 1993; Krogh et al., 1993).
In particular, the discovery and documentation of tsunami
deposits enabled scientists to confine the impact site to the
area of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean (Hildebrand
and Boyton, 1990). The search for the specific impact site(s)
was launched (Hildebrand and Boyton, 1992). Hildebrand
et al. (1991) revised the 10-year-old Penfield/Camargo inter-
pretation, concurred with it, and further linked the Chicxulub
impact crater and the massive biota extinction at the end
of the Mesozoic. Current studies by Mexican, United States,
and Canadian institutions also seem to confirm this in-
terpretation (Sharpton et al., 1993; Pilkington et al., 1994;
Campos-Enriquez et al., 1994; Hildebrand et al., 1995;
Espindola et al., 1995; Urrutia-Fucugauchi et al., 1996), al-
though arguments against it continue (Meyerhoff et al., 1994).
Even if the existence of an impact structure in the sub-
surface of northern Yucatan (Figure 1) has achieved near
consensus, several questions still remain. In particular, the
subsurface features of this impact structure need to be estab-
lished. Because the Chicxulub impact structure lies under a
cover of 300-1000 m of Tertiary sediments, geophysical meth-
ods have been used to map its features. This task, however, is

Manuscript received by the Editor February 07, 1997; revised manuscript received January 27, 1998.
*Instituto de Geofisica, UNAM, Delegacidn Coyoacan, 04510 Mexico D.F., Mexico. E-mail: ocampos@tonatiuh.igeofcu.unam.mx.
$IPN-ESIA-Ticoman, Ciencias de la Tierra, Mexico D.F., Mexico. E-mail: hmorales@moomsa.com.mx. E-mail: fdm@starmedia.com.
**University of New Hampshire, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, James Hall, 56 College Road,
Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3589. E -mail: fsb@hopper.unh.edu.
© 1998 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

1585

1586 Campos-Enriquez et al.

not straightforward because a meteoritic impact can, depend-
ing on the rheological properties of the impact site, produce
different structures ranging from a simple crater to a complex
crater to a multiring basin (Melosh, 1989).
Morphologically, complex craters present a protruding rim
surrounding a terrace zone, a flat floor, and a central peak
(Figure 2). The formation of an impact complex crater is a con-
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
According to Pilkington et al. (1994), it is a peak-ring crater,
180 km in diameter. Espindola et al. (1995) inferred, based on
first and second vertical derivatives of gravity data, the pres-
ence of a central twin peak and a single ring, and also con-
strained the diameter of the structure to less than 200 km.
Figure 3 presents the respective models. In particular, a

tinuous process that can be divided into three stages (Melosh,

1989): (1) contact and compression, (2) excavation, and (3)
modification.
In the first stage, most of the projectile's kinetic energy is
transferred to the target (the underlying target rocks are com-
pressed, heated, and accelerated to high speed). This is the
shortest of all the stages. During excavation, the target ma-
terial is set in motion, initiating a subsonic excavation flow
that eventually opens the crater. The bowl-shaped "transient
crater" formed in the foregoing stage generally collapses un-
der gravity. Slump terraces form on the wall, and a central peak
rises in the interior. High topographic rings may appear in and
around still larger craters. On a geologic timescale, isostatic re-
bound may follow the collapse, eventually flattening the crater
to a flat, circular region of different albedo than the surround-
ing area. The modified final crater is smaller in volume than
the transient crater (Schultz and Merril, 1981; Melosh, 1989).
Independent studies of the Chicxulub structure have pro-
duced different conclusions about its type. The original
Penfield and Camargo interpretation of Chicxulub was of a 180-
km-diameter crater with a concentric 210-230-km-diameter
zone of magnetic breccia (Penfield and Camargo, 1981). Based
on analysis of gravity data, Sharpton et al. (1993) considered
the structure to be a four-ring basin, 300 km in diameter.

FIG. 2. Schematic illustration of the formation of a complex

FIG. 1. Study area. For comparison purposes, the proposed
diameters of 170-200 km (Penfield and Camargo, 1981;
Hildebrand et al., 1991; Pope et al., 1993; Espindola et al., 1995)
and of 300 km (Sharpton et al., 1993) for the impact structure
are indicated. The bathymetric contours are given in meters.
The diamond indicates location of the city of Merida, the cen-
tral point indicates the town of Progreso.
crater with a central peak (after Melosh, 1989): (a) schematic
illustration of the early compression and jetting phase in a mod-
erately oblique impact; (b) excavation and beginning of uplift;
(c) modification: central uplift and rim collapse; (d) final crater.
Uplift of the crater floor begins even before the rim is fully
formed. As the floor rises further, rim collapse creates a wreath
of terraces surrounding the crater. In smaller craters, the cen-
tral uplift "freezes" to form a central peak. In larger craters, the
central peak collapses and creates a peak ring before motion
ceases.

