Schulte Et Al-2010 The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at The K-PG Boundary

The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction
at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary

Peter Schulte, et al.
Science 327, 1214 (2010);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1177265
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your
colleagues, clients, or customers by clicking here.
Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by

following the guidelines here.
The following resources related to this article are available online at www.sciencemag.org
(this information is current as of March 4, 2010 ):
Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online
version of this article at:
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214
Supporting Online Material can be found at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1
This article cites 54 articles, 17 of which can be accessed for free:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214#otherarticles
This article appears in the following subject collections:

Geochemistry, Geophysics
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/geochem_phys
Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright
2010 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Science is a
registered trademark of AAAS.
REVIEW
such as extended darkness, global cooling, and
acid rain (7–9). These effects provide an array
of potential mechanisms for the ecologically
The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact diverse but selective abrupt extinctions (Fig. 1)
(10–13).
and Mass Extinction at the Notwithstanding the substantial evidence sup-
porting an impact mechanism, other interpre-
Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary tations of the K-Pg boundary mass extinction

remain. Stratigraphic and micropaleontological
data from the Gulf of Mexico and the Chicxulub
Peter Schulte,1* Laia Alegret,2 Ignacio Arenillas,2 José A. Arz,2 Penny J. Barton,3 Paul R. Bown,4 crater have instead been used to argue that this
Timothy J. Bralower,5 Gail L. Christeson,6 Philippe Claeys,7 Charles S. Cockell,8 Gareth S. Collins,9 impact preceded the K-Pg boundary by several
Alexander Deutsch,10 Tamara J. Goldin,11 Kazuhisa Goto,12 José M. Grajales-Nishimura,13 hundred thousand years and therefore could not
Richard A. F. Grieve,14 Sean P. S. Gulick,6 Kirk R. Johnson,15 Wolfgang Kiessling,16 have caused the mass extinction [e.g., (14)]. In
Christian Koeberl,11 David A. Kring,17 Kenneth G. MacLeod,18 Takafumi Matsui,19 Jay Melosh,20 addition, the approximately one-million-year-long
Alessandro Montanari,21 Joanna V. Morgan,9 Clive R. Neal,22 Douglas J. Nichols,15 emplacement of the large Deccan flood basalts
Richard D. Norris,23 Elisabetta Pierazzo,24 Greg Ravizza,25 Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra,26 in India spans the K-Pg boundary (Fig. 1); the
Wolf Uwe Reimold,16 Eric Robin,27 Tobias Salge,28 Robert P. Speijer,29 Arthur R. Sweet,30 release of sulfur and carbon dioxide during these

Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi,31 Vivi Vajda,32 Michael T. Whalen,33 Pi S. Willumsen32 voluminous eruptions may have caused severe
environmental effects (15) that have also been
The Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary ~65.5 million years ago marks one of the three largest mass proposed as triggers for the mass extinction at
extinctions in the past 500 million years. The extinction event coincided with a large asteroid the K-Pg boundary (16).
impact at Chicxulub, Mexico, and occurred within the time of Deccan flood basalt volcanism in Here, we assess the observational support for
India. Here, we synthesize records of the global stratigraphy across this boundary to assess the these divergent interpretations by synthesizing
proposed causes of the mass extinction. Notably, a single ejecta-rich deposit compositionally linked recent stratigraphic, micropaleontological, petro-
to the Chicxulub impact is globally distributed at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. The logical, and geochemical data from the globally
temporal match between the ejecta layer and the onset of the extinctions and the agreement of distributed K-Pg boundary event deposit. Impact
ecological patterns in the fossil record with modeled environmental perturbations (for example, and volcanism as extinction mechanisms are
darkness and cooling) lead us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction. evaluated in terms of their predicted environ-
mental perturbations and, ultimately, the dis-
aleontologists have long recognized the The occurrence of an impact is substantiated tribution of life on Earth before and after the
P global scale and abruptness of the major

biotic turnover at the Cretaceous-Paleogene
(K-Pg, formerly K-T) boundary ~65.5 million
by the recognition of impact ejecta including
spherules, shocked minerals, and Ni-rich spinels
in many K-Pg boundary event deposits [e.g.,
K-Pg boundary.
What Is the Evidence for Correlating the Impact

years ago (Ma). This boundary represents one of (4, 5)]. The ejecta distribution points to an impact with the K-Pg Boundary?
the most devastating events in the history of life event in the Gulf of Mexico–Caribbean region; The Upper Cretaceous and lower Paleogene
(1) and abruptly ended the age of the dinosaurs. this prediction is reinforced by the discovery of sediments bracketing the K-Pg boundary event
Thirty years ago, the discovery of an anomalously the ~180- to 200-km-diameter Chicxulub crater deposits are among the most intensively in-
high abundance of iridium and other platinum structure on the Yucatan peninsula, Mexico (6). vestigated deposits in the geological record.
group elements (PGEs) in the K-Pg boundary Modeling suggests that the size of the crater and More than 350 K-Pg boundary sites are cur-
clay led to the hypothesis that an asteroid ~10 km the release of climatically sensitive gases from rently known, and these sites show a distinct
in diameter collided with Earth and rendered many the carbonate- and sulfate-rich target rocks could ejecta distribution pattern related to distance
environments uninhabitable (2, 3). have caused catastrophic environmental effects from the Chicxulub crater (Fig. 2 and table
1
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Lázaro Cárdenas No. 152, C.P. 07730, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA. 26Unidad de Ciencias del Agua,
Schlossgarten 5, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. 2Departamento México City, México. 14Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, A.C., Calle 8, No.
de Ciencias de la Tierra e Instituto Universitario de Inves- Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4, Canada. 15Research and 39, Mz. 29, S.M. 64, Cancún, Quintana Roo, 77500, México.
27
tigación de Ciencias Ambientales de Aragón, Universidad de Collections Division, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement,
Zaragoza, Pedro Cerbuna 12, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain. 3De- 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, USA. 16Museum Institut Pierre et Simon Laplace, Commission à l’Énergie
partment of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute at the Humboldt University Atomique/CNRS/Université de Versailles Saint Quentin en
CB2 3EQ, UK. 4Department of Earth Sciences, University College Berlin, Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany. 17Center Yveunes–UMR 1572, Avenue de la Terrasse, F-91198 Gif-sur-
London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. 5Department of for Lunar Science and Exploration, Universities Space Research Yvette Cedex, France. 28Bruker Nano GmbH, Schwarzschildstraße
Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Association–Lunar and Planetary Institute, 3600 Bay Area Boule- 12, D-12489 Berlin, Germany. 29Department of Earth and
16802, USA. 6Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geo- vard, Houston, TX 77058–1113, USA. 18Department of Environmental Sciences, K.U.Leuven, Box 2408, Celestijnenlaan
sciences, University of Texas at Austin, J.J. Pickle Research Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 200E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 30Natural Resources Canada,
Campus, 10100 Burnet Road 196-ROC, Austin, TX 78759, USA. 65211, USA. 19Planetary Exploration Research Center, Chiba Geological Survey of Canada Calgary, 3303 33rd Street NW,
7
Earth System Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B- Institute of Technology, 2-17-1 Tsudanuma, Narashino, Chiba Calgary, AB T2L 2A7, Canada. 31Laboratorio de Paleomagnetismo
1050 Brussels, Belgium. 8Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and 275-0016, Japan. 20Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue y Paleoambientes, Programa Universitario de Perforaciones en
Astronomical Research, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907– Oceanos y Continentes, Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad
6AA, UK. 9Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College 2051, USA. 21Osservatorio Geologico di Coldigioco, 62021 Apiro Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), DF 04510 Mexico,
London, London SW7 2BP, UK. 10Institut für Planetologie, Uni- (MC), Italy. 22Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Mexico. 32Department of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Lund
versität Münster, D-48149 Münster, Germany. 11Department of Sciences, 156 Fitzpatrick Hall, University of Notre Dame, Notre University, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62 Lund, Sweden. 33Department
Lithospheric Research, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A- Dame, IN 46556, USA. 23SIO Geological Collections, 301 of Geology and Geophysics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
1090 Vienna, Austria. 12Tsunami Engineering Laboratory, Vaughan Hall, MS-0244, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La 99775, USA.
Disaster Control Research Center, Graduate School of Engineer- Jolla, CA 92093–0244, USA. 24Planetary Science Institute, 1700
ing, Tohoku University, 6-6-11-1106 Aoba, Aramaki, Sendai East Fort Lowell Road, Suite 106, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
980-8579, Japan. 13Programa de Geología de Exploracíon y 25
Department of Geology and Geophysics, School of Ocean and schulte@geol.uni-erlangen.de. The remaining authors
Explotacíon, Dirección de Investigación y Posgrado, Instituto Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, Manoa, contributed equally to this work.
1214 5 MARCH 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

REVIEW
K-Pg boundary sites, interca-
Period lated between two layers rich in
Age Fauna and Flora Geochemistry and mineralogy Deccan traps Chicxulub ejecta, suggests that the
(Ma) A B C D E F G Chicxulub impact caused a col-
lapse of the Yucatan carbonate
65 -
platform and triggered mass flows
- ? 10
Paleogene
and tsunamis in the Gulf of

- 25 Mexico and adjacent areas (Fig.
100 2 and figs. S3 to S8) (17, 18, 30).
-
200 Therefore, the K-Pg boundary
- clastic unit, up to 80 m thick
65.5 - ? 165 in places, was deposited in the
extremely brief period between
- 100
the arrival of coarse-grained
- 40
Cretaceous
10 spherules and the subsequent,

- longer-term deposition of the
150 finer-grained PGE- and Ni-rich
- ejecta phases (Fig. 2) (22).
25
1000 m
66 - 25 A contrasting hypothesis is

- 150 founded on the interpretation that
the clastic unit is a long-term dep-
? ositional sequence genetically
–1 0 1 2 20 40 60 80 0 0.5 1 1.5 Volume
δ13C (V-PDB) Calcite (wt%) Iridium (ppb) (x 10 3 km 3) unrelated to the Chicxulub impact
event (14, 31); lenslike spherule
deposits locally present below
Fig. 1. Stratigraphy and schematic record of biotic events across the K-Pg boundary correlated to the chemical and the clastic unit in Mexico would
mineralogical records of a core from the North Atlantic [Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 207] and the major eruptive then correlate to the base of the
units of the Deccan flood basalt province, India. Many (>60%) Cretaceous species experienced mass extinction at the uppermost Cretaceous planktic
boundary (A), whereas successive blooms of opportunistic species (B) and radiation of new species (C) occurred in the foraminiferal zone (14, 31). This
Early Paleogene. V-PDB indicates the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite; wt %, weight %; and ppb, parts per billion. The mass interpretation also proposes a
extinction coincides with a major perturbation of the global carbon cycle as indicated by a negative d13C anomaly (D), a latest Cretaceous age for the im-
major drop of carbonate sedimentation in the marine realm (E), and the enrichment of PGEs in Chicxulub ejecta deposits pact breccia found within the
(F) (25, 26). Composite stratigraphic column of the formations of the main Deccan Trap flood basalt province showing
Chicxulub crater with the impli-
their cumulative thickness and estimated basalt volumes (G) (15). Note that the exact stratigraphic onset and end of the
cation that all intermediate to
main Deccan flood basalt sequence and the precise position of the K-Pg boundary in the formations have yet to be
determined, as indicated by the question marks (16). However, the onset of the main eruption phase is ~400 to 600 distal K-Pg boundary sites lack
thousand years before the K-Pg boundary as is also shown by Os isotope data (38). the resolution and completeness
to firmly establish a correlation
to the Chicxulub impact event
S1) (17, 18). Accordingly, the K-Pg boundary bedding plane between the impact-ejecta-rich (14, 32). Additionally, the assertion that the
sites can be divided into four groups (Fig. 2 red clay layer and the underlying Cretaceous Chicxulub impact preceded the K-Pg mass
and table S1): (i) In very proximal settings up marls coincident with the abrupt mass extinc- extinction by ~300 thousand years predicts that
to 500 km from Chicxulub, impact deposits tion in the El Kef section, Tunisia, is also the PGE anomaly at the top of the clastic unit
are quite thick. Cores recovered close to the the officially defined base of the Paleogene resulted from a second large impact event (14).
crater rim inside the Chicxulub impact struc- (fig. S1) (27). This definition implies that the In this scenario, either the second impact event
ture include a >100-m-thick impact-breccia se- impact-generated sediments in the K-Pg bound- or the Deccan flood basalt eruptions caused the
quence, and 1-m- to >80-m-thick ejecta-rich ary interval stratigraphically belong to the K-Pg mass extinction (14).
deposits are present in the surrounding Central Paleogene (Fig. 2). However, sedimentological and petrological
American region [e.g., (19–21)]. (ii) In prox- The pattern of decreasing ejecta-layer thick- data suggest that the lenslike ejecta deposits
imal areas around the northwestern Gulf of ness with increasing distance from the impact in Mexico were generated by impact-related
Mexico from 500 to 1000 km from Chicxulub, crater is consistent with the Chicxulub impact as liquefaction and slumping, consistent with the
the K-Pg boundary is characterized by a series the unique source for the ejecta in the K-Pg single very-high-energy Chicxulub impact (figs.
of cm- to m-thick ejecta spherule-rich, clastic boundary event deposit (Figs. 2 and 3 and table S5 to S9) (23). A range of sedimentary struc-
event beds indicative of high-energy sediment S1). Additional support for this genetic link de- tures and the lack of evidence for ocean floor
transport, for example, by tsunamis and gravity rives from the distribution, composition, and colonization within the clastic unit in northeast-
flows (18, 22, 23). (iii) At intermediate distances depositional mode of the ejecta. First, the size ern Mexico indicate rapid deposition (figs. S6 to
from Chicxulub (~1000 to ~5000 km), the K-Pg and abundance of spherules and ballistically S8) (22, 23). Moreover, the presence of shallow-
boundary deposit consists of a 2- to 10-cm-thick ejected shocked quartz grains, which are resistant water benthic foraminifera in the clastic unit (33)
spherule layer topped by a 0.2- to 0.5-cm-thick to alteration, decrease with increasing distance contradicts a long-term depositional sequence
layer anomalously rich in PGEs with abun- from Chicxulub (18, 28). Second, the specific (14); if in situ, their presence requires un-
dant shocked minerals, granitic clasts, and Ni- composition [e.g., silicic spherules, shocked realistically rapid relative sea-level changes of
rich spinels (Fig. 3) (12, 24–26). (iv) In distal limestone, and dolomite and granitic clasts >500 m. Lastly, high-resolution planktic forami-
marine sections more than 5000 km from (Fig. 3 and figs. S2 to S4)] (29) and age dis- niferal analyses in the southern Mexican sections
Chicxulub, a reddish, 2- to 5-mm-thick clay tribution (table S2) of the ejecta match the suite demonstrate that the Chicxulub-linked clastic unit
layer rich in impact ejecta material is usually of Chicxulub target rocks. Lastly, the presence is biostratigraphically equivalent to the officially
present at the K-Pg boundary [e.g., (17)]. The of the high-energy clastic unit at proximal defined base of the Paleocene (i.e., the red clay
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 327 5 MARCH 2010 1215

