T241 The Cretaceous–Paleogene Boundary: From Impact Cratering Processes to Mass Extinction Mechanisms

Wednesday, 13 October 2021
1:30 PM - 5:30 PM
D139/D140

RELATIVE ROLES OF IMPACT-GENERATED AEROSOLS ON PHOTOSYNTHETIC ACTIVITY FOLLOWING THE CHICXULUB ASTEROID IMPACT

Paper number: T241-7
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 2:55 PM – 3:10 PM

Authors

Abstract

Extreme atmospheric perturbations by impact-generated climate-active aerosols ensuing the Chicxulub impact caused a global-scale catastrophe on the Earth’s flora and fauna 66 million years ago [1]. Following a rapid atmospheric heating (days to weeks) by the impact ejecta plume, recent studies show that the post-impact climate transitioned into a prolonged (months to years) impact winter conditions [2-5]. The impact winter is driven by massive aerosol injections (e.g., dust, sulfate and soot), causing severe atmospheric perturbations, leading to the the suppression of photosynthesis [6] and thus mass extinctions at the end-Cretaceous.

Here, we further investigate the evolution of environmental conditions by global circulation model (GCM) simulations using our in-house GCM code (asteroidImpactWRF [7]), based on a planetary atmospheric model [8]. Our main focus is to understand the duration and magnitude of impact winter conditions due to impact-generated aerosols, and therewith assessing the cessation of photosynthesis in terms of the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). To determine the amount and physical properties of simulated aerosol scenarios (dust, sulfate and soot), we use the inputs reported in [9-10]. Besides, the dust particle size distribution (psd) is constrained by the laser-diffraction grain-size analysis of clay-rich K-Pg boundary sediments from a recent field study in North-Dakota, which is key to govern the atmospheric lifetime of dust particles. Finally, we further discuss the potential implications of the Chicxulub impact, by examining the ecological response to impact aerosol emissions.

References

[1] Toon, O. B. et al. (1997). Reviews of Geophysics, 35(1), 41-78. [2] Vellekoop, J. et al. (2014). PNAS, 111(21), 7537-7541. [3] Brugger, J. et al. (2017). GRL, 44(1), 419-427. [4] Brugger, J. et al. (2021). GRL, e2020GL092260. [5] Tabor, C. R. et al. (2020). GRL, 47(3), e60121. [6] Robertson, D. S. et al. (2013). JGR: Biogeosciences, 118(3), 1006-1014. [7] Senel et al. (2021), Planetary Defense Conference, Vienna. [8] Richardson, M. I. et al. (2007). JGR: Planets, 112(E9). [9] Toon, O. B. et al. (2016). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16.20: 13185-13212. [10] Artemieva, N., et al. (2017). GRL, 44(20), 10-180.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 53, No. 6

doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-368627

© Copyright 2021 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.