Gauss and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs
300-km-diameter multiring basin would represent an ex-
tremely energetic event, one of the largest collisions in the
inner solar system since the end of the early period of heavy
bombardment almost 4 billion years ago (Sharpton et al., 1993).
The diameter estimates of Chicxulub structure range from 170
to 300 km (Pope et al., 1993; Sharpton et al., 1993; Pilkington
et al., 1994; Camargo-Zanoguera and Suarez-Reynoso, 1994;
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Espindola et al., 1995), corresponding to an order of magni-
tude variation in impact energy. We see that knowledge of the
size and morphology of this impact structure is basic for quan-
tifying the impact's lethal effects on the Cretaceous biota.
a)
01
2 1/370 4/230 r
v
L 6 2/250
3/310 1
6/400
a 8 i
w10
12 7/600
14 80
0 50 100 150
Distance from center of structure (km)
b)
1/-100
E -4
Y the disturbing masses. This technique has already been applied
L -8
a)
-12
-IZ5 -IOU -(5 -5U -25 0 2b 50 75 IOU
Radial distance (km)
c)
0.00
-2.00 This database was also used in the construction of the grav-
3/-100 2/20
E -7.00 2/20 4/40
a -12.00 1/40
-17.00
-22.00
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Distance from center of structure (km)
FIG. 3. Subsurface models for the Chicxulub impact structure
according to (a) Sharpton et al. (1993), (b) Pilkington et al.
(1994), and (c) Espindola et al. (1995). Densities or density
contrasts are given in kilograms per cubic meter. In (a), 1: im-
pact melt sheet and melt breccia; 2: inner allogenic breccia unit;
3: fractured uplifted crystalline basement; 4: outer allogenic
breccia; 5: Cretaceous platform sediments; 6: uppermost crys-
talline basement; 7: intermediate basement; 8: uplifted deep
basement; 9: Tertiary carbonate rocks with densities between
1800 and 2000 kg/m 3 . In (b), 1: melt; 2: megabreccia; 3: central
uplift; 4: upper breccia; 5: outer breccia; 6: Cretaceous and base-
ment. In (c), 1: basement; 2: Mesozoic sedimentary sequence;
3: filling material, breccias plus fractured basement; 4: impact
melt sheet and/or uplifted basement.
1587
The differences between the above models arise basically
from the nonuniqueness inherent in potential field data such
as gravity and magnetics. Ambiguity also arises in connection
with an incomplete knowledge of the petrophysical properties
of the rocks constituting the sources of the gravity and magnetic
anomalies. The nonuniqueness means than an infinite number
of models can account for the observed data. This ambigu-
ity can be reduced by constraining the modeling with other
data types, such as seismic studies and drilling. Nevertheless,
at present, short of applying these more expensive exploration
techniques, gravity and magnetics have provided the only con-
straints on the size and structure of the crater.
The nonuniqueness inherent to gravity modeling is well
known. It is somewhat less well known that gravity provides a
5/180
means of uniquely determining the amount of anomalous mass
responsible for a gravity anomaly. The total magnitude of the
anomalous mass is an important constraint on the amount of
shattered rock in impact structures such as Chicxulub.
The gravity anomalies associated with an impact crater are
considered a consequence of the sedimentary rock filling the
craters and also of the presence of crushed and fragmented
rock (e.g., Innes, 1961; Pilkington and Grieve, 1992). The mass
deficiency, AM, caused by the presence of these low-density
materials can be estimated, with help of Gauss's theorem, by
direct integration of the gravity anomaly (Hammer, 1945). This
method is independent of the form and shape of the gravity
source. No assumption need be made about the densities of
to determining the mass deficiency in several impact craters
(e.g., Innes, 1961) (Figure 4).
In the gravity anomaly map for North America (Tanner and
the DNGA Committee, 1988) and in the Bouguer anomaly
map for Mexico (de La Fuente et al., 1992), the gravity anomaly
at the Chicxulub crater consists of an approximately 30-mGal
low approximately 90 km in radius with a central high of about
20-mGal high about 20 km in radius. The gravity data used for
this study area are those used by de La Fuente et al. (1992) to
construct the Bouguer anomaly map for Mexico (Figure 5a).
ity anomaly map for North America (Tanner and the DNGA
Committee, 1988). The gravity data set comprises 3,675 obser-
vations on land and 3,134 observations offshore. The data cover
the area delimited by the geographical coordinates 19°30'N and
22°30'N, and 88°00'W and 90°30'W. We have a variable point
density that approaches 0.5 stations/km 2 .
Conspicuous gravity and magnetic anomalies on the north-
ern Yucatan (Figure 1) showing concentric patterns (Figure 5)
drew the attention of Penfield and Camargo (1981), who first
interpreted them as the signature of an impact crater. Figure 5a
shows the corresponding Bouguer anomaly of the study area.
We observe a partial circular pattern. Indeed, superimposed on
a regional gravity anomaly is a residual anomaly with roughly
circular symmetry. On the south, this approximately circular
anomaly is continued by a prominent linear north-south low
extending some 100 km southward. On a more regional scale,
gravity presents a conspicuous pattern of approximately north-
south strips. The north-south elongated gravity low belongs to
this regional fabric. Sharpton et al. (1993) interpret the elon-
gated gravity low south of the Chicxulub crater as due to incip-
ient rifting associated with the opening of the Gulf of Mexico.
Also the other regional north-south strips are concordant with

1588 Campos-Enriquez et al.
the Gulf of Mexico rift and Yucatan block predrift orientation the state of compression resulting in the central uplift (Grieve,
and position next to the United States Gulf Coast. In contrast, 1988) can account for the existence of the gravity high. Because
the lack of a perfect circular anomaly may be a result of oblique of this, the excess mass associated with the central gravity high
impact (Schultz and D'Hondt, 1996). constitutes an upper bound on the total mass of the magnetic
The center of the gravity anomaly lies east of Progreso, ap- sources giving rise to the also concentric magnetic anomaly as-
proximately at 89.60°W, 21.30°N. It is thought that the central sociated with the Chicxulub impact structure (Figure 5b). The
gravity high is partly due to the central uplift of the crater crater's melt rocks acquired a remanent magnetization during
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(Pilkington and Grieve, 1992), the signature of a complex
crater. An estimate of the total mass associated with the gravity
high can also be made by considering only the central gravity
high with respect to the surrounding gravity low. Denser and
partly more magnetic crustal material brought to the surface
(Pilkington and Grieve, 1992) and a density increase due to
a time of reversed polarity consistent with the age of the K/T
event (Sharpton et al., 1992; Urrutia-Fucugauchi et al., 1994).
In this paper, we estimate the total mass deficiency of the
Chicxulub impact structure. From the mass deficiency, we cal-
culate the equivalent total mass and volume of breccias and
sedimentary rocks responsible for the gravity anomaly. We
compare our results, derived from geophysical data and prin-
ciples, with several independent estimations.