REVIEW
layer) in the El Kef section, Tunisia (Fig. 2 and 300-thousand-year gap (14) nor a hiatus between suggest the Chicxulub impact had sufficient en-
fig. S1) (20). the Chicxulub impact and the K-Pg boundary. ergy to eject and distribute material around the
A pre–K-Pg boundary age for the Chicxulub globe (7), possibly enhanced by decomposition
event has also been argued on the basis of the What Were the Initial Consequences of the volatile-rich carbonate and sulfate sediments
sequence at a Brazos River site in Texas and of the Impact? (41). Near-surface target material was ejected bal-
from within the crater. If a 3-cm-thick clay layer Asteroid impact models [e.g., (40)] predict that an listically at velocities up to a few km/s as part of
interbedded in Upper Cretaceous shales at the impact large enough to generate the Chicxulub the ejecta curtain. This yielded the thick spherule
Brazos River site originated from the Chicxulub crater would induce earthquakes (magnitude > 11), layer at proximal sites and the basal spherule
impact, the impact occurred significantly before shelf collapse around the Yucatan platform, and layer at intermediate distance sites (Fig. 2) (41).
the K-Pg boundary (31). Yet, in this clay layer widespread tsunamis sweeping the coastal zones of Parts of the ejecta would be entrained within
there are no spherules or shocked minerals that the surrounding oceans (7). Moreover, models the impact plume: a complex mixture of hot air;
would provide evidence for an
impact origin, and its high san-
idine and quartz content sup-
ports a local volcanic origin A
similar to ash layers found below Denmark
Bulgaria
the K-Pg boundary in Mexico Western France
Japan Italy
and Haiti (table S3 and figs. 86
145 Interior Spain Kazakhstan
S10 to S12). Tunisia

198 62 India
Within the Chicxulub crater, GPC3 Caribbean
Gulf of
an ~50-cm-thick dolomitic sand- Mexico 207
stone unit between the impact Pacific Atlantic Indian
130 Ocean Ocean 159 Ocean
breccias and the lower Paleo-
cene postimpact crater infill has 122
72 208
been interpreted as undisturbed 91
sediments deposited immedi- 74
ately after the impact (fig. S13) New Zealand
114
(32). Rare uppermost Cretaceous
planktic foraminifera within this Seymour Island 113
unit were proposed as evidence

that the impact preceded the
K-Pg mass extinction (32). How- B Very proximal Proximal Intermediate Distal
ever, this sandstone unit is in Western Interior
Guayal, S Mexico El Mimbral, NE Mexico Agost, Spain
part cross-bedded, contains ejec-
ta clasts (fig. S14), and also in- 60 -
7- 4- 3-
cludes planktic foraminifera of
3-
Early Cretaceous age (figs. S14 6- 2-
2-
and S15) (34, 35). These obser- 50 -
K-Pg boundary event deposit
5- High- 1- 1-
vations, as well as grain-size data energy
Paleogene
(36), indicate that deposition of 4- clastic 0 - 0-

40 - Graded unit (cm) (cm)
this sequence was influenced by clastic 3-
erosion and reworking after the unit
(mass 2-
impact and therefore provide no 30 -
flows)
evidence for a long-term post- 1-
impact and pre–K-Pg boundary 0-
deposition. 20 - (m)
In addition, multiple indepen-
dent lines of evidence place the
10 -
Chicxulub event at the K-Pg
Creta-
ceous
boundary. Geochronologic data Breccia Lignite Ni-rich spinels

demonstrate that the Chicxulub 0- Marl Clastic unit Ejecta spherules
impact correlates to the K-Pg (m)
Red boundary clay Ripples Igneous clasts
boundary at ~65.5 Ma (29). De-
Sandstone Slumps Bioturbation
tailed investigation of continuous
sequences from globally distrib- Clay Shocked Accretionary lapilli
minerals
uted marine and terrestrial sites Limestone Iridium
yield no chemical or physical evi-
dence of a large impact in the
last million years of the Creta- Fig. 2. (A) Global distribution of key K-Pg boundary locations. Deep-Sea drill sites are referred to by the cor-
ceous other than the Chicxulub responding Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and ODP Leg numbers. The asterisk indicates the location of the Chicxulub
event (table S1 and fig. S16) impact structure. Colored dots mark the four distinct types of K-Pg boundary event deposit related to distance from the
(25, 37, 38). Lastly, orbital cycles Chicxulub crater (table S1): magenta, very proximal (up to 500 km); red, proximal (up to 1000 km); orange,
in deep-sea sites [(39) and ref- intermediate distance (1000 to 5000 km); and yellow, distal (>5000 km). Schematic lithologs of the four groups of K-Pg
erences therein] demonstrate that boundary event deposits (B) highlighting high-energy event beds (clastic unit) proximal to the crater and the
there is neither a proposed global depositional sequence of different materials that originated in one single impact in proximal to distal sites.

REVIEW
A B C
1259C Core 8R-3
90 to 106 cm Ca-Kα Mg-K CC
Si-K Fe-Kα
Paleogene
DO
CC
K-Pg boundary
event deposit
Cretaceous
AC

SP
SP
SP
SP
SP Q
1 cm 100 µm 10 µm
Fig. 3. The K-Pg boundary at ODP Leg 207, western North Atlantic (A). shocked quartz grains (red) in the uppermost 0.5 mm. A backscattered
An energy-dispersive element distribution map of the box in (A) shows electron image of the box in (B) shows a rounded dolomite clast (DO)
the transition from the top of the spherule-rich graded ejecta sequence with a Ca-rich clay shell (between arrows), a rounded calcite clast (CC), an
(SP) to the lowermost Paleogene sediments (B). Note abundant calcite accretionary calcite clast (AC), and quartz (Q) interpreted to be of shock-
(blue) and dolomite (turquoise) ejecta material as well as occurrence of metamorphic origin resulting from the Chicxulub impact (C).
projectile material; and impact-vaporized, shock- However, abundant sub-micrometer-sized partic- adverse effects of a large impact (e.g., heat wave,
melted, and fragmented target rocks that expanded ulate carbonates in the ejecta (26) and soot, a soot, and dust release) that are absent during flood
rapidly by several km/s up to velocities greater strong absorber of short-wave radiation, derived basalt volcanism. Specifically, the injection of ~100
than Earth’s escape velocity of 11 km/s. Projectile- from burning of targeted carbonaceous sediments to 500 Gt of sulfur into the atmosphere within
rich impact plume deposits form the upper layer may have greatly amplified the effects of dust minutes after the Chicxulub impact contrasts with
in intermediate-distance K-Pg sections and con- injection (43). In addition, there are estimates of at volcanic injection rates of 0.05 to 0.5 Gt of sulfur per
tribute to the single red K-Pg boundary clay layer least 100 to 500 Gt of sulfur released nearly year during the ~1-million-year-long main phase of
at distal sites, enriching both in PGEs and shocked instantaneously (7, 8). These figures are likely to Deccan flood basalt volcanism (Fig. 1 and fig. S16)
minerals (Fig. 2). be conservative given new larger estimates of the (15, 16). Indeed, an only moderate climate change
Detailed multiphase flow models suggest volume of water and sulfur-bearing sediments (~2°C warming) during the last 400 thousand years
that the atmospheric reentry of the ejecta within Chicxulub’s 100-km-diameter transient cra- of the Cretaceous has been interpreted to result
spherules may have caused a global pulse of ter (45). The sulfur was probably rapidly trans- from Deccan flood basalt volcanism [e.g., (47)].
increased thermal radiation at the ground (42). formed to sunlight-absorbing sulfur aerosols with
Such a thermal pulse is below the lower limits the capacity to cool Earth’s surface for years to What Does the Fossil Record Reveal About
of woody biomass ignition, in agreement with decades by up to 10°C (8, 10). Temperatures of the the Global Consequences for Life?
studies yielding no evidence for widespread deep ocean, however, remained largely unaffected The scale of biological turnover between the Cre-
large wildfires at the K-Pg boundary (43), with a by the impact because of the ocean’s large thermal taceous and Paleogene is nearly unprecedented in
possible exception for the Gulf of Mexico region mass (46), contributing to a rapid recovery of the Earth history (1). A number of major animal groups
close to the impact site [(9) and references global climate. The sulfur release also generated disappeared across the boundary (e.g., the nonavian
therein]. However, the modeled level of radiation acid rain, which, although not sufficient to com- dinosaurs, marine and flying reptiles, ammonites,
is expected to have resulted in thermal damage to pletely acidify ocean basins, would have severely and rudists) (48), and several other major groups
the biosphere even if the maximum radiation affected marine surface waters and/or poorly buf- suffered considerable, but not complete, species-
intensity was only sustained for a few minutes. fered continental catchments and watersheds (9). level extinction (e.g., planktic foraminifera, calcar-
Geophysical models indicate that the impact Although current models cannot fully assess the eous nannofossils, land plants) (12, 13, 37, 49).
release of large quantities of water, dust, and combined environmental consequences of the Even the groups that showed negligible extinc-
climate-forcing gases would dramatically alter the Chicxulub impact (7, 9), the extremely rapid injections exhibited substantial changes in assemblage
climate system (7, 8). The estimated amount of the tion rate of dust and climate-forcing gases would composition (e.g., benthic foraminifera) (50).
silicic sub-micrometer-sized dust input of 0.01 to have magnified the environmental consequences For marine phytoplankton, major drivers
0.1 Gt (1 Gt = 1015g) is considered to be too low compared with more-prolonged volcanic eruptions, of ocean productivity, darkness, and suppres-
by itself to cause a catastrophic impact winter (44). particularly when compounded by the additional sion of photosynthesis were likely major killing
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 327 5 MARCH 2010 1217

REVIEW
mechanisms (9). There is a clear separation in species blooms and the evolutionary radiation of 24. R. D. Norris, B. T. Huber, B. T. Self-Trail, Geology 27, 419
extinction rate between strongly affected phyto- new taxa started consistently after the K-Pg bound- (1999).
25. K. G. MacLeod, D. L. Whitney, B. T. Huber, C. Koeberl,
plankton groups with calcareous shells and groups ary mass extinction (Fig. 1 and fig. S17) (49, 55). Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119, 101 (2007).
that had organic or siliceous shells. Although the 26. P. Schulte et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73, 1180 (2009).
possible effects of surface ocean acidification after What Do We Need to Look at Next? 27. E. Molina et al., Episodes 29, 263 (2006).
the impact may have been an additional stress The correlation between impact-derived ejecta and 28. J. V. Morgan et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 264 (2006).
29. Materials and methods are available as supporting
factor, this selectivity seems to have favored traits paleontologically defined extinctions at multiple material on Science Online.
contributing to survival of acute stress (11, 13). locations around the globe leads us to conclude that 30. T. J. Bralower, C. K. Paull, R. M. Leckie, Geology 26, 331
For example, cyst-forming dinoflagellates per- the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction (1998).
sisted through the K-Pg boundary, although as- that marks the boundary between the Mesozoic 31. G. Keller et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339 (2007).
32. G. Keller et al., Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 1127 (2004).
semblage changes suggest a brief cooling phase and Cenozoic eras ~65.5 million years ago. This 33. L. Alegret, E. Molina, E. Thomas, Geology 29, 891 (2001).
after the impact [(51) and references therein]. conclusion is reinforced by the agreement of 34. J. A. Arz, L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39,
The extinction of calcareous primary producers ecological extinction patterns with modeled 1099 (2004).
must have caused major starvation higher up in the environmental perturbations. Although the relative 35. J. Smit, S. V. D. Gaast, W. Lustenhouwer, Meteorit. Planet.
Sci. 39, 1113 (2004).
food chain. This would explain the extinctions of importance of the different impact-induced
36. T. J. Bralower et al., Geology, in press.
animals relying on plankton as their food source, environmental effects on the K-Pg mass extinction 37. D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Plants and the K-T Boundary
the survival of organisms living in detritus-based is still under scrutiny, alternative multi-impact or (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008), p. 280.
food chains, and the dwarfing in evolutionary volcanic hypotheses fail to explain the geographic 38. N. Robinson, G. Ravizza, R. Coccioni, B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink,
lineages observed in marine biota after the K-Pg and stratigraphic distribution of ejecta and its R. D. Norris, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 281, 159 (2009).

39. T. Westerhold et al., Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
boundary (9, 52, 53). The abrupt drop in plankton composition, the timing of the mass extinction, Palaeoecol. 257, 377 (2008).
productivity was apparently short-lived as shown and the scale of environmental changes required to 40. B. Ivanov, Sol. Syst. Res. 39, 381 (2005).
by marine biomarker data (54). The negative shift cause it. Future geophysical, geological, and 41. N. Artemieva, J. Morgan, Icarus 201, 768 (2009).
of the stable carbon isotopic value (d13C) (Fig. 1) drilling studies of the Chicxulub structure will 42. T. J. Goldin, H. J. Melosh, Geology 37, 1135 (2009).
43. M. C. Harvey, S. C. Brassell, C. M. Belcher, A. Montanari,
and the surface to deep water d13C gradient collapse further constrain the impact process and the Geology 36, 355 (2008).
is indicative of a major disruption to marine amount and nature of environment-altering gases 44. K. O. Pope, Geology 30, 99 (2002).
productivity and the ocean’s biological pump (11). generated by this so far unparalleled combination 45. S. P. S. Gulick et al., Nat. Geosci. 1, 131 (2008).
However, the large magnitude of the d13C anomaly of a large impact into ~3- to 4-km-thick carbonate- 46. T. Luder, W. Benz, T. F. Stocker, J. Geophys. Res. 108,
(E7), 5074 (2003).
suggests that the release of methane, input of soot, and sulfate-rich target rocks. Research focused on 47. P. Wilf, K. R. Johnson, B. T. Huber, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
or the dependency of the isotopic signal on the high-resolution studies of the ejected material, U.S.A. 100, 599 (2003).
metabolism of different species may have con- integrated climate models, and detailed study of 48. D. E. Fastovsky, P. M. Sheehan, GSA Today 15, 4 (2005).
tributed to the anomaly (50). related fossil successions will help reveal the 49. I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, E. Molina, C. Dupuis,
Micropaleontology 46, 31 (2000).
On land, the loss of the diverse vegetation and physical and biological mechanisms of the K-Pg
50. E. Thomas, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 424, 1 (2007).
the onset of the fern-spore spike following the mass extinction and may also aid in understand- 51. P. S. Willumsen, Cretaceous Res. 27, 954 (2006).
K-Pg boundary indicates instantaneous (days to ing other mass extinction events in Earth history. 52. P. M. Sheehan, P. J. Coorough, D. E. Fastovsky, Spec. Pap.
months) destruction of diverse forest communities Geol. Soc. Am. 307, 477 (1996).
coincident with deposition of ejecta from the References and Notes 53. M. Aberhan, S. Weidemeyer, W. Kiessling, R. A. Scasso,
1. J. Alroy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (suppl. 1), F. A. Medina, Geology 35, 227 (2007).
Chicxulub impact (fig. S17) (12, 37, 55). A 54. J. Sepúlveda, J. E. Wendler, R. E. Summons, K.-U. Hinrichs,
11536 (2008).
shutdown of photosynthesis because of low light 2. L. W. Alvarez, W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, Science Science 326, 129 (2009).
levels is also indicated by high abundances of 208, 1095 (1980). 55. V. Vajda, J. I. Raine, C. J. Hollis, Science 294, 1700 (2001).
fungal spores in a thin layer of sediment preceding 3. J. Smit, J. Hertogen, Nature 285, 198 (1980). 56. V. Vajda, S. McLoughlin, Science 303, 1489 (2004).
4. A. Montanari et al., Geology 11, 668 (1983). 57. C. R. C. Paul, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.
the recovery succession of ferns at a New 224, 291 (2005).
5. B. F. Bohor, Tectonophysics 171, 359 (1990).
Zealand K-Pg boundary site (56). Analogous to 6. A. R. Hildebrand et al., Geology 19, 867 (1991). 58. D.J.N. passed away during the final revision of this paper.
the marine environment, the abrupt elimination 7. O. B. Toon, K. Zahnle, D. Morrison, R. P. Turco, C. Covey, His more than 30 years of work on the Cretaceous-
of the forest communities may have had simi- Rev. Geophys. 35, 41 (1997). Paleogene boundary influenced the data, ideas, and
8. E. Pierazzo, A. N. Hahmann, L. C. Sloan, Astrobiology 3, thesis of this paper. This research used samples and
larly catastrophic effects on animals relying on photos provided by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)
99 (2003).
primary producers (e.g., the herbivorous dino- 9. D. A. Kring, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. and the International Continental Scientific Drilling
saurs), whereas detritus-based food chains (e.g., 255, 4 (2007). Program (ICDP) and was funded by the Deutsche
in lakes) were apparently less affected (52). 10. K. O. Pope, K. H. Baines, A. C. Ocampo, B. A. Ivanov, Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Austrian Science
J. Geophys. Res. 102, (E9), 21645 (1997). Foundation (FWF), Danish Carlsberg Foundation,
Faunal and floral changes during the Late Cre- European Social Fund, Research Foundation Flanders,
11. S. D'Hondt, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 295 (2005).
taceous do occur [e.g., (12, 47)] but are clearly 12. A. R. Sweet, D. R. Braman, Can. J. Earth Sci. 38, 249 (2001). Mexican Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, NASA,
distinguishable from the abrupt mass extinction and 13. P. Bown, Geology 33, 653 (2005). Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Joint
ecosystem disruption coincident with the K-Pg 14. G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, D. Stüben, Earth Sci. Oceanographic Institutions, K.U.Leuven Research Fund,
Rev. 62, 327 (2003). UK Natural Environment Research Council, NSF, the
boundary, as indicated by high-resolution records of
15. S. Self, M. Widdowson, T. Thordarson, A. E. Jay, Earth Swedish Research Council (VR) and the Royal Swedish
marine planktonic microfossils and terrestrial pollen Academy of Sciences through the Knut and Alice
Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 518 (2006).
and spores (12, 13, 25, 37, 55, 57). Productivity 16. A.-L. Chenet et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, (B6), B06103 (2009). Wallenberg Foundation, and the Spanish Ministerio de
proxies (e.g., carbonate content) linked to orbitally 17. J. Smit, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 75 (1999). Ciencia e Innovación. We are grateful to E. Thomas and
tuned stratigraphic time scales provide no evidence 18. P. Claeys, W. Kiessling, W. Alvarez, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and thank
Am. 356, 55 (2002). G. Izett for providing support and photos.
for major changes preceding the boundary (39).
19. J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi, L. E. Marín, A. Trejo-Garcia,
Claims of gradual or stepwise extinctions during Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1565 (1996). Supporting Online Material
the Late Cretaceous culminating in the K-Pg mass 20. I. Arenillas et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 249, 241 (2006). www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1
Materials and Methods
extinction (14) and survivorship through the K-Pg 21. K. Goto et al., Cretaceous Res. 29, 217 (2008).
SOM Text
boundary may be explained by short-term survival 22. J. Smit, W. Alvarez, A. Montanari, P. Claeys,
J. M. Grajales-Nishimura, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. Figs. S1 to S17
with greatly reduced population sizes, sampling 307, 151 (1996). Tables S1 to S3
artifacts, or reworking of Cretaceous fossils [e.g., 23. P. Schulte, A. Kontny, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 384, References
(57)]. In addition, the global onset of opportunistic 191 (2005). 10.1126/science.1177265

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5970/1214/DC1
Supporting Online Material for
The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-

Paleogene Boundary
Peter Schulte,* Laia Alegret, Ignacio Arenillas, Jose A. Arz, Penny J. Barton, Paul R.
Bown, Timothy J. Bralower, Gail L. Christeson, Philippe Claeys, Charles S. Cockell,
Gareth S. Collins, Alexander Deutsch, Tamara J. Goldin, Kazuhisa Goto, José M.
Grajales-Nishimura, Richard A. F. Grieve, Sean P. S. Gulick, Kirk R. Johnson, Wolfgang
Kiessling, Christian Koeberl, David A. Kring, Kenneth G. MacLeod, Takafumi Matsui,
Jay Melosh, Alessandro Montanari, Joanna V. Morgan, Clive R. Neal, Douglas J.
Nichols, Richard D. Norris, Elisabetta Pierazzo, Greg Ravizza, Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra,
Wolf Uwe Reimold, Eric Robin, Tobias Salge, Robert P. Speijer, Arthur R. Sweet, Jaime
Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Vivi Vajda, Michael T. Whalen, Pi S. Willumsen
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: schulte@geol.uni-erlangen.de
Published 5 March 2010, Science 327, 1214 (2010)

DOI: 10.1126/science.1177265
This PDF file includes:

SOM Text
Figs. S1 to S17
Tables S1 to S3
References
Supporting Online Material: Chicxulub impact and mass extinction at the K-Pg boundary
1. Mineralogy – The mineral composition of samples from the Ocean Drilling Project (ODP)
Leg 207 Site 1259C and the Brazos River Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) sections was
determined at the University of Erlangen on wet powdered samples (grain size <10 !m
obtained with a McCrone Micromill) (S1) with a Siemens D5000 X-ray diffractometer.
Powdered samples were scanned from 5° to 85° 2! with steps of 0.2° and a scanning time
of 4 seconds. Spectra were evaluated by the quantitative Rietveld analysis with the BGMN
Version 4.1.1 software (www.bgmn.de). The analytical error is <3% relative. Within BGMN,
we used corrections for tube tails, sample zero point and sample eccentricity. The
background was reduced to a 5-fold polynome to accommodate disordered phases. In
addition, only the range between 10 and 65° 2! was fitted with BGMN to avoid problems in
the high-angle range. The total number of parameters was 102-148, depending on automatic
reducing the order of preferred orientation correction in cases of low phase content.
2. Stable isotopes – Samples from the K-Pg transition in the ODP Leg 207 Site 1259C were
disintegrated in deionized water using a small amount of H2O2 then washed over a 63 µm
sieve. Subsequently, the fine fraction (<63 !m) was separated and powdered. The fine
fraction powder reacted with 100% phosphoric acid at 75°C using a Kiel III online carbonate
preparation line connected to a ThermoFinnigan 252 mass spectrometer at the University of
Erlangen (Germany). All values are reported in ‰ relative to VPDB by assigning a "13C value
of +1.95 ‰ and a "18O value of –2.20 ‰ to NBS19. Reproducibility was determined by
replicate analysis of laboratory standards and is better than ±0.05 and 0.06 ‰ (1") for "13C
and "18O, respectively.
3. Electron microprobe: Wavelength-dispersive (WDS) and energy-dispersive (EDS)

electron microprobe (EMP) analyses, as well as back-scattered electron (BSE) images of
ejecta components were performed with the JEOL JXA-8200 Superprobe (GeoZentrum
Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen), equipped with four WDS spectrometers, an EDS system
and an electron backscatter detector. In addition, at BRUKER AXS Microanalysis GmbH,
Berlin, fast high-resolution element scans were conducted with a JEOL JSM-6490LV electron
microscope equipped with a Quantax EDS system including a liquid nitrogen free XFlash
4010 and 4030 EDS silicon drift detector (SDD) and the Esprit 1.8 software using 15 kV
acceleration voltage, counting rates between 100 and 220 kcps, and integration times of 10–
20 min for a mapping resolution of 1600 x1200 pixel.
Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 2

Supporting Text, Tables and Figures
Definition of the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary
The base of the Danian Stage, i.e. Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg; formerly K-T) boundary
was formally delineated by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) at the base of
the dark clay bed commonly called the “K-Pg boundary clay” in the Cretaceous-Paleogene
Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) at El Kef, Tunisia (S2). It is an
undisturbed and continuos K-Pg boundary section and shows the coincidence of the mass
extinction of marine plankton (calcareous nannofossils and planktonic foraminifera),
ecological disruption at the sea floor (benthic foraminifera), drop in carbonate content, and
perturbation of the global carbon cycle at the impact level [Fig. S1, (S2)]. This impact level,
which we correlate to the Chicxulub impact, is present at base of the boundary clay and is
characterized by a millimeter thick red clay layer that includes an Ir anomaly, ejecta
spherules, and Ni-rich spinel (S2). There is no evidence for major extinctions or trends
indicating ecological stress such as temperature change foreshadowing the K-Pg event in
this section (S3-S5). Meanwhile, several auxiliary K-Pg boundary sections have been
proposed and correlated to the El Kef section, including the Aïn Settera and Ellès sections
(Tunisia), the Caravaca and Zumaya sections (Spain), the Bidart section (France), and the El
Mulato and Bochil sections (Mexico) (S6).
Chicxulub impact ejecta at the K-Pg boundary
The petrography, composition, and age of ejecta material present in K-Pg boundary sites
match the suite of target rocks within the Chicxulub crater. These target rocks include granitic
to gneissic basement of Pan-African or older age, and Jurassic-Cretaceous carbonates,
black shales, and evaporites (e.g., S7-S9).
(i) Shocked zircons from the ejecta deposits in Beloc, Haiti, and the K-Pg boundary event
deposit in several sites in North America yield common U-Pb ages of 545±5 million years ago
(Ma), in agreement with the Pan-African basement ages reported from crystalline clasts in
breccias from the Chicxulub crater (Table S2) (S10).
(ii) Relict glass particles and vesicular ejecta spherules with a composition similar to
Chicxulub melt rocks and unshocked feldspar and gneiss fragments that match the granitic to
gneissic basement of Chicxulub are present in the event deposit at several intermediate
distance and distal K-Pg boundary sites (Fig. S3) (S11-S16).