10 14 igrenus ESTIMATION OF ANOMALOUS MASS

hilus BY GAUSS'S THEOREM
Icus

MR3
Gauss's theorem has been used to estimate anomalous
P masses from gravity anomalies in mining prospecting to de-
10 13
AR1 termine the tonnage of ore deposits (Goetz, 1958) and in vol-
canologic studies to calculate the mass deficiencies associated
with calderas (Yokoyama, 1958, 1983, 1987), as well as in the
studies of impact structures (e.g., Innes, 1961). Hammer (1945)
10 12 first applied the Gauss's theorem to establish the mass of a local
U) ore body.
C
0 Gauss's theorem states that the total amount of anomalous
F- mass is directly proportional to the residual gravity anomaly:
11
AM = (1/4nG) A • nds, (1)
U
fs
4)
where AM is the anomalous mass, G the gravitational constant,
I ' 10
S any surface which completely bounds the anomalous mass, A
a) the residual attraction of gravity, and n the unit vector normal
0
to the surface. The numerical equivalent of the above equation
when the integration surface S comprises only the surface of
10 9 the earth is
AM = (1/2,rG) ^Az1ASi, (2)

where Azi represents the mean value of the gravity anomaly

10 8 in the ground surface element AS, (e.g., a square cell). Deriva-
tions of equation (2) are given in Hammer (1945) and Goetz
(1958). For an anomaly with circular symmetry, equation (1)
becomes (LaFehr, 1965)
10 7
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 EM = (1/G) AZ (r)r dr, (3)
1 10 100 J 0

Diameter (Km)
FIG. 4. Plot of the mass deficiency at the Chicxulub impact
structure in a diagram of mass deficiency versus crater diame-
ter of various terrestrial and lunar craters. AR1 through MR3
are our estimates for the Chicxulub crater (open circles). AR1
represents the estimate based in the profiles and the residual
Rl (Figure 6). MR3 represents the estimate based in the grav-
ity map and the residual R3 (Figure 6). P represents Pilkington
et al.'s (1994) estimate. Rl and R2 represent two estimates
of the Rochechouart impact structure by Pohl et al. (1978).
Broken lines represent best fits for simple craters (long bro-
ken line), and complex craters (short broken line). Data for
other craters are from Innes (1961), Jung and Schaaf (1967),
Dvorak and Phillips (1977), Dabizha and Fedynsky (1987), and
Pilkington et al. (1994).
where r is the radial distance from the center of the anomaly
and A Z is the residual (vertical) anomaly. The numerical equiv-
alent of the above equation is
AM = (Ar/G)>2Az(rl)rj, (4)
where i is the running index of the variable r, and A(r 1 ) is the
value of the gravity anomaly at the radial distance r, from the
center of the anomaly.
LaFehr (1965) analyzed the effects on the mass estimates
caused by (1) a limited gravity coverage, (2) the earth's curva-
ture, and (3) the numerical integration. According to him, the
estimates are highly sensitive to the depth of the gravitating
body and to the extent of the gravity coverage. He elaborated
 Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

a)
-90.00 -89.00 -88.00
b)
910

o
o
o
Gauss and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs

a 19.00
-90.00 -89.00 -88.00 87.00

o 50 o 25 50 100
!
DECL" 3.5
! !
I I I I NCL= 51.5

FIG. 5. (a) Gravimetric anomaly map for the study area. Note the circular gravity anomaly associated with the impact structure. Contour interval is
4 mGal. Locations of radial gravity profiles used to estimate the mass deficiency are indicated. The inner circle (180 km in diameter) indicates the
area included in the gaussian integration of equation (4) corresponding to results of Table 1. The outer circle indicates the maximal area included in
the gaussian integration used in elaborating Figure 7. (b) Total field magnetic anomaly for the study area. The l80-km-diameter circle indicates the
impact structure according to Pilkington et al. (1994).
1589

1590 Campos-Enriquez et al.
curves to correct obtained values for the above mentioned
effects.
MASS DEFICIENCY OF THE CHICXULUB
IMPACT STRUCTURE
We first estimated the mass deficiency using equation (4) and
radial gravity profiles (Figure 6). The lengths of the profiles
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
were chosen to cover a circular area with a diameter between
180 and 200 km corresponding to the estimated diameter of
the structure (Pilkington et al., 1994; Espindola et al., 1995).
We observe that the gravity anomaly is not perfectly symmet-
ric. To compensate errors caused by this slight asymmetry, we
applied equation (4) to the eastern and western radial profiles
separately and then obtained the mean value of the two results.
The greatest error in the mass estimates arises, perhaps, from
ambiguities in estimating the residual anomaly (e.g., in assess-
ing the regional anomaly). To assess the uncertainty caused by
the regional gravity anomaly, we calculated the mass deficiency
for residual anomalies obtained from three different regional
anomalies. We assumed that the regional anomaly can be repre-
sented by a linear trend (increasing eastward 0.076 mGal/km)
(Figure 6). In fact, a linear regional gradient increasing east-
wards is observed in the gravity anomaly (e.g., Pilkington et al.,
1994; Espindola et al., 1995). Figure 6 shows the different re-
gional anomalies or trends used to estimate the mass deficiency.
The upper and lower regional anomalies or trends have the
same slope but are shifted 5 mGal with respect to the central
one. The maximum and minimum mass deficiencies estimated
correspond to the upper and lower residuals respectively. The
mass deficiencies estimated from the eastern radial profile are
slightly bigger than those obtained from the western profile.
We obtained values between 6.16 x 10 15 and 1.35 x 10 16 kg
(Table 1).
We also estimated the mass deficiency with help of equa-
tion (2). From the Bouguer anomaly map of Figure 5a, we ob-
tained the residual anomalies (not shown here) corresponding
39
36
33
30
0
CD 27
E 24
X 21
o 18
E 15
0
c 12
Q 9
N6
rJ) 3
:
O 0
m 3
-6
-85 -70 -55 -40 -25 -10 5 20 35 50 85 80 95 110
Distance (Km)
FIG. 6. Gravity radial profiles used to estimate the mass defi-
ciency (see location in Figure 5a). Also indicated are the dif-
ferent regional trends (R1, R2, R3) used to obtain the residual
gravity anomalies.
to the three residuals used in conjunction with equation (4)
(Figure 6). We integrated the Bouguer anomaly in an 180-km-
diameter circular area covering the structure according to
Pilkington et al. (1994). The mass deficiencies estimated with
the help of equation (2) (1.06 x 10 16 and 1.67 x 10 16 kg; Table 1)
are slightly higher than those obtained from profiles and equa-
tion (4). The obtained mass deficiencies are shown in Figure 4,
a plot of mass deficiency versus diameter for several terres-
trial and lunar craters. Figure 7 shows the mass deficiency as a
function of the radius of the integration area. It was elaborated
assuming the residual anomaly corresponding to the regional
R3 of Figure 6 and varying the radius. Initially, because of the
central peak, the mass deficiency shows a marked increase from
0 to 12 km. Between 12 and 22 km, this increase slows down
a little. At 22 km, the mass deficiency reassumes a strong in-
crease up to a radius of 32 km. The mass deficiency increase
then slows down constantly: from 90 to 100 km, the increase is
of only 2.70 x 10 15 kg; between 100 and 110 km, the difference
is 1.70 x 10 15 kg. The mass deficiency continues to increase with
an approximate rate of 3.00 x 10 15 kg/km. The net increase from
90 to 150 km is 2.72 x 10 16 kg (less than an order of magnitude).
In contrast, the mass deficiency increases four orders of magni-
tude between 0 and 100 km. However, we observe in Figure 5a
that for radii larger than 110 km, we are already integrating
gravity anomalies of regional nature apparently unrelated to
the impact structure.
As already mentioned, the central gravity high is assumed to
be associated with dense and magnetized uplifted silicate base-
ment rocks associated with the structural high (Pilkington and
Table 1. Mass deficiency of the final crater obtained from
equations (2) and (4), and residual gravity anomaly.
Profile 1 Profile 2 Average
(west) (east) (both profiles) Map
Residual AM (kg) AM (kg) OM (kg) AM (kg)
R1 5.48 x 10 15 6.84 x 10 15 6.16 x 10 15 1.06 x 10 16
R2 8.16x1015 1.15 x 1016 9.88x10 15 1.36 x 10 16
R3 1.08 x 10 16 1.63 x 10 16 1.35 x 10 16 1.67 x 10 16
M
310 11
6
3
6
X10
0
9
A
m
m
8
10
Radius (Km)
FIG. 7. Mass deficiency [according to equation (2)] in tons
(10 3 kg) as a function of the radius of the integration area.