(iii) Accretionary calcite and dolomite clasts showing evidence of strong thermal
metamorphism and fragments of shallow water limestone and dolomite are present in the
event deposit at several proximal to intermediate distance K-Pg boundary sites, e.g., from all
K-Pg sites in northeastern Mexico, from Brazos, Texas (S17), Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)
Site 171, northwestern Atlantic (S12), ODP Leg 174AX, northwestern Atlantic (S17), ODP
Site 207, tropical western North Atlantic (Fig. 3 and Figs. S3 to S5) (S16). The presence of
textures indicative of shock-metamorphism and thermal alteration in these carbonate clasts
suggest that they were ejected by the Chicxulub impact.
(iv) High concentrations of carbon cenospheres and soot in the red K-Pg boundary clay from
several sites in North America, Denmark, and New Zealand are interpreted to derive from
incomplete combustion of coal or petroleum droplets, probably from Jurassic-Cretaceous
black shales in the Yucatán carbonate platform close to Chicxulub (S18, S19).
(v) Kuiper et al. (S20) used a combination of orbital chronology and geochronology to arrive
at a new estimate for the absolute age of the K-Pg boundary of ~65.95 million years ago.
These authors provided also an assessment of geochronologic data constraining the ages of
the Chicxulub impact crater and spherules from proximal to intermediate K-Pg boundary
sections (see Table 1 in S20). Kuiper et al. (S20) concluded that there is no indication that
the age of the Chicxulub impact melt lithologies predate the K-Pg boundary by 300 thousand
years and indicated that rather the available ages of Chicxulub melt rocks and the shocked
minerals and ejecta spherules from the K-Pg boundary in Northern America are
indistinguishable within an uncertainty of <100 thousand years.
(vi) Alvarez et al. (S21) report a one million year-long iridium record from Gubbio, Italy,
demonstrating that this well documented pelagic sequence contains no evidence of multiple
Ir anomalies. This result was recently confirmed by additional high resolution iridium data
from a nearby section and two additional ocean drilling sites complemented by associated
Os isotope data (S22) (see also Fig. S16 for a partial reproduction of the Os isotope data).

?#/*#"'/*8$( !"#$%&%'( )*+ b,-) ;+) ./"0"12 3"4/"5$678"9:&

%&'() %-./0123) %&'() %**+) %,)
%:)
0
9.0
17"
0
4.0
<*&:%':9:
=*9"*9
0
>17
5.0
0
6.0
1_
0
7.0
0
18
8.0
0
07.0
>**7#/"5$#"*9
)/:#*5:%17
0
;;6=+
06.0
;<7
0
05.0
0
04.0
!"#$ ?@"$A 8 68 48 =8 06 07 8 7 8 6 4 8 78 68 8 98 788 798

3CD'E#+"'CD, ;$"B
Figure S1. Integrated stratigraphy and geochemistry across the K-Pg boundary in the
El Kef GSSP section (#13C data derived from bulk rock analysis; data compiled from S2, S5,
S23, S24).

! "
# $
Figure S2: Backscattered-electron (BSE) images of typical ejecta spherules from the
K-Pg event deposit. (A) and (B) Rounded and vesicular spherules from the Shell Creek
site, Alabama (see S25 for locality and lithology) that consist of a smectite shell and a calcite
infilling. Note welding of two spherules in (B). (C) A dumbell-shaped spherule from the La
Popa Basin, Mexico (sample from the base of section E4 in S26). The bright gray
appearance of the spherule results from the high Fe- and Mg-contents that is a typical
feature of the spherules in northeastern Mexico (S27). (C) Two smectite spherules from the
ODP Leg 207, Demerara Rise, western tropical North Atlantic. Difference in grey tones result
from different smectite compositions with the spherule to the right showing significant higher
Fe- and Mg-contents than the spherule to the left. Note also presence of smectite
pseudomorphs after lath-shaped crystals which represent a primary feature that reflects rapid
cooling from a melt (S16).

! "
# $
!"#$% '(
% &
#+ )*
Figure S3: Accretionary carbonate clasts from the K-Pg event deposit. (A) and (B) BSE
images of typical carbonate clasts from the Shell Creek site, Alabama which are similar to the
carbonate clasts described from the Brazos site, Texas (S17). (C) to (F) BSE image and
energy-dispersive (EDS) elemental maps from two accretionary carbonate clasts from the
topmost 0.5 mm of the event deposit in ODP Leg 207, Demerara Rise, West Atlantic (see
also Fig. 3). Note slight enrichment of Mg in the left clast. Spectrum from black to blue,
green, and red corresponds to increasing element abundance.

! "
!""#$% %&
# $
#) '(
Figure S4: BSE image and EDS elemental maps showing the topmost 0.5 mm of the
event deposit in ODP Leg 207, Demerara Rise, tropical western North Atlantic. Note
complex composition of the event bed with various types of accretionary carbonate clasts,
dolomite clasts, large lithic, quartz grains, and a large lithic clast in the lower part consisting
of feldspar, mica, and quartz. This grain is 200 x 350 !m in size and probably a gneiss clast
(S16). For additional details see Fig. 3.

BC *+,-./)
6) +"#$
=.C) CF CD
DE
6./!*)&.-+/
($%)*$ $.-5+((+, 63"#$
*)-4:.!DA+E.
FC
>//&#:& (&#&%$/
8(
<&%=# "#!@.(. ;)-5)!*./+
.- "#!@+4.#.5+
+9#:&;
5!. +,#-&.,%&/,' 7$81&%*$'
BC "#!=+>?-
6)!;%+((%5)
9!5
!"#$%&' 01%2,'
"#!$A#)5.
:+
3+-)1.
"#!B-1%.
!;
4$#5@,A&%-, 4$#56$%/,'
4"&%%$5:&
%+
4$#56$%/,'
!$56,.$
((
)!
$)
1(
!$5?'),#:":$
+!
<(
4"&%%$5:&
<$.$1/"O$'
%+
012!3%45.(%)
-5
GE
+$-&31$/$
)#
6)!6)7%##)
H BC
E IC CE5J.
!"#!$%&'()#
KLM25-%$#'"-",#5N"-35)/$'-")51#"-
Figure S5: Overview map of the K-Pg boundary sections in NE Mexico. Note that
slumped, lens-like ejecta deposits within upper Maastrichtian marls have only been reported
from two outcrops (La Sierrita and El Peñón) (S28, S29).

K<=?4$L$(&47$/'%"&4I50-%&"54*("&J4-(74M$0-%5'4:#N :'+#-&N
"015(
I#J O$/&2
#1&'*:1 61+27*&83(9* $%&>*/* #1&"<(//<01 $%&'()*+ #1<%%1 $%&?<@A/1%
<
A4<
< !&, !&,
!&,
@4<
!&,
<
'1%(*5(+(
B4<
<
!&= !&,
C4<
.%140<2&3+<0
!&=
< !&=
!&=
D4< !&=
< !&,
6!!
E4< 6!!
!&- !&=
< !&- 6!! !&- 6!!
!&- !&-
F4< !&-
./(012(*34
3P(7$Q4:#N
<
G4<
<
H4<
6-(7%&'($ :'+-#"(";$+-< 6"0&%&'($ 3-+0 62-0$ !"#$%&'($ !-#"(-&"'( 3-+0450-%&%

%-(7%&'($
1%2 ."//0$% W*##'5R9% >+-7"(? )"'&*+,-&"'( 60*#/%U40"V*$;-5&"'( 62$0042-%2 !48450-%&"54*("&%
=0-(&4+$#-"(% 6/2$+*0$% !-/"00" 62'5R$74#"($+-0% S"<+"524%/"($0 T+"7"*# "##4846-(7940"#$%&'($40-9$+
Figure S6: Schematic lithological columns of the clastic unit in NE Mexico. This
transect spans the northernmost K-Pg boundary sections outcrops in the La Popa Basin up
to the El Mimbral outcrop. Note similarity of the depositional sequence across a distance of
300 km (compiled from S26, S27, and S30). The sedimentary sequence in the La Popa basin
is distinct as this is a inner neritic setting, compared to the bathyal settings of all other K-Pg
sites in NE Mexico. Ir abundance schematically drawn after Smit et al. (S30) for the El
Mimbral sections, and after Lindenmaier et al. (S31) for the La Lajilla sections. Ni-rich spinel
data are from Rocchia et al. (S24).

! "
# $
% &
' (
Figure S7: (caption on next page)

Figure S7 (page 11): Outcrop photos of the clastic unit and the disturbed Chicxulub
ejecta deposit in the La Sierrita area (for additional details see S28, S29). (A) Succession
of hills showing from right to left the Loma and the two Loma Cerca hills with the K-Pg clastic
unit on top. (B) View on the Northern Loma Cerca showing the excellent exposures of the
upper Maastrichtian marls along the flanks of the hills. No evidence for multiple laterally
continuos “layers” of ejecta spherules is present. (C) Clastic deposit on top of the Loma
Cerca. (D to G) Large “blobs” of slump folds and marl-spherule mixtures that are irregularly
exposed for a few centimeters to several meters along the south-western flank of the Loma
Cerca indicating pervasive soft-sediment deformation. (H) Thin red siltstone layers that are
intercalated within the upper Maastrichtian marls below the spherule deposit. Their strike and
dip (125°/40°) is clearly different from the nearly horizontally-lying clastic unit and indicates
remobilization of upper Maastrichtian Méndez marls before deposition of the clastic unit.
Hammer for scale (30 cm), top of hammer shows upsection.

! "
# $
% &
' (
Figure S8 (caption on next page).

Figure S8 (page 13): Outcrop photos of the clastic unit and the disturbed ejecta
deposit in the El Peñón area. (A) Clastic deposit in the main quarry section. Note different
dip directions of the lower part compared to the upper part of the section; hammer marks the
base of the clastic deposit. (B) Detail of the basal part of the clastic deposit showing the
spherule layer intercalated by a 10 cm-thick calcareous sandstone layer. (C) Detail of the
calcareous sandstone showing large rip-up clasts at the base and faint lamination in the
upper part. (D) The famous single J-shaped structure in the calcareous sandstone layer that
was interpreted by Keller et al. (S32) as a burrow and as evidence for long-term deposition.
However, besides this single structure at El Peñón, no evidence for bioturbation was
observed in the up to 10 m thick, massive sands of the clastic unit in the outcrops of the La
Popa, Rancho Nuevo, La Sierrita, El Mulato, La Lajilla, El Mimbral, or La Ceiba area (Figs.
S6 to S8) (S27, S30, S33). Obviously, the presence of tracemakers is an extremely rare
phenomenon in the northeastern Mexican clastic unit and confined to the top of the clastic
unit. (E) Base of the spherule deposit with intercalated 3-cm thick layer of accretionary calcite
spherules. (F and G) Slumped spherule deposit with large marl clasts about 200 m to the
southeast of the main quarry outcrop showing doubling of spherule layer and mixing with
upper Maastrichtian marls. (H) About 400 m from the main quarry outcrop to the southeast,
the spherule deposit is again overlain by sandstone from the clastic unit (additional details in
S27).

! #
"
!"##
$ &
!"##
Figure S9 (caption on next page).

Figure S9 (page 15): Outcrop and corresponding thin-section photos of the basal
ejecta bed of the clastic unit in northeastern Mexico. (A) Spherule deposit at El Mimbral
at meter-mark 6. Note through-like wavy upper surface of the Méndez marls and presence of
thin bentonite layer (at top of the hammer) below the laminated spherule bed similar to yellow
clay layer the Cottonmouth Creek, Brazos (see Fig. S11). (B) Graded and laminated
spherule deposit at El Mimbral. Note coarse, cm-sized ejecta (spherules and carbonate
clasts), as well as marl clasts at the base. (C) Photomicrograph showing abundant
spherules, limestone clasts, and blocky carbonate. (D) Spherule deposit at the Mesa Juan
Perez 1A section showing alternating layers of weathered marl and spherule layers under-
and overlying the indurated calcareous spherule layer. (F) Close-up of the laminated
spherule layers showing alternating white layers of carbonaceous and spherule-rich ejecta.
(G) Photomicrograph showing ejecta spherules, carbonate clasts, and minor fine-grained
terrigeneous debris (e.g., quartz, feldspar). The presence of delicate petrographical
structures, the compositional complexity of the deposit, and the absence of abrasion features
or sorting suggests that this is a primary deposit with only minor transport at the seafloor.

92%."$E 5%"62#7
F"))2E
+%&,&-. 92%".&)&:0%" !233-#4#
92%".E
b?@A7"),7b?BC /010),
*4+ *08$(
D$"10
2-$'%28# H-11<02)95)2=D ?9==9.)23F)G2..9.2 ?9==9. C23/93)95)2=D

605<-=-7> *%@@(+ *%@@"+ *%@A@2B):+ *%@AEB)%@@;+
&
OP503150-3)-Q X31.92/9F)
#.95219-R/ /I9109/).01<39//) [<2=9
!%_
I=23S501
,!%
605507)894:9.
;)& Q-.24030Q9.2 X4I-W9.0/<9F)

Q2R32)Y05<)'") 82.=
TUV
/I9109/
*")&")
[23F
&
+,-)&#-.
!"
KJ \9==-Y)1=2>)=2>9.
')& 2=4-/5):2..93
CR44-1S>/
;<=170>0)$
,082#&$ & 3-).91-W9.> [<2=9)1=2/5/
K( 'J)/I9109/)03)
##'()*!"#$%&'($)$*+
[<9==)<2/<
#-./01232)$-.4250-3
!""#$%&'($&")
%)& =2/5)"D()4B)
031.92/9)03)
->/59./ G0-5R.:250-3
#$%&'
&
b%AZ [I<9.R=9/
K;)/I9109/
b%;#
62I0==0
" "DJ % %DJ &J &K &; &' &% " %
*II:+ *L)M!NG+
Figure S10: The K-Pg boundary in the Cottonmouth Creek, Brazos. A similar iridium
distribution has been reported by Hansen et al. (S34) and Heyman et al. (S35).

! "
%&'$
%&'#
%&'"
# $
(#)
)*
#+
Figure S11: The K-Pg boundary at Brazos, Texas. (A) Overview of the K-Pg boundary
interval at the Cottonmouth Creek, Brazos. (B) The upper Maastrichtian yellow clay layer
was considered by Keller et al. (S36) as original Chicxulub ejecta. Our petrographical and
mineralogical analysis – showing high quartz and sanidine contents – clearly contrasts with
data for the Chicxulub ejecta layer (Table S3 and Fig. S12) and strongly indicate a volcanic
origin of this yellow clay layer. Similar thin ash layers have been observed in upper
Maastrichtian sections in northeastern Mexico and Haiti (Fig. S9) (S37, S38). (C) Disturbed
uppermost Maastrichtian shales with large shale clasts separated by reddish, shell-rich
clasts. (D) The K-Pg boundary event deposit consisting of a normally-graded, basal
conglomeratic layer (“CO”) with ejecta spherules, concretions, and shell hash, overlain by the
spherule deposit (“SP”) followed sequentially upward by repeated upward fining units of
hummocky cross-bedded and laminated silicic and calcareous sands (“HCS”), which are
burrowed in their uppermost parts, and then by a upward-fining silty shale unit (Fig. S7) (S34,
S35, S39-S41). The K-Pg boundary is placed at the base of the ejecta-rich clastic unit (e.g.,
S30, S41-S43).

@53,.-+/0"!%1
895:-;/0!!"1
895:-;/0!!#1
)57.A.7+/0"!%1
8 &!!!
)*+,-.-+/0!!"1
<=>?9*/0!!"1
233.-+/0!!"1
%!!!
>1+?@*"#$,'&013)&
!"#$%&'()*'&)+"$,
$!!!
2(0)*#3)',)("&5%
#!!!
;)33"<'+31='31=)*
"!!!
!0)%"'24)+%5%)
6)7)*)$+)'289.:
!
$ "! -./0)%1'.'2+13) #! $!
)*+,-.-+/0!!&1
895:-;/0!!#1
)*+,-.-+
0!!"1
)*+,-.-+/0!!$1
4563.7.-+/0!!"1
>
)*+,-.-+/0!!#1
895:-;/0!!"1
233.-+/0!!"1
#!!!
"(!!
>1+?@*"#$,'&013)&
"'!!
!"#$%&'()*'&)+"$,
"%!!
"#!! 2(0)*#3)',)("&5%
"!!!
(!!
;)33"<'+31='31=)*
'!!
%!!
!0)%"'24)+%5%)
#!! 6)7)*)$+)'289.:
!
$ "! -./0)%1'.'2+13) #! $!
Figure S12: Mineralogy of the Brazos K-Pg section. (A) Bulk rock mineralogy and (B) clay
mineralogy of the K-Pg boundary ejecta bed, the upper Maastrichtian yellow clay layer, and
the background shales from the Cottonmouth Creek K-Pg section, Brazos, compared to the
Cheto smectite from Arizona as reference (source clay SAz-2 as provided by the Clay
Minerals Society, S44). Note differences in XRD patterns and specifically the high sanidine
content of the yellow clay layer and absence of calcite, strongly suggesting a volcanic origin.

!"8<9
!<8.
B<8,*#9#B.8,R8#$")*,8'7 M9#-7
K<-<).-),'H):/JJG>
CD.
P.+-" C8O).-),'H):/JJG> I.''.8).-),'H):/JJG>
+"<-<) L*#-).-),'H):/JJG>
!"#$%&'()
:EFGH2)6,>
!/2N
34$
!"#$&&'( !/21
34$
34,
!"#$,&'(
J4/50= 34( -./01234567'
<296':6G5J'KD6569='86.2?'B9203:'=09I/16L
<./>'./>69
Q <23:63=6:'./>69
2D4==423'=09I/16
8425098/56:
;96114/5423'/3:
I9/BD635/54237' ;425098/56:
5<?.8*<7-)3,'.<D.9.
!"#$+&'( D4329'G2==48.6'
80992? -./01234567'
8425098/56:
5,-.)6,,7-8#$"-#,9):;<9.)!=)4>
=.?)8.?<8@.A
E6?29F6:' -./01234567'
+',9@-<9#$ 8425098/56:
4DG/15456
B<8,*#9#B.8,
!"#$*&'(
<B)C'(#,9)-< ;0992?'H
!/01
;0992?=
6,,7-8#$"-#,9
M9#-)J
,D.
E6?29F6:' -./01234567'
4DG/15456 8425098/56:
!"#$#&'(
<296
;96/F'
<92=='./D43/54237' @8.4A06'
1.4D843B'94GG.6 86::43B
!"#$)&'( -./01234567'
E6?29F6:'
4DG/15456 8425098/56:
N<)B<8,*#9#B.8,
C/D43/56:'
<92=='./D43/54237' :2.2=5236
!"#$%&'( 1.4D843B'94GG.6
M9#-)4
!"#$%&'&()#*+,$-#-.
M':/9F'1./>'./>69
Figure S13: K-Pg boundary in core Yaxcopoil-1 – Photograph of the transition from the
Chicxulub impact breccia to the lower Paleocene (modified after S45) showing observations
from Goto et al. (S46), Arz et al., (S47), and Smit et al. (S48) versus Keller et al. (S49). The
magnetostratigraphy is from Rebolledo-Vieyra and Urrutia-Fucugauchi (S50). Note that a
distinct K-Pg boundary red clay layer (i.e., with an Ir anomaly, shocked minerals etc.) is
lacking. Arz et al. (S47), Goto et al. (S46), and Smit et al. (S48) located the K-Pg boundary at
the base of the impact sequence (at 894,94 m in core depth), according to the original
definition of this boundary in the El Kef section, Tunisia (S2).

! " #
!"#$
Figure S14: K-Pg boundary in core Yaxcopoil-1 – Close up photographs from (A) the
lower part of unit 0 showing climbing ripples and cm-thick layers of ejecta-rich material, (B)
the middle part of unit 0 with lamination and intercalated layers of ejecta-rich material; note
that there is no bioturbation in the greenish sandstone layer, only the tube-like structure to
the upper right may be a burrow (C) the condensed clay layer that overlies the uppermost
part of unit 0 with an irregular erosion surface (modified after S45).

"&'(#%% !"#$%
Figure S15: K-Pg boundary in core Yaxcopoil-1 – (A) Photographs of the washed residue
showing abundant dolomite crystals as well as amalgamated dolomite crystals in a sample
from the 794.55 m in core depth. This sample is equivalent to the sample Yax-20 of Keller et
al. (S49) in which they allegedly identified the greatest planktonic foraminiferal diversity. (B)
Scanning electron microscope image of an amalgamated dolomite clast that superficially
resembles a planktonic foraminifer (at 794.55 m in core depth).

8 <;"$: =$/><;"$: 5";%(4)"+ !"#$%& ?@)1A+&.. 7 7"44(1)"+&2->9I2/"$+6(;JQ2<$//)"Q2O4(#J

RST
U.PRSSU.
H )*+,- #" "C!% "CD" "CD% "C&" "C&% "C%" "C%% "C$" "C$%
$%C%
3BCD
./01/2/ !%
$%CD'E 3/1/4/2*+15/- #"" ->9I
3BCG
/"$+6(;J
=K20!9
0&11(+23"+4)+&+4(#25#""627(.(#4
'() 8%/&+(#) !"" )K50'+*H@9K0'L@/92M

KN'7E.?'4K,08/-O
9(A/H@'I+
9"#(6:$; #$% $$ *PH,-+9K0'/08
9-989,('A*/:
)*HH/0E908,H*8
8I&2LM(N
6,+1* #"" #FG
I+J#FFI+'8*H290*
8I&2LM(N
*"+(,(#(
3BCG
71/08/2/ &"
619(/+1/0:/- #"
3EFD
;1/:,-</89 #%" $$C%
-(#.$/()
=*-/2 !%
>?/@A,-9 !%
#"""'(
B/51/- #%"
3EFD
$$C#'E $G
H " !" &" $" F" #"" #!"
QP'#"D':(DR
O;2L+IPIN
Figure S16: Compilation of the stratigraphic data for the emplacement phases of the
Deccan flood basalts in southwest India. (A) Overview on stratigraphy, thickness, and
volume of the lava flows (e.g., S51). Because the C29r/C29n reversal occurs in the lower
Mahabaleshwar, the K-Pg boundary is most likely likely within the Poladpur and Ambenali
formations marked in red, although the exact stratigraphic position has not been determined.
(B) Os isotope data that are interpreted to show the onset of massive Deccan volcanism
during the lower part of magnetochron C29r (S22).

! "
!"#$#%&'())*+
2324 234 4 42
(<&+
:2'9
6:'9
62'9
;:'9
Paleogene
;2'9
5:'9
52'9
4:'9
42'9
#
:'9
9:'9
942'9
Cretaceous
=#>.#?- @CAB-
94:'9
@A.$/?0.- @#B?/?0.-
952'9 GA"*0.A<-0%/'/CAB-
95:'9 H#?C'B#>.#?-'/?"-AD/
9;2'9 EA0B#.#?#<'*0%.$A"F'<BAF
9;:'9 @)C-"%B-/ @C0<D-$'&#.-"AB/
2 52 62 72 82 422
,-".'/)0"-/'(1+
Figure S17: The K-Pg boundary in the Western Interior. (A) Schematic lithology of the K-
Pg boundary interval at the Starkville North site, 5 km south of Trinidad, Colorado. The large
black dots and the solid line show the iridium concentration, the open circles and the dashed
line show the fern spore percentages (modified after S52). (B) Polished surface of the dual-
layer K-Pg boundary claystone at the Teapot Dome site, Wyoming. Green arrows show
ejecta spherules that are now altered to alumino-phosphate (gorceixite, goyzite) in the lower
claystone. Black arrows show detrital quartz (shocked and unshocked) that is abundant in
the upper claystone. Two large rip-up claystone clasts are marked with “R”. Photo courtesy of
Glen A. Izett. (C) Polished surface of the K-Pg boundary interval at the Clear Creek North
site, Colorado. The lower K-Pg claystone bed consists of kaolinite clay and minor amounts of
illite-smectite (I-S) mixed-layer phyllosilicates. Typically, this bed contains shreds and
deformed laminae of vitrinite. This bed also contains ejecta spherules altered to kaolinite and
alumino-phosphate. The upper part of the K-Pg claystone couplet is again compositionally
and texturally different from the lower bed. It consists predominantly of illite-smectite (I-S)
mixed-layer phyllosilicates and minor kaolinite and contains an assemblage of detrital silicate
mineral grains (shocked and unshocked). Highest concentrations of the platinum group
elements (PGEs) are usually present in the upper layer. Photo courtesy of Glen A. Izett.

Table S1: Key locations that show a detailed and expanded record across the K-Pg
boundary including evidence for the presence of impact ejecta. See Fig. 1 for location of
DSDP and ODP sites; color code for comparison with Fig. 2.
Region and K-Pg Impact Max. Iridium

Distance* Setting*** References
boundary sites ejecta** concentration
(km) (ppb)
Very proximal to Chicxulub: 10 to >80 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit
Southern Mexico and Cuba
Guayal, Tabasco 300 SP, SQ, NI 0.8 Bathyal (S53-S55)
Bochil, Chiapas 300 SP, SQ, NI 1.5 Bathyal (S6, S53-S55)
Albion Island, Belize 300 SP, SQ n.a. Terrestrial (S56-S58)
Moncada, Cuba 400 SP, SQ 0.5 Bathyal (S59)
Loma Capiro, Santa Isabel,
Peñalver, Cacarajícara, 400 SP, SQ n.a. Bathyal (S59-S62)
and Cidra, Cuba
Proximal to Chicxulub: dm to 10 m-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit

Gulf of Mexico
Beloc, Haiti 500 SP, SQ, NI 28 Bathyal (S63-S65)
La Ceiba, Mexico 700 SP, SQ, NI n.a. Lower bathyal (S30, S33, S66)
El Mimbral, Mexico 700 SP, SQ, NI 0.5 Lower bathyal (S27, S30, S66)
La Lajilla, Mexico 750 SP, AC 0.25 Lower bathyal (S30, S66)
El Mulato, Mexico 780 SP, AC 1 Lower bathyal (S6, S30)
El Peñón, Mexico 800 SP, AC n.a. Middle bathyal (S27, S30, S66)
La Sierrita, Mexico 800 SP, AC 0.3 Middle bathyal (S27, S28, S66)
La Popa Basin, Mexico 800 SP, AC n.a. Inner neritic (S26, S67)
Brazos River, Texas 900 SP, AC n.a. Neritic (S17, S30, S41, S43)
Stoddard County, Missouri 900 SP n.a. Neritic (S68)
Mussel Creek, Shell Creek,
Antioch Church Core, 900 SP, AC n.a. Neritic (S25, S30, S69)
Millers Ferry, Alabama
Caribbean Sea
ODP Leg 165: Site 999 and
600 SP n.a. Bathyal (S70)
1001
Intermediate to Chicxulub: 1 to 10 cm-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit

Western Interior (USA and Canada)
Sugarite, Raton Basin,
2100 SP, SQ (FS) 2.7 Terrestrial (S71-S73)
New Mexico
Starkville South, Raton
2250 SP, SQ (FS) 56 Terrestrial (S71-S73)
Basin, Colorado
Starkville North, Raton
2250 SP, SQ (FS) 6 Terrestrial (S71-S73)
Basin, Colorado