Gauss and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs 1591
Grieve, 1992). Gauss's theorem can also be applied to estimate mean densities of 2565 kg/m 3 for the sedimentary and frag-
the excess mass associated with this gravity high. We consid- mental rocks, and 2791 kg/m 3 for the crystalline country rocks.
ered the magnitude of the central gravity high with relation Here, we assumed 2700 kg/m 3 for a. and 2600 kg/m3 for ab .

to the lowest value of the gravity anomaly. This is equivalent
to considering that the central gravity high is simply superim-
posed on the gravity low. Figure 6 shows the corresponding
regional gravity anomaly. Equation (4) applied to the central
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
These values correspond to a conservative density contrast of
100 kg/m 3 and approach the average of the density contrasts
reported by Pilkington et al. (1994) to exist between the up-
per, breccia, outer breccias, megabreccia, melt rock, and the

gravity high portion of the radial profiles gave excess masses
of 1.59 x 10 14 kg and 1.62 x 10 14 kg. Equation (2) applied to
the digitized data gave a higher excess mass: 2.58 x 10 14 kg. We
have a mean value of 1.93 x 10 14 kg. This figure also represents
an upper bound for the mass of the magnetic sources because
the central gravity high is thought to be caused by denser and
partly more magnetic crustal material brought to the surface
by the impact (Pilkington and Grieve, 1992).
MASS AND VOLUME OF THE BRECCIA
AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
The mass deficiency does not depend on any assumption
about the density, location and form of the gravity-anomalies
sources. An infinite number of models can account for a given
mass deficiency. We can not establish the form and location of
the corresponding gravity sources because of the nonunique-
ness inherent to gravity. However, if we know the mean densi-
ties of the country rock and that of the fragmental and sedimen-
tary rocks left in the crater, we can calculate the equivalent total
volume (not the form) and the associated mass of breccias and
sedimentary rocks responsible for the gravity anomalies from
the following equations (Innes, 1961):
Total mass = Qb /(v, - crb )AM (5)
and
Total volume = AM /(Q, - ab), (6)
where AM is the mass deficiency (diminution in mass from
normal crustal conditions), a, is the mean density of the coun-
try rock, and ab is the mean density of the sedimentary and
brecciated rocks in the crater.
respective surrounding host rocks. With these assumed densi-
ties, the mass deficiency corresponds to a volume of fragmental
and sedimentary rocks between 6.16 x 10 13 and 1.67 x 10 14 m3
(Table 2). Figure 8 shows the volume (not the form or position)
of rock responsible for the mass deficiency as a function of the
density contrast between the country rock and the sedimen-
tary and fragmental rocks. The volume of the responsible rock
is bigger for small density contrast. These volumes give an idea
of the portion of the crust involved in the impact process.
We assumed a density contrast of 100 kg/m 3 for the denser
and magnetic rocks of the central gravity high with respect to
the country rock. This implies a density of 2800 kg/m 3 for the
central structural high, which agrees with the density values
used in the gravity models (Figure 3) of Sharpton et al. (1993),
Pilkington et al. (1994), and Espindola et al. (1995). With this
density contrast, the mass excess associated with the central
gravity high corresponds to a volume between 1.59 x 10 12 and
2.58 x 10 12 m 3 (a mean value of 1.93 x 10 12 m 3 ).
DISCUSSION
The major impact-associated mechanisms proposed to cause
the KIT extinctions are the following (Toon et al., 1997): dust
loading of the atmosphere (cooling, halt of photosynthesis, loss
of vision), fires (burning, soot cooling, pyrotoxins, acid rain),
NO, generation (ozone depletion, acid rain, cooling), shock
Table 2. Volumes and masses of sediments and shattered rock
equivalent to the mass deficiencies estimated for the Chicxulub
impact final crater and the central uplift. Assumptions: coun-
try rock mean density of o = 2700 kg/m 3 , mean density for
sediments and brecciated rock of Orb = 2600 kg/m 3
.