(km) (ppb)
Long Canyon, Raton
2250 SQ (FS) 8.2 Terrestrial (S73, S74)
Basin, Colorado
Berwind Canyon, Raton
2250 SP, SQ (FS) 27 Terrestrial (S72, S73, S75)
Basin, Colorado
West Bijou Site, Denver
Basin, Colorado
Dogie Creek, Powder River
2500 SP, SQ (FS) 20.8 Terrestrial (S73, S77)
Basin, Wyoming
Teapot Dome, Powder
2500 SP, SQ (FS) 22 Terrestrial (S73, S78)
River Basin, Wyoming
Sussex, Powder River
2500 SQ (FS) 26 Terrestrial (S73, S79)
Basin, Wyoming
Mud Buttes, Williston
2700 SP, SQ (FS) 1.36 Terrestrial (S73, S80)
Basin, SW North Dakota
Brownie Butte, Hell Creek
3100 SP, SQ (FS) 1.04 Terrestrial (S52, S73, S81, S82)
area, Montana
Knudsen’s Farm, Western
Canada
Morgan Creek,
Saskatchewan, Western 3400 SQ (FS) 3 Terrestrial (S73, S84)
Canada
Frenchman River,
Saskatchewan
3400 SP 1.35 Terrestrial (S72, S85)
Northwest Atlantic Ocean

DSDP Leg 93 Site 603 2600 SP, SQ n.a. Bathyal (S72, S86, S87)
ODP Leg 171 Site 1049,
2400 SP, SQ 1.3 Lower bathyal (S88)
1050, 1052
ODP Leg 174AX Bass
2500 SP, SQ, AC n.a. Neritic (S89)
River
ODP Leg 207 Site 1258;
4500 SP, SQ, AC 1.5 Bathyal (S16, S90, S91)
1259, 1260
Distal to Chicxulub: mm-thick K-Pg boundary event deposit

South Atlantic Ocean
DSDP Leg 75 Site 524 9600 n.a. 3 Abyssal (S92)
ODP Leg 113 Site 690 11000 n.a. 1.5 Abyssal (S93, S94)
ODP Leg 208 Site 1262,
9400 SP, SQ n.a. Abyssal (S90, S95)
1267
Europe, Africa, Asia
Gubbio and Petriccio, Italy 9200 SP, SQ, NI 8 Bathyal (S96, S97)
Stevns Klint and Nye Kløv,
10200 SP, SQ, NI 48 Neritic (S97-S101)
Denmark
Upper-middle
Bidart, France 9500 NI 6 (S6, S102-S104)
bathyal


(km) (ppb)
Caravaca, Spain 8200 SP, SQ, NI 56 Bathyal (S6, S105-S107)
Upper-middle
Agost, Spain 8300 SP, SQ, NI 24.4 (S105, S108-S110)
bathyal
Bjala, Bulgaria 9500 SP, SQ, NI 6.1 Bathyal (S111)
Outer neritic –
El Kef, Ellés, Tunisia 9100 SP, NI 18 (S2, S6, S23)
upper bathyal
Outer neritic –
Aïn Settara, Tunisia 9100 SP, SQ, NI 11 (S6, S112, S113)
upper bathyal
Pacific Ocean
LL44-GPC 3 7200 SP, SQ, NI 12 Abyssal (S114)
DSDP Leg 62 Site 465 7900 SP, SQ, NI 54 Lower bathyal (S114-S117)
DSDP Leg 86 Site 576,
9300 SP, SQ, NI 13.4 Abyssal (S114, S118, S119)
577
DSDP Leg 91 Site 596 9700 SP, SQ, NI 10.8 Abyssal (S120)
ODP Leg 119 Site 738 10500 – 18 Abyssal (S121-S123)
ODP Leg 130 Site 803, 807 11000 SP, SQ, NI 10.8 Abyssal (S114, S124)
ODP Leg 145 Site 886 6450 SP, SQ, NI 3.6 Abyssal (S114, S125)
ODP Leg 198 Site 1209 to
11400 – n.a. Abyssal (S43, S126)
1212
Woodside Creek, New SP, SQ, NI (S14, S90, S127,
10500 70 Bathyal
Zealand (FS) S128)
Mid-Waipara, New Zealand 10500 SP (FS) 0.49 Neritic (S129-S134)
Flaxbourne River, New Upper-middle
10500 SP 21 (S14, S135)
Zealand bathyal
Moody Creek Mine, New
10500 SP (FS) 4.1 Terrestrial (S136)
Zealand
* Estimated paleodistance to the center of the Chicxulub crater structure.

** SP, spherules; SQ, shocked quartz; NI, Ni-rich spinel; (FS), fern spore spike.
*** We used the bathymetric division as defined in Van Morkhoven et al. (S137): neritic (0-200 m),
upper bathyal (200-600 m), middle bathyal (600-1000 m), lower bathyal (1000-2000 m), upper abyssal
(2000-3000 m), lower abyssal (>3000 m).

Table S2: Compilation of U-Pb ages from zircons from the Chicxulub impact crater, various
K-Pg boundary sites, and the potential basement of the Yucatán target region (Maya
Mountains, Belize).
Basement age (Ma)

Locality Material Method References
± 2!*
Chicxulub crater impactites; spherule
Shocked
deposit Beloc, Haiti; laminated clay 545 ± 5; 418 ± 6 U-Pb (S10)
zircons
layer at K-Pg boundary in Colorado
Laminated clay layer at K-Pg Shocked

550 ± 10; 571 ± 6 U-Pb (S138, S139)
boundary, Colorado zircons
Laminated clay layer at K-Pg Shocked

548 ± 8 U-Pb (S140)
boundary, Saskatchewan zircons
Silurian plutons, Maja Mountains Zircons 418 ± 4; 404 ± 3 U-Pb (S141)
Paleozoic granite Zircons 595 ± 69; 680 ± 69 U-Pb (S142)
* number refers to the last significant digits

Table S3: Quantitative mineralogy of the K-Pg boundary ejecta bed, the upper Maastrichtian
ash layer, the background shales and a reference Cheto smectite from Arizona.
Mineral phases Cheto smectite

Background
Reference clay Yellow ash layer Spherule deposit
(wt%) shales
SAz-1
Quartz 1.2 5.5 1.9 17.4

Orthoclase <0.1 0.4 0.5 1.4
Microcline 0.7 0.5 1.3 1.3
Plagioclase 9 1.6 5.7 5.5
Anorthite 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.8
Sanidine 1 3.5 <0.1 1.9
Calcite 0.6 2.2 5 7.5
Dolomite <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Smectite 81.8 63.5 74.8 28.1
Illite1Md 4.8 13.9 5.3 28.8
Kaolinite <0.1 1.3 2 5.4
Gypsum 0.2 4.6 0.7 0.3
Pyrite <0.1 0.2 2.1 1.1
Goethite <0.1 0.4 0.6 <0.1
Jarosite 0.7 1.6 <0.1 0.2

Supporting References
S1.! J. Srodon, V. A. Drits, D. K. McCarty, J. C. C. Hsieh, D. D. Eberl, Clays Clay Miner. 49, 514
(2001).
S2.! E. Molina et al., Episodes 29, 263 (2006).
S3.! J. J. Pospichal, Geology 22, 99 (1994).
S4." S. Gardin, S. Monechi, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 169, 709 (1998).
S5.! I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, E. Molina, C. Dupuis, Micropaleontology 46, 31 (2000).
S6.! E. Molina et al., Episodes 32, 84 (2009).
S7.! W. C. Ward, G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, Geology 23, 873 (1995).
S8.! B. Kettrup, A. Deutsch, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 38, 1079 (2003).
S9.! S. P. S. Gulick et al., Nature Geosci. 1, 131 (2008).
S10.! T. E. Krogh, S. L. Kamo, V. L. Sharpton, L. E. Marin, A. R. Hildebrand, Nature 366, 731 (1993).
S11.! V. L. Sharpton, B. C. Schuraytz, K. Burke, A. V. Murali, G. Ryder, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap.
247, 349 (1990).
S12.! R. D. Norris, B. T. Huber, B. T. Self-Trail, Geology 27, 419 (1999).
S13.! B. Bauluz, D. R. Peacor, W. C. Elliott, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 182, 127 (2000).
S14.! B. Bauluz, D. R. Peacor, C. J. Hollis, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 219, 209 (2004).
S15." M. Ortega-Huertas, F. Martínez-Ruiz, I. Palomo-Delgado, H. Chamley, Clay Minerals 37, 395
(2002).
S16.! P. Schulte et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73, 1180 (2009).
S17.! T. E. Yancey, R. N. Guillemette, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 120, 1105 (2008).
S18.! M. C. Harvey, S. C. Brassell, C. M. Belcher, A. Montanari, Geology 36, 355 (2008).
S19.! C. M. Belcher, P. Finch, M. E. Collinson, A. C. Scott, N. V. Grassineau, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
106, 4112 (2009).
S20.! K. F. Kuiper et al., Science 320, 500 (2008).
S21.! W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, A. Montanari, Science 250, 1700 (1990).
S22.! N. Robinson, G. Ravizza, R. Coccioni, B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, R. D. Norris, Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 281, 159 (2009).
S23.! G. Keller, M. Lindinger, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 73, 243 (1989).
S24.! R. Rocchia, E. Robin, L. Froget, J. Gayraud, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 307, 279 (1996).
S25.! D. T. King,Jr., L. W. Petruny, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 437, 179 (2007).
S26.! T. F. Lawton, K. W. Shipley, J. L. Aschoff, K. A. Giles, F. J. Vega, Geology 33, 81 (2005).
S27.! P. Schulte, A. Kontny, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 384, 191 (2005).
S28.! A. R. Soria et al., Geology 29, 231 (2001).
S29.! P. Schulte et al., Intern. Jour. Earth Sci. 92, 114 (2003).
S30.! J. Smit, W. Alvarez, A. Montanari, P. Claeys, J. M. Grajales-Nishimura, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec.
Paper 307, 151 (1996).

S31.! F. Lindenmaier et al., Chemostratigraphy of the K/T-boundary at La Sierrita and La Lajilla, NE

Mexico. (Abstracts, Geol. Soc. Am., Boulder, Colorado, 1999), pp. 123.
S32." G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, D. Stüben, Earth-Sci. Rev. 62, 327 (2003).
S33.! J. A. Arz et al., J. South Am. Earth Sci. 14, 505 (2001).
S34.! T. A. Hansen, B. Upshaw III, E. G. Kauffman, W. Gose, Cretaceous Res. 14, 685 (1993).
S35.! D. Heymann et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 62, 173 (1998).
S36.! G. Keller et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339 (2007).
S37.! J. Smit et al., Geology 20, 99 (1992).
S38.! D. A. Kring, A. R. Hildebrand, W. V. Boynton, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 128, 629 (1994).
S39.! T. A. Hansen, R. B. Farrand, H. A. Montgomery, H. G. Billman, G. L. Blechschmidt,
Cretaceous Res. 8, 229 (1987).
S40.! T. E. Yancey, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 46, 433 (1996).
S41.! P. Schulte, R. P. Speijer, H. Mai, A. Kontny, Sedim. Geol. 184, 77 (2006).
S42.! P. Schulte et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 269, 613 (2008).
S43.! T. J. Bralower et al., Geology (in press) (2010).
S44.! S. J. Chipera, D. L. Bish, Clays Clay Miner. 49, 308 (2001).
S45.! K. Goto, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan 111, 193 (2005).
S46.! K. Goto et al., Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1233 (2004).
S47.! J. A. Arz, L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1099 (2004).
S48.! J. Smit, S. V. D. Gaast, W. Lustenhouwer, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1113 (2004).
S49.! G. Keller et al., Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 1127 (2004).
S50.! M. Rebolledo-Vieyra, J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 39, 821 (2004).
S51.! S. Self, M. Widdowson, T. Thordarson, A. E. Jay, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 518 (2006).
S52.! R. H. Tschudy, C. L. Pillmore, C. J. Orth, J. S. Gilmore, J. D. Knight, Science 225, 1030
(1984).
S53." J. M. Grajales-Nishimura, G. Murillo-Muñetón, C. Rosales-Domínguez, E. Cedillo-Pardo, J.
García-Hernández, AAPG Mem. 79, 312 (2003).
S54.! I. Arenillas et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 249, 241 (2006).
S55." T. Salge, The ejecta blanket of the Chicxulub impact crater, Yucatán, Mexico – Petrographic
and chemical studies of the K-P section of El Guayal and UNAM boreholes (PhD, Humboldt-
Universität, Berlin, Germany, 2007), pp. 190. http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/docviews/abstract.php?
lang=ger&id=27753.
S56.! K. O. Pope et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 170, 351 (1999).
S57.! K. O. Pope et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 384, 171 (2005).
S58.! B. W. Fouke et al., Sedimentology 49, 117 (2002).
S59.! R. Tada et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 356, 109 (2002).
S60.! S. Kiyokawa et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 356, 125 (2002).
S61.! L. Alegret et al., Geology 33, 721 (2005).

S62.! K. Goto et al., Cretaceous Res. 29, 217 (2008).

S63.! G. A. Izett, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 20879 (1991).
S64.! H. Leroux et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 131, 255 (1995).
S65.! B. F. Bohor, B. P. Glass, Meteoritics 30, 182 (1995).
S66.! L. Alegret, E. Molina, E. Thomas, Geology 29, 891 (2001).
S67.! J. L. Aschoff, K. A. Giles, AAPG Bulletin 89, 447 (2005).
S68.! C. E. Campbell, F. E. Oboh-Ikuenobe, T. L. Eifert, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 437, 189 (2007).
S69.! P. Schulte, R. Speijer, Geologica Acta 7, 11 (2009).
S70.! H. Sigurdsson, R. M. Leckie, G. D. Acton, Proc. ODP Init. Rep. 165, 377 (1997).
S71.! C. L. Pillmore, R. H. Tschudy, C. J. Orth, J. S. Gilmore, J. D. Knight, Science 223, 1180
(1984).
S72.! G. A. Izett, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 249, 100 (1990).
S73.! D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Plants and the K-T boundary (Cambridge University Press,
2008), pp. 280.
S74.! D. J. Nichols, C. L. Pillmore, LPI Contribution 38, 3120 (2000).
S75.! C. J. Orth, J. S. Gilmore, J. D. Knight, New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 38, 265
(1987).
S76.! R. S. Barclay, K. R. Johnson, Geol. Soc. Am. Field Guide 5, 59 (2004).
S77.! B. F. Bohor, D. M. Triplehorn, D. J. Nichols, H. T. Millard,Jr., Geology 15, 896 (1987).
S78.! J. A. Wolfe, Nature 352, 420 (1991).
S79.! D. J. Nichols, J. L. Brown, M. Attrep,Jr., C. J. Orth, Cretaceous Res. 13, 3 (1992).
S80.! D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 361, 95 (2002).
S81.! B. F. Bohor, G. A. Izett, Lunar Planet. Sci. 17, 68 (1986).
S82.! A. R. Sweet, D. R. Braman, J. F. Lerbekmo, Can. J. Earth Sci. 36, 743 (1999).
S83.! A. R. Sweet, D. R. Braman, Cretaceous Res. 13, 31 (1992).
S84.! D. J. Nichols, D. M. Jarzen, C. J. Orth, P. Q. Oliver, Science 231, 714 (1986).
S85.! D. A. Kring, D. D. Durda, J. Geophys. Res. 107, 6 (2002).
S86.! G. T. Klaver, T. M. G. Van Kempen, F. R. Bianchi, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 93, 1039
(1987).
S87.! D. A. Kring, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 16979 (1995).
S88." F. Martínez-Ruiz, M. Ortega-Huertas, I. Palomo-Delgado, J. Smit, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper
356, 189 (2002).
S89.! R. K. Olsson, K. G. Miller, J. V. Browning, D. Habib, P. J. Sugarmann, Geology 25, 759 (1997).
S90.! J. V. Morgan et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 251, 264 (2006).
S91.! K. G. MacLeod, D. L. Whitney, B. T. Huber, C. Koeberl, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119, 101 (2007).
S92." K. J. Hsü et al., Science 216, 249 (1982).
S93.! H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, W. Alvarez, L. W. Alvarez, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 113, 159
(1990).

S94.! L. D. Stott, J. P. Kennett, Nature 342, 526 (1989).

S95.! L. Alegret, E. Thomas, Mar. Micropal. 64, 1 (2007).
S96.! A. Montanari, Jour. Sedim. Petrol. 61, 315 (1991).
S97.! J. Smit, Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 75 (1999).
S98.! F. T. Kyte, Z. Zhou, J. T. Wasson, Nature 288, 651 (1980).
S99.! B. Schmitz, P. Andersson, J. Dahl, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 52, 229 (1988).
S100.! R. Frei, K. M. Frei, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 203, 691 (2002).
S101." A. Trinquier, J.-L. Birck, C. J. Allègre, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 241, 780 (2006).
S102.! J. Smit, W. G. H. Z. ten Kate, Cretaceous Res. 3, 307 (1982).
S103.! L. Alegret, M. A. Kaminski, E. Molina, Palaios 19, 574 (2004).
S104.! N. Gallala, D. Zaghbib-Turki, I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, E. Molina, Mar. Micropal. 72, 196 (2009).
S105." F. Martínez-Ruiz, M. Ortega-Huertas, I. Palomo-Delgado, P. Acquafredda, Sedim. Geol. 113,
137 (1997).
S106.! K. Kaiho et al., Paleoceanography 14, 511 (1999).
S107.! J. Smit, Journal of Iberian Geology 31, 179 (2005).
S108." F. Martínez-Ruiz, M. Ortega-Huertas, I. Palomo-Delgado, M. Barbieri, Chem. Geol. 95, 265
(1992).
S109.! L. Alegret, E. Molina, E. Thomas, Mar. Micropal. 48, 251 (2003).
S110.! E. Molina, L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, J. A. Arz, Journal of Iberian Geology 31, 137 (2004).
S111.! A. Preisinger et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 356, 213 (2002).
S112." C. Dupuis et al., Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de
la Terre 71, 169 (2001).
S113.! D. Peryt, L. Alegret, E. Molina, Terra Nova 14, 101 (2002).
S114.! J. A. Bostwick, F. T. Kyte, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 307, 403 (1996).
S115.! H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, W. Alvarez, L. W. Alvarez, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 62, 847
(1981).
S116.! P. Giblin, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 62, 851 (1981).
S117.! L. Alegret, E. Thomas, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 224, 53 (2005).
S118.! A. A. Wright et al., Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 86, 799 (1985).
S119.! H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, W. Alvarez, L. W. Alvarez, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 86, 533
(1985).
S120.! F. T. Kyte, J. A. Bostwick, L. Zhou, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 307, 389 (1996).
S121.! B. Schmitz, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, H. R. Thierstein, B. T. Huber, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill.
Prog. 119, 719 (1991).
S122.! B. T. Huber, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 119, 451 (1991).
S123.! A. Abrajevitch, K. Kodama, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 269 (2009).
S124.! R. M. Corfield, J. E. Cartlidge, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 130, 259 (1993).
S125.! B. L. Ingram, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 145, 399 (1995).

S126.! T. J. Bralower, I. Premoli Silva, M. J. Malone, Sci. Res., Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. 198, 1 (2006).
S127.! R. R. Brooks et al., Geology 13, 738 (1985).
S128.! R. R. Brooks et al., Science 226, 539 (1984).
S129.! R. R. Brooks et al., Geology 14, 727 (1986).
S130.! P. S. Willumsen, GFF 122, 180 (2000).
S131.! P. S. Willumsen, Journal of Micropalaeontology 23, 119 (2004).
S132.! P. S. Willumsen, Alcheringa (in press) (2010).
S133.! C. J. Hollis, C. P. Strong, New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 46, 243 (2003).
S134.! V. Vajda, J. I. Raine, New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 46, 255 (2003).
S135.! C. J. Hollis, C. P. Strong, K. A. Rodgers, K. M. Rogers, New Zealand Journal of Geology &
Geophysics 46, 177 (2003).
S136.! V. Vajda, J. I. Raine, C. J. Hollis, C. P. Strong, in Global effects of the Chicxulub impact on
terrestrial vegetation: Review of the palynological record from New Zealand Cretaceous/
Tertiary boundary, H. Dypvik, M. J. Burchell, P. Claeys, Eds. (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2004),
pp. 57-74.
S137." F. P. C. M. Van Morkhoven, B. W.A., S. A. Edwards, Bull. Centr. Rech. Explor. - Production Elf-
Aquitaine, Mémoir 11, 1 (1986).
S138.! T. E. Krogh, S. L. Kamo, B. F. Bohor, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 119, 425 (1993).
S139.! W. R. Premo, G. A. Izett, G. P. Meeker, Lunar Planet. Sci. 26, 1139 (1995).
S140.! S. L. Kamo, T. E. Krogh, Geology 23, 281 (1995).
S141.! M. B. Steiner, J. D. Walker, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 17727 (1996).
S142.! R. Lopez, K. L. Cameron, N. W. Jones, Precambrian Res. 107, 195 (2001).

COMMENTARY
Evolutionary Lightweight Synchronized
games metals behavior
977 986 987

LETTERS I BOOKS I POLICY FORUM I EDUCATION FORUM I PERSPECTIVES
LETTERS
edited by Jennifer Sills
Physique du Globe de Paris, 75251 Paris, France. 21Depart-
Cretaceous Extinctions: Multiple Causes ment of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee 247667 (Uttarakhand), India. 22Department of
Earth and Environmental Sciences, Medway Campus, Uni-
IN THE REVIEW “THE CHICXULUB ASTEROID IMPACT AND MASS EXTINCTION AT THE CRETACEOUS- versity of Greenwich, Chatham, Kent ME4 4AW, UK. 23Centre
of Advanced Study in Geology, Lucknow University, Lucknow
Paleogene boundary” (P. Schulte et al., 5 March, p. 1214), the terminal Cretaceous extinctions 226001, India.
were confidently attributed to a single event, the environmental consequences of the impact
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on June 2, 2010

of an extraterrestrial body. The list of 41 authors, although suggesting a consensus, conspicu- *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
darchibald@sunstroke.sdsu.edu
ously lacked the names of researchers in the fields of terrestrial vertebrates, including dino-
saurs, as well as freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates. Although we the undersigned differ References
1. G. P. Wilson, J. Mam. Evol. 12, 53 (2005).
over the specifics, we have little doubt that an impact played some role in these extinctions. 2. J. D. Archibald, D. E. Fastovsky, in The Dinosauria,
Nevertheless, the simplistic extinction scenario presented in the Review has not stood up to D. B. Weishampel et al., Eds. (Univ. of California Press,
the countless studies of how vertebrates and Berkeley, CA, 2004), pp. 672–684.
3. N. MacLeod et al., J. Geol. Soc. London 154, 265 (1997).
other terrestrial and marine organisms fared 4. P. M. Barrett et al., Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 276,
at the end of the Cretaceous (1–4). 2667 (2009).
Patterns of extinction and survival were 5. N. MacLeod, in Evolution on Planet Earth, L. Rothschild,
varied, pointing to multiple causes at this A. Lister, Eds. (Academic Press, London, 2003), pp.
253–277.
time—including impact, marine regression, 6. C. W. Poag et al., in Deep-Sea Research, Part II,
volcanic activity, and changes in global and R. Gersonde et al., Eds. (Pergamon, New York, 2002),
regional climatic patterns (5). It is telling that pp. 1081–1102.
7. N. C. Arens, I. D. West, Paleobiology 34, 456 (2008).
in all other instances of mass extinction in 8. S. E. Peters, Nature 454, 626 (2008).
the past 600 million years, no signature of an 9. P. B. Wignall, Earth Sci. Rev. 53, 1 (2001).
extraterrestrial impact has ever been reliably
detected, despite extensive searches. More-
Deccan plateau basalts. Lava from Deccan over, there are many other known instances Cretaceous Extinctions:
volcanism formed distinct layering. of large impacts in the geologic record, with The Volcanic Hypothesis
no associated extinctions (6). The general
importance of impacts to extinction is called into question, as well as the importance of IN THEIR REVIEW “THE CHICXULUB ASTER-
the Cretaceous-Paleogene impact as a single cause (7). By contrast, all of the five widely oid impact and mass extinction at the
accepted mass extinctions occur during or shortly after times of global marine regression (8) Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary” (5 March,
and at least three occur during intervals of massive volcanism (9). p. 1214), P. Schulte et al. conclude that “the
J. DAVID ARCHIBALD,1* W. A. CLEMENS,2 KEVIN PADIAN,2 TIMOTHY ROWE,3 Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinc-
NORMAN MACLEOD,4 PAUL M. BARRETT,4 ANDREW GALE,5 PAT HOLROYD,6 tion.” However, the Review does not give suf-
HANS-DIETER SUES,7 NAN CRYSTAL ARENS,8 JOHN R. HORNER,9 GREGORY P. WILSON,10 ficient and accurate consideration to the vol-
MARK B. GOODWIN,6 CHRISTOPHER A. BROCHU,11 DONALD L. LOFGREN,12 STUART H. HURLBERT,1 canic hypothesis. The authors claim that for
JOSEPH H. HARTMAN,13 DAVID A. EBERTH,14 PAUL B. WIGNALL, 15 PHILIP J. CURRIE,16 ANNE WEIL, 17 Chicxulub, “the extremely rapid injection rate
GUNTUPALLI V. R. PRASAD,18 LOWELL DINGUS,19 VINCENT COURTILLOT,20 ANGELA MILNER,4 of dust and climate-forcing gases would have
ANDREW MILNER,4 SUNIL BAJPAI,21 DAVID J. WARD,22 ASHOK SAHNI23 magnified the environmental consequences
compared with more-prolonged volcanic
1
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4614, USA. 2Department of Integrative Biology eruptions.” As evidence, they cite our paper
and Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–3140, USA. 3Jackson School of Geosciences, (1), saying, “the injection of ~100 to 500 Gt
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 4Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD,
UK. 5Department of Earth and Enviromental Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hants PO1 3QL, UK. 6Museum of sulfur into the atmosphere within minutes
of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–4781, USA. 7Department of Paleobiology, National Museum after the Chicxulub impact contrasts with vol-
of Natural History, Washington, DC 20013–7012, USA. 8Department of Geoscience, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, canic injection rates of 0.05 to 0.5 Gt of sul-
Geneva, NY 14456, USA. 9Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA. 10Department of
Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195–1800, USA. 11Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, Iowa
fur per year during the ~1-million-year-long
City, IA 52242, USA. 12Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology, Claremont, CA 91711, USA. 13Department of Geology main phase of Deccan flood basalt volca-
CREDIT: GSFC/NASA
and Geological Engineering, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202–8358, USA. 14Royal Tyrrell Museum, nism.” This contains a substantial error and a
Drumheller, AB T0J 0Y0, Canada. 15School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 16Department fundamental misrepresentation of our paper.
of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada. 17Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology,
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA. 18Department of Geology, University of Delhi, Half a Gt per year of sulfur for 1 million years
Delhi 110 007, India. 19InfoQuest Foundation, 160 Cabrini Boulevard, No. 48, New York, NY 10033, USA. 20Institut de amounts to 500,000 Gt of sulfur, which in any
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 21 MAY 2010 973