The densities of rocks at Chicxulub, especially those from Mass

deeper levels, are not well constrained. Numerous density mea- Data deficiency Total Total
surements are reported for rocks from impact craters (e.g., source AM (kg) mass (kg) volume (m 3 )
Innes, 1961); however, there are few determinations of den-
sity contrasts between fractured and unfractured target rock. Final Crater Mass Deficiencies
We measured densities between 2060 and 2620 kg/m 3 in sur- Profile 6.16 x 1015 1.60 x 1017 6.16x1013
(Residual 1)
face limestone samples. The P-wave seismic velocities deter- Profile 9.88 x 10 15 2.56 x 10 17 9.88 x 10 13
mined by Cue (1953) at the center of the crater can be used (Residual 2)
to infer the bulk densities of rocks in the subsoil with the help Profile 1.35 x 10 16 3.51 x 10" 1.35 x 10 14
of the Nafe and Drake relationship (Nafe and Drake, 1958; (Residual 3)
Grant and West, 1965, 200). According to this relationship, the Map 1.06 x 1016 2.75x10 17 1.06x1014
density increases from 2000 at the surface to 2350 kg/m 3 at a (Residual 1)
Map 1.36 x 1016 3.53x10" 1.36 x 10 14
depth of about 1500 m (these extreme values correspond to (Residual 2)
limestones and to melt sheet rock). Pilkington et al. (1994) Map 1.67 x 1016 4.34x10 17 1.67 x 10 14
reported densities between 2650 and 2850 kg/m 3 measured in (Residual 3)
samples of Chicxulub melt rock and crystalline basement. The
Central Uplift Mass Excess
structural high in the gravity models of the Figure 3 has been Profile 1 1.59 x 10 14 4.13 x 10 15 1.59 x 10 12
assigned densities between 2600 and 2800 kg/m 3 (Sharpton (West)
et al., 1993), and a value of 2740 kg/m 3 (Espindola et al., 1995). Profile 2 1.62 x 10 14 4.21 x 10 15 1.62 x 10 12
Barlow (1979) reported a value of 150 kg/m 3 for the density (East)
contrast at Gosses Bluff, Australia, where the target rock is Map 2.58 x 1014 6.70 x 1015 2.58 x 10 12
sedimentary. For the Holleford crater, Innes (1961) reported Mean 1.93 x 10 14 5.01x10 15 1.93 x 1012

1592 Campos-Enriquez et al.
wave (high wind), earthquakes (shaking), tsunami (drown-
ing), heavy metals (poisoning), water/CO2 injections (warm-
ing), SO2 injections (cooling, acid rain). Many of these extinc-
tion mechanisms have been investigated in an isolated fashion
by several researchers, often in a preliminary basis. Recently
Toon et al. (1997) have extensively analyzed these major mech-
anisms and discussed how they relate to the environmental
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
consequences of asteroid and comets impacts in general. Toon
et al.'s (1997) work represents the most recent review of the
research done in this field.
One of the favored scenarios is that in which dust raised
by the impact prevents sunlight from reaching the surface
for months (Alvarez et al., 1980) inducing a halt in the pho-
tosynthesis and leading to precipitous temperature declines
(Alvarez et al., 1980; Toon et al., 1982). However, because of
selective pattern of extinctions, it is difficult to believe that just
one mechanism caused the K/T extinctions. It is likely that sev-
eral, if not all, of the mentioned mechanisms contributed to the
devastating stress on the global biosphere.
According to Toon et al. (1997), the environmental effects of
dust loading, fires, and SO2 injections are the most important
ones for impacts approaching energies equivalent to 10 12 kg
of TNT, the energy estimated for the Chicxulub impact (Toon
et al., 1994). In the particular case of the K/T impact, the SO2
injection into the stratosphere becomes important. Indeed, the
platform of Yucatan at the KIT transition was a shallow car-
bonate/evaporite shelf. A large portion of the Chicxulub target
rock was anhydrite (CaSO4), which may have been volatized
during impact (Sigurdsson et al., 1991, 1992). As a result a
large amount of sulfur gas was injected into the stratosphere.
The sulfur gas would have reacted with water to form sulfu-
ric acid aerosols. Sigurdsson et al. (1991, 1992) estimated the
sulfur dioxide mass generated by the K/T impact to be be-
tween 2.5 x 10 15 and 8.0 x 10 15 kg. Brett (1992) estimated it
10"
10
Flo 10 17
3 estimated final crater volume (1.2 x 10 15 m 3 ). To obtain values
10
0e 16 MR3
0e 16 MRl
1De 15 AR1
10
Density Contrast (Kg/m 3)
FIG. 8. Volume (in cubic meters) of the rock responsible for
the gravity anomaly as a function of the density contrast be-
tween the country rock and the sedimentary and brecciated
rock left in the crater. Curves were established following equa-
tion (6) from Innes (1961) and three of our estimated mass
deficiencies. Labels of the curves indicate the associated mass
deficiency. The horizontal broken line represents Holsapple's
estimate (Holsapple, 1994). To obtain the estimated volume of
the final crater by Hosapple (1994), assuming a density contrast
of 100 kg/m 3 , we would need a mass deficiency of 1.20 x 10 17 kg.
as 4.0 x 10 14 kg, whereas Pope et al. (1994) estimated the SO 2
emission between 8.0 x 10 13 and 1.4 x 10 15 kg.
Estimates on the mass and volume of ejecta are basic for any
assessment of environmental effects of the proposed extinction
mechanisms. Calculations on the mass and volume of the ejecta
are based mainly on scaling relations based on experiments in
the laboratory, and on observations of planetary craters and
nuclear explosion craters (e.g., Melosh, 1989). For example,
Holsapple (1994) estimated as 1.2 x 10 1 m3 the volume of
the final crater assuming a 300-km-diameter for the structure
and a velocity of 20 km/s for the impactor. The volume of the
transient crater is estimated as 2.9 x 1015 m3
These estimates are constrained by the size of the initial
crater and volume of the impacting projectile. The size of the
initial crater can be inferred from models of the actual impact
structure (and scaling relations). However, as we already men-
tioned, several models with different dimensions have been
proposed for the Chicxulub structure (Figure 3). These models
correspond to different volumes and masses of ejecta. Hence,
it is important to get a bound on the mass ejected from the
impact crater independent of any assumption upon the dimen-
sions and shape (type) of the K/T impact structure and the
density of the rocks involved.
Mass deficiency estimates based in geophysical data and
principles enable us to set limits on the mass ejected from the
impact crater. Pilkington et al. (1994) roughly estimated the to-
tal mass deficiency at the Chicxulub structure at 1.2 x 10 16 kg,
assuming a 90-km radius and an average Bouguer low of
20 mGal. This estimated mass deficiency is close to our value
of 1.08 x 10 16 kg obtained from residual R3 (upper value of re-
gional). The mass deficiency from the Chicxulub impact struc-
ture is similar to that of the Eratosthenes crater in the Moon
(Dvorak and Phillips, 1977), which is smaller (60 km in diam-
eter). Craters in the Moon with similar diameter (Copernicus,
about 100 km; Theophilus; about 100 km; Langrenus; about
130 km), (Dvorak and Phillips, 1977) have higher mass deficien-
cies (because lower lunar gravity allowed fractured material to
be blasted away).
Recall that the mass deficiencies estimated for the Chicxulub
structure correspond to masses of breccias and sedimentary
rocks between 1.60 x 10 17 and 4.34 x 10 17 kg and respective
volumes between 6.16 x 10 13 and 1.67 x 10 14 m3 . These values
are lower (up to two orders of magnitude) than Holsapple's
close to Holsapple's estimates, we must assume density con-
trasts between the country rock, a,, and the sedimentary and
brecciated rocks, orb in the crater of between 5 and 15 kg/m 3
,
(Figure 8). These very low density contrasts are not observed
in the Chicxulub impact structure. To obtain volumes of brec-
cias and sedimentary rocks close to Holsapple's estimated fi-
nal crater from a density contrast between a,, and ob , around
150 kg/m 3 , we need mass deficiencies greater than 1.20 x 10 17 kg
(a value one order of magnitude greater than our estimates
and not approached even for diameters of 320 km) (Figure 6).
The mass of rocks responsible for the gravity anomaly in the
model of Pilkington et al. (1994) is equal to —1.31 x 10 16 kg,
whereas for the model of Espindola et al. (1995), it is equal
to —1.97 x 10 16 kg. In this case, where we know the densities
and geometry of the sources, the mass of rocks responsible for
the gravity anomaly corresponds to the mass deficiency. We see

Gauss and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs
that the models of Pilkington et al. (1994) and Espindola et al.
(1995) have associated mass deficiencies close to the values de-
termined here. In contrast, the model of Sharpton et al. (1993)
has a mass excess of +4.93 x 10 17 kg. Their bodies 1 and 2 (cen-
tral basin) have a mass deficiency of 1.18 x 10 16 kg. However,
when we include the other bodies (i.e., body 3 representing
their first ring), we get an excess of mass.
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The value of 1.60 x 10 17 kg (corresponding to the mass defi-
ciency estimated from the residual R1 and converted to a mass
of rock assuming a density contrast of 100 kg/m 3 ) represents a
lower bound on the mass ejected from the impact crater. We
see that the sulfur dioxide masses estimated by Sigurdsson et al.
(1991, 1992), Brett (1992), and Pope et al. (1994) represent a
small fraction (much less than 1%) of our estimated ejected
mass. According to Ward et al. (1995), the impact site was un-
derlain by about 2500-3000 m of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks,
of which 25-30% was anhydrite. They point out the existence
of a breccia near the top of the Cretaceous strata. Anhydrite
clasts making up 15-20% of this breccia. Because of this, they
infer that great volumes of evaporite rock excavated and frag-
mented by the impact remained unvaporized. The sulfur diox-
ide masses estimated by Sigurdsson et al. (1991, 1992), Brett
(1992), Pope et al. (1994), and Ward et al.'s (1995) considera-
tions indirectly support our estimation of the total mass ejected
from the K/T impact structure.
Finally, by assuming a melt sheet thickness of 3 km and ra-
dius of 45 km, Pilkington et al. (1994) estimated a volume for
the melt sheet of 19 000 km 3 (1.9 x 10 13 m 3 ). Based on the mass
excess associated with the central gravity high, we estimated
for the central structural high a volume between 1.59 x 10 12
and 2.58 x 10 12 m3 (a mean value of 1.93 x 10 12 m3 ). Our esti-
mate is lower by about one order of magnitude than Pilkington
et al.'s (1994) estimate. Because of this, we think that the cen-
tral gravity high is basically caused by nonmagnetic dense rocks
(e.g., mainly due to an increase in density associated with the
pressure state resulting in the central uplift). This is also im-
plicit in Pilkington et al.'s (1994) magnetic model, which shows
small discrete magnetized bodies distributed within the larger
melt volume.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on Gauss's theorem and gravity data, we have estab-
lished the mass deficiency from the Chicxulub impact area. Our
estimations were obtained by integrating the residual anomaly
along radial profiles (between 90 and 100 km in length), as
well as by integrating the residual anomaly inside a circular
area with a diameter of 180 km. This area of integration was
chosen to cover the impact structure.
According to Pilkington et al. (1994) and Espindola et al.
(1995), the diameter of the impact structure ranges between
180 and 200 km. Our estimates of mass deficiency range from
6.16 x 10 15 to 1.67 x 10 16 kg. We also analyzed the behav-
ior of the mass deficiency as a function of the integration
area. From 0 to approximately 32 km, the mass deficiency
shows a strong increase. From the 32 km, the mass deficiency
increase slows down constantly. Between 100 and 110 km, the
increase in mass deficiency is only 1.70 x 10 15 kg. It contin-
ues to increase at an approximately rate of 3.00 x 10 15 kg/km.
However, this increase is due to regional gravity anomalies not
related to the impact structure.
1593
Our results compare well with Pilkington et al.'s (1994) esti-
mate (1.20 x 10 16 kg). The gravity models of Pilkington et al.
(1994) and Espindola et al. (1995) have associated mass defi-
ciencies very close to the mass deficiencies established for the
Chicxulub impact crater (1.31 x 10 16 and 1.97 x 10 76 kg, re-
spectively). In contrast, the gravity model from Sharpton et al.
(1993) has associated a mass deficiency of 1.18 x 10 6 kg if we
consider only the central basin (their bodies 1 and 2). How-
ever, when we include other bodies (i.e., body 3 representing
their first ring), we get an excess of mass. Craters on the moon
with similar diameters (Copernicus, Theophilus, Langrenus)
have higher mass deficiencies. The much smaller Erastosthenes
crater (60 km in diameter) has a similar mass deficiency. This
contrast is caused by lower gravity on the moon.
By assuming the density contrast between the country rock
and the breccias and sedimentary rocks left in the crater, we
can estimate the total volume (not form or position) and associ-
ated mass of the rock responsible for the gravity anomaly. This
volume gives us an idea of the portion of the crust affected
by the impact. If the density contrast is 100 kg/m 3 , the mass
deficiencies correspond to masses of breccias and sedimentary
rocks between 1.60 x 10 17 and 4.34 x 10 17 kg and respective vol-
umes between 6.16 x 10 13 and 1.67 x 10 14 m3 . These volumes
are up to two orders of magnitude lower than the estimated
(based in scaling relations) volume of the final crater made by
Holsapple (1994). To obtain this value (1.20 x 10 15 m 3 ) from our
mass deficiencies, we would need density contrasts between 5
and 15 kg/m3 . However, these low density contrasts are not ob-
served. To approach Holsapple's estimated volume, we would
need mass deficiencies greater than 1.20 x 10 17 kg. The mass
deficiency at the Chicxulub impact site remains two order of
magnitude below this value even if we integrate up to circular
areas 320 km in diameter.
The mass of 1.60 x 10 17 kg represent a lower bound on the
mass ejected from the impact crater. Estimates of the sulfur
dioxide mass generated by the K/T impact and our results imply
that only a small amount of the anhydrite of the target rock was
vaporized (about 1%).
Finally, for the central structural high, we obtained an ex-
cess mass of 1.93 x 10 14 kg. This value implies a mean volume
of 1.93 x 10 12 m 3 . This estimate is lower by about one order
of magnitude than Pilkington et al.'s (1994) estimate of the
volume of the melt sheet. This implies that the central gravity
high is basically due to nonmagnetic rocks (a result implicitly
advanced in Pilkington et al., 1994).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
R. O. Hansen, T. R. LaFehr, and three anonymous referees
contributed with critical reviews to improve the paper. This
study was supported through research grants from CONACyT
(2197-T), DGAPA/UNAM (IN104394), and Nissan Founda-
tion (through Matsui Takafumi).
REFERENCES
Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., and Michel, H. V., 1980, Ex-
traterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction: Science,
208, 1095-1108.
Barlow, B. C., 1979, Gravity investigations of the Gosses Bluff impact
structure, central Australia, Bur. Min. Res. Austral. J. Geol. Geo-
phys., 4, 323-339.
Blum, J. D., Chamberlain, C. E, Hignston, M. P., Koeberl, C.,
Marin, L. E., Schuraytz, B. C., and Sharpton, V. L., 1993, Isotopic

1594 Campos - Enriquez et al.
comparison of K/T boundary impact glass with melt rock from the
Chicxulub and Manson impact structures: Nature, 364, 325-327.
Brett, R., 1992, The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction: A lethal mecha-
nism involving anhydrite target rocks: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta:
56, 3603-3606.
Camargo-Zanoguera, A., and Suarez-Reynoso, G., 1994, Evidencia
sismica del crater de impacto de Chicxulub, Boletin de la Asociacibn
Mexicana de Geofisicos de Exploraci6n: 34,1-28.
Campos-Enriquez, J. 0., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., Mena, M., and Es-
pindola, J. M., 1994, Crustal structure and isostatic equilibrium in
Downloaded 02/08/16 to 132.248.6.197. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
southwestern Gulf of Mexico and Yucatan Peninsula. A gravity study
(Abstract): EOS 75, 595-599.
Cue, A. V., 1953, Determinaci6n de velocidades sismicas en el pozo
Chicxulub No. 1: Boletin de la Asociacibn Mexicana de Geol6gos
Petroleros, 5, 285-290.
Dabizha, A. I., and Fedynsky, V. V., 1987, Features of the gravitational
field of astroblems (in Russian), Meteoritika, 36, 113-120 (in Rus-
sian).
de La Fuente, M., Mena, M., and Aiken, C. L. V., 1992, Cartas
gravimetricas de la republica mexicana, I. Carta de la anomalia de
Bouguer: Instituto Nacional de Geografia e Historia, Mexico.
Dvorak, J., and Phillips, R. J., 1977, The nature of the gravity anomalies
associated with large young lunar craters: Geophys. Res. Lett., 4,
380-382.
Espindola, J. M., Mena, M., de La Fuente, M., and Campos-Enriquez,
J. 0., 1995, A model of the Chicxulub structure (Yucatan, Mexico)
based on its gravity and magnetic signatures: Phys. Earth Planet.
Internat., 93, 271-278.
Goetz, J. F., 1958, A gravity investigation of a sulphide deposit: Geo-
physics, 23, 606-623.
Grant, F. S., and West, G. F, 1965, Interpretation theory in applied
geophysics: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Grieve, R. A. F, 1988, The formation of large impact structures and
constraints on the nature of Siljan, in Boden, A., and Eriksson, K.,
Eds., Deep drilling in crystalline bedrock, vol. 1: The deep gas drilling
in the Siljan impact structure, Sweden and astroblems: Springer-
Verlag, 328-348.
Hallam, A., 1987, End-Cretaceous mass extinction event: Argument
for terrestrial causation: Science, 238, 1237-1242.
Hammer, S., 1945, Estimating ore masses in gravity prospecting: Geo-
physics, 10, 50-62.
Hildebrand, A. R., and Boyton, W. V., 1990, Locating the Creta-
ceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater(s) (Abstract): EOS, 71,1429-
1429.
1992, Proximal Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary impact deposits
in the Caribbean: Science, 248, 843-847.
Hildebrand, A. R., Penfield, G. T., Pilkington, M., Camargo, A.,
Jacobsen, S. B., and Boyton, W. V., 1991, Chicxulub crater: A pos-
sible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico: Geology, 19, 867-871.
Hildebrand, A. R., Pilkington, M., Connors, M., Ortiz-Aleman, C.,
and Chavez, R. E., 1995, Size and structure of the Chicxulub crater
revealed by horizontal gravity gradients and cenotes: Nature, 376,
415-417.
Holsapple, K. A., 1994, Estimation of the measures of the Chicxulub
cratering event: New developments regarding the K/T event and
other catastrophes in Earth history: Expanded Abstracts, 51-52.
Innes, M. J. S., 1961, The use of gravity methods to study the under-
ground structure and impact energy of meteorite craters: J. Geophys.
Res., 66, 2225-2239.
Jung, K., and Schaaf, H., 1967, Gravimetermessungen im Nordlinger
Ries and seiner Umgebung, Abschaetzung der gesamte Defizit-
masse: Zeitschrift Fur Geophysik, 33, 3'19-345.
Koeberl, C., 1993, Chicxulub crater, Yucatan: tektites, impact glasses,
and the geochemistry of target rocks and breccias: Geology, 21, 211-
214.
Krogh, T. E., Kamo, S. L., Sharpton, V. L., Marin, L., and Hildebrand,
A. R., 1993, U -Pb ages of single shocked zircons linking distal K/T
ejecta to the Chicxulub crater: Nature, 366, 731-734.
Lafehr, T. R., 1965, The estimation of the total amount of anomalous
mass by Gauss's theorem: J. Geophys. Res., 70, 1911-1919.
Melosh, H. J., 1989, Impact cratering. A geological process: Oxford
Univ. Press, Inc.
Meyerhoff, A. A., Lyons, J. B., and Officer, C. B., 1994, Chicxulub
structure: A volcanic sequence of Late Cretaceous age: Geology,
22, 3-4.
Officer, C. B., and Drake, C. L., 1985, Terminal Cretaceous environ-
mental events: Science, 277, 1161-1167.
Nafe, J. E., and Drake, Ch. L., 1958, Physical properties of crustal
materials as related to compressional wave velocities: Geophysics,
23,403-403.
Penfield, G. T., and Camargo, Z. A., 1981, Definition of a major igneous
zone in the central Yucatan platform with aeromagnetics and gravity:
51st Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Abstract, 37.
Pilkington, M., and Grieve, R. A. F, 1992, The geophysical signature
of terrestrial impact craters: Rev. Geophys., 30, 161-181.
Pilkington, M., Hildebrand, A. R., and Ortiz-Aleman, C., 1994, Gravity
and magnetic field modeling and structure of the Chicxulub crater,
Mexico, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 13147-13162.
Pohl, J., Ernstson, K., and Lambert, E, 1978, Gravity measurements in
the Rochechouart impact structure (France): Meteoritics, 13, 601-
604.
Pope, K. 0., Ocampo, A. C., and Dullerr, C. E., 1993, Surficial geology
of the Chicxulub impact crater, Yucatan, Mexico: Earth, Moon and
Planets, 63, 93-104.
Pope, K. 0., Baines, K. H., Ocampo, A. C., and Ivanov, B. A., 1994,
Impact winter and the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinctions: Results of a
Chicxulub asteroid impact model: Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett., 128,
719-725.
Rampino, M. R., 1987, Impact cratering and flood basalt volcanism:
Nature, 327,468-468.
Schlutz, P. H. and D'Hondt, S.,1996, Cretaceous-Tertiary (Chicxulub)
impact angle and its consequences: Geology, 24, 963-967.
Schultz, P. H., and R. B. Merril, Eds, 1981, Multi-ring basins: Pergamon
Press, Inc.
Sigurdsson, H., Bonte, E, Turpin, L., Chaussidon, M., Metrich, N.,
Steinberg, M., Pradel, P., and D'Hondt, S., 1991, Geochemical con-
straints on source region of Cretaceous/Tertiary impact glass: Na-
ture, 353, 839-842.
Sigurdsson, H., D'Hondt, S., and Carey, S., 1992, The impact of the
Cretaceous/Tertiary bolide on evaporate terrane and generation of
major sulfuric acid aerosol: Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett., 109,543-559.
Sharpton, V. L., Dalrymple, G. B., Marin, L. E., Shuraytz, B. C., and
Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., 1992, New links between the Chicxulub im-
pact structure and the Cretaceous/ Tertiary boundary: Nature, 359,
819-821.
Sharpton, V. L., Burke, K., Camargo-Zanoguera, A., Hall, S. A., Lee,
D. S., Marfn, L. E., Suarez-Reynoso, G., Quezada-Muneton, J.,
Spudis, P. D. G., and Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J.,1993, Chicxulub multir-
ing impact basin: Size and other characteristics derived from gravity
analysis: Science, 261, 1564-1567.
Tanner, J., and the DNAG Committee, 1988, Gravity anomaly map for
North America: The Leading Edge, 7, No. 11, 15-18.
Toon, O. B., Pollack, J. P., Ackerman, T. P, Turco, R. P., McKay, C. P.,
and Liu, M. S.,1982, Evolution of an impact generated dust cloud and
its effects on the atmosphere, in Silver, L. T., and Schultz, P. H., Eds.,
Geological implications of impacts of large asteroids and comets on
the Earth: Geol. Soc. Am., Special Paper 190, 187-200.
Toon, O. B., Zahnle, K., Turco, R. P., and Covey, C., 1994, Environmen-
tal perturbations caused by impacts, in Gehrels, T., Ed., Hazard due
to comet and asteroids: Univ. of Arizona Press.
Toon, O. B., Turco, R. P., and Covey, C., 1997, Environmental perturba-
tions caused by the impacts of asteroids and comets, Rev. Geophys.,
35, 41-78.3.
Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., Marin, L., and Sharpton, V. L., 1994, Reverse
polarity magnetized melt rocks from the Cretaceous/Tertiary Chicx-
ulub structure, Yucatan peninsula, Mexico: Tectonophysics, 237,
105-112.
Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., Marin, L. and Trejo-Garcia, A., 1996, UNAM
Scientific drilling program of Chicxulub impact structure-Evidence
for a 300 kilometer crater diameter: Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 1565-
1568.
Ward, W. C., Keller, G., Stinnesbeck, W., and Adatte, T., 1995,
Yucatan subsurface stratigraphy: Implications and constraints for
the Chicxulub impact: Geology, 23, 873-876.
Yokoyama, I., 1958, Gravity survey on Kuttyaro Caldera Lake: J. Phys.
Earth, 6, 7579.
1983, Gravimetric studies and drilling results at the four
calderas in Japan, in Shimozuru, D., and Yekoyama, I., Arc vol-
canism: Physics and tectonics: Terra Scientific Publishing Co., 29-41.
1987, A quantitative consideration of several calderas for study
of their formation: Geofisica Internacional, 26, 487-498.