Published by AAAS
LETTERS
CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Cretaceous Extinctions:

Reports: “Cryogenian glaciation and the onset of carbon-isotope decoupling” by N. L. Swanson-Hysell et al. (30 April, Evidence Overlooked
p. 608). A typographical error in the Fig. 2 caption was introduced to the print edition during page proofs. The correct
final sentence of the Fig. 2 caption is, “An increase in kw and in the relative burial of C as organic matter can result in a
decrease in CO2, as shown for the Mesoproterozoic Tonian Cryogenian, without changes in volcanic CO2 input.” The
IN THEIR REVIEW “THE CHICXULUB ASTEROID
caption is correct in the HTML version online. impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous-
Paleogene boundary” (5 March, p. 1214),
Cover caption: (23 April, p. 397). The cover image showed children studying chemistry, not nuclear physics.
P. Schulte et al. analyzed the 30-year-old
Reports: “Protein kinase C-θ mediates negative feedback on regulatory T cell function” by A. Zanin-Zhorov et al. (16 controversy over the cause of the end-Cre-
April, p. 372). In the first sentence of the second paragraph on p. 372, Teff should have been defined as CD4+ CD25–. taceous mass extinction and concluded that
Reports: “Arsenic trioxide controls the fate of the PML-RARα oncoprotein by directly binding PML” by X.-W. Zhang et al. the original theory of 1980 was right: A large
(9 April, p. 240). In the legend for Fig. 3C, the local structure models were described incorrectly; Zn-PML-R is blue and asteroid impact on Yucatan was the sole cause
As-PML-R is orange. for this catastrophe. To arrive at this conclu-
Policy Forum: “China’s road to sustainability” by J. Liu (2 April, p. 50). In the first sentence, China refers to the People’s sion, the authors used a selective review of
Republic of China. The word “caused” was missing from the sentence “The ‘Great Leap Forward’ movement (1958–1961) data and interpretations by proponents of this
caused the loss of at least 10% of China’s forests to fuel backyard furnaces for steel production.” viewpoint. They ignored the vast body of evi-
News Focus: “Immunology uncaged” by M. Leslie (26 March, p. 1573). The article incorrectly stated that the Center for dence inconsistent with their conclusion—
Human Immunology, Autoimmunity, and Inflammation was part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. It is a evidence accumulated by scientists across
separate initiative sponsored by several NIH institutes. The article should also have emphasized that the center is conduct- disciplines (paleontology, stratigraphy, sed-

ing immunological research and is not a technical service facility.
imentology, geochemistry, geophysics, and
News Focus: “Treatment as prevention” by J. Cohen (5 March, p. 1196). The title on the graphic mistakenly indicated that volcanology) that documents a complex
“incidence” dropped. The researchers did not measure “incidence” but did find a drop in the number of HIV infections long-term scenario involving a combination
detected.
of impacts, volcanism, and climate change.
Reports: “Acetylation of metabolic enzymes coordinates carbon source utilization and metabolic flux” by Q. Wang et al. Here, we point out some of the key evidence
(19 February, p. 1004). In Fig. 2B, the inhibitor used to mimic the cobB mutation was NAM (nicotinamide) not NAD+ that Schulte et al. overlooked.
(nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide).
The underlying basis for Schulte et al.’s
claim that the Chicxulub impact is the sole
climate model would lead to a “snowball” large accumulation of igneous material of cause for the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg)
Earth! In (1), we estimate the total amount of the same age within uncertainties (8). No mass extinction is the assumption that the irid-
SO2 released by the traps at about 10,000 Gt, conclusive impact has been demonstrated at ium (Ir) anomaly at the K-Pg boundary and
less by a factor of 50 than that in Schulte et any mass extinction boundary other than the Chicxulub are the same age. There is no evi-
al.’s Review. The Deccan erupted in a small Cretaceous-Paleogene. The case of the larg- dence to support this assertion. No Ir anomaly
number of short, huge pulses, reducing actual est CFB (Siberian traps) and mass extinction has ever been identified in association with
injection duration to far less than 1 million (Permo-Triassic ~250 million years ago) is undisputed Chicxulub impact ejecta (impact
years. We and others (2, 3) have argued that now generally accepted. Without challenging glass spherules), and no impact spherules have
two main phases likely lasted a few thousand the existence or age of the Chicxulub impact, ever been identified in the Ir-enriched K-Pg
to tens of thousands of years, during which we believe that it is increasingly arguable that boundary clay in Mexico or elsewhere (1, 2).
individual flows would have reached vol- it could not by itself have caused a mass extinc- In rare deep-sea sites where the Ir anomaly is
umes of 10,000 km3 and released up to 100 tion, but that because it took place demonstra- just above impact spherules, it is due to con-
Gt of sulfur in one or a few decades (based on bly during Deccan eruptions (9, 10), it condensed sedimentation and/or nondeposition.
analysis of paleomagnetic secular variation). tributed significantly to the mass extinction, as A Chicxulub impact–generated tsunami is
Schulte et al. use our study to show that vol- yet another giant lava flow could have, in an another basic assumption of Schulte et al. to
canism did not lead to the extinction, yet we already very weakened environment. account for the impact spherules in late Maas-
showed that injection of SO2 by a single vol- VINCENT COURTILLOT* AND FRÉDÉRIC FLUTEAU trichtian sediments (including a sandstone
canic pulse could have had a climatic impact Institut de Physique du Globe, Paris, France. complex) in Mexico and Texas. Multiple lines
similar to Chicxulub. We estimated (1) that of evidence contradict this assumption and
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
the largest Deccan pulses emitted up to 100 Gt courtil@ipgp.fr
demonstrate long-term deposition before the
of sulfur at 0.5 Gt per year for a few decades K-Pg, including burrowed horizons, multiple
to tens of decades, implying a radiative effect impact spherule layers separated by limestone,
References
slightly lower but lasting substantially longer 1. A.-L. Chenet et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, B06103,
and spherule-rich clasts that indicate the origi-
than in the impact case. Whereas impact was 10.1029/2008JB005644 (2009). nal deposition predates the K-Pg and excludes
a single event, some 30 volcanic pulses emit- 2. S. Self, T. Thordarson, M. Widdowson, A. Jay, Earth tsunami deposition (1–4).
ted total amounts of SO2 not very different Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 518 (2006). Evidence of the pre–K-Pg age of the
3. G. Keller, T. Adatte, S. Gardin, A. Bartolini, S. Bajpai,
from Chicxulub. Their sequence would have Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 268, 293 (2008). Chicxulub impact can also be found in sedi-
generated a runaway effect not allowed by a 4. V. Courtillot et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 80, 361 (1986). ments above the sandstone complex in Texas
single impact or volcanic pulse. Evidence of 5. M. R. Rampino, R. B. Stothers, Science 241, 663 (1988). and northeastern Mexico and above the
6. V. Courtillot, Isr. J. Earth Sci. 43, 255 (1994).
an association between extinctions and con- 7. V. Courtillot, Evolutionary Catastrophes: The Science of
impact breccia in the Chicxulub crater. Evi-
tinental flood basalts (CFBs) arising from Mass Extinctions (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, dence shows that the K-Pg boundary is not
eruption has been proposed since at least 1999). linked to the sandstone complex and impact
8. V. Courtillot, P. Renne, C. R. Acad. Sci. 335, 113 (2003).
1986 (4–7). Subsequent work has shown that spherules (1, 2, 4–7).
9. N. Bhandari, P. N. Shukla, Z. G. Ghevariya, S. M.
all extinction or oceanic anoxia events in the Sundaram, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 433 (1995). Evidence that supports the pre–K-Pg age
past 300 million years are associated with a 10. V. Courtillot et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 182, 137 (2000). of the Chicxulub impact is also found in the
974 21 MAY 2010 VOL 328 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Published by AAAS
LETTERS
presence of a spherule layer in late Maastrich- the greatest fidelity do not contain evidence release of 50 Gt, which is in the order of the
tian sediments below the sandstone complex of accelerated extinction rates during the last lowest estimate for Chicxulub impact (see our
in northeastern Mexico and Texas (2, 4, 8). 400 thousand years of the Cretaceous [our Review). However, sulfur is removed from
Deccan volcanism is dismissed by Schulte Review and (1, 2)] and therefore do not sup- the atmosphere continuously (10) and there-
et al. as much older and of no consequence port the idea that the biosphere was somehow fore any accumulation in the atmosphere is
in the K-Pg mass extinction. Recent Deccan destabilized by Deccan volcanism. In fact, unsupported, contrary to the claim made
volcanism studies show the contrary (9–11). plant macrofossils record a diversification dur- by Courtillot and Fluteau. We also empha-
These studies link the mass extinction with ing this time (2). Studies of the last 1.5 million size that the instantaneous release of 100 to
the main phase of Deccan eruptions. years of the Cretaceous from North America, 500 Gt sulfur is only one consequence of the
When this evidence is taken into account, Europe, and Asia [e.g., (3, 4)] are compatible Chicxulub impact, and the K-Pg boundary
it is clear that the massive Chicxulub and with a sudden extinction scenario for non- mass extinction is likely the result of a com-
Deccan database indicates a long-term mul- avian dinosaurs. Moreover, the constancy of bination of several impact-induced environ-
ticausal scenario and is inconsistent with the late Maastrichtian open ocean sedimentation mental effects (including the release of sul-
model proposed by Schulte et al. (as indicated by climate cycles driven by reg- fur, soot, dust, and other effects, as noted in
GERTA KELLER,1* THIERRY ADATTE,2 ular oscillations in Earth’s orbit) does not our Review), whereas the Deccan flood basalt
ALFONSO PARDO,3 SUNIL BAJPAI,4 provide evidence for overall declining pro- hypothesis relies exclusively on the injection
ASHU KHOSLA,5 BANDANA SAMANT6 ductivity or instability in marine ecosystems of sulfur dioxide (6).
preceding the boundary [e.g., (5)].
1
Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Prince-
Second, recent studies suggest that

ton, NJ 08544, USA. 2Geological and Paleontological Insti-
tute, University of Lausanne, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzer- the emplacement of the Deccan flood
land. 3Escuela Politécnica Superior de Huesca, Universidad basalts took place during multiple (~30)
de Zaragoza, Carretera Cuarte s/n 22071, Huesca, Spain.
4
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Tech-
large eruptive pulses, most of which
nology, Roorkee 247 667, Uttarakhand, India. 5Center for predate the K-Pg boundary by several
Advanced Study in Geology, Panjab University, Chandigarh hundred thousand years (6). In con-
160014, India. 6Department of Geology, Nagpur University, trast, others have argued that “activ-
Nagpur 440 001, Maharashtra, India.
ity in the continental flood basalt prov-
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ince as a whole is likely to have been
gkeller@princeton.edu quasi-continuous” (7). Nevertheless,
References it is extremely difficult to reconcile the
1. G. Keller, Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 437, 147 (2008). protracted Deccan flood basalt eruption
2. G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, D. Stueben, Earth
Sci. Rev. 62, 327 (2003).
history with a single abrupt mass extinc-
3. A. A. Ekdale, W. Stinnesbeck, Palaios 13, 593 (1998). tion horizon exactly at the K-Pg bound-
4. G. Keller et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339 (2007). ary. Although it is well documented that
5. G. Keller et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 3753 the Chicxulub impact event coincided
(2004).
6. W. C. Ward, G. Keller, W. Stinnesbeck, T. Adatte, Geology precisely with sudden paleontological The Chicxulub Crater. A computer-generated
23, 873 (1995). and paleoenvironmental changes and gravity map image shows the Chicxulub Crater on
7. M. L. Prauss, Paleogeogr. Paleoclimatol. Paleoecol. 283, the K-Pg mass extinction [our Review Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.
195 (2009).
8. G. Keller, T. Adatte, A. J. Pardo, J. G. Lopez-Oliva, J. Geol.
and (8, 9)], there are no comparable data
Soc. London 166, 393 (2009). demonstrating that a major pulse of Deccan With regard to Archibald et al.’s and Cour-
9. G. Keller, T. Adatte, S. Gardin, A. Bartolini, S. Bajpai, volcanism coincided with the mass extinction. tillot and Fluteau’s comments about other
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 268, 293 (2008). Moreover, it remains to be explained why one Phanerozoic mass extinction events that
10. A.-L. Chenet, X. Quidelleur, F. Fluteau, V. Courtillot,
S. Bajpai, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 263, 1 (2007). eruptive event would have resulted in mass co-occurred with the emplacement of flood
11. A.-L. Chenet, F. Fluteau, V. Courtillot, M. Gerard, K. V. extinction, whereas multiple earlier eruptive basalt provinces, we note that these extinction
Subbarao, J. Geophys. Res. 113, B04101 (2008). events of comparable magnitude and duration events are commonly associated with oce-
occurring up to 500 thousand years before the anic anoxia, calcification crises, and strong
Response K-Pg boundary (6) left few global environ- global warming—none of which is observed
THE LETTERS BY ARCHIBALD ET AL., KELLER ET mental traces [e.g., (1, 2)]. at the K-Pg boundary (2, 10–13). Further-
al., and Courtillot and Fluteau question our Third, rates of sulfur injections are criti- more, there is an absence of mass extinctions
conclusion that the Cretaceous-Paleogene cally important to discriminating between during several large flood basalt eruptions
mass extinction was caused by the asteroid environmental consequences of impact ver- (10, 14). Each mass extinction event should
impact at Chicxulub. All three Letters stress sus those of volcanism because the residence be considered relative to the record for that
that Deccan flood basalt volcanism played a time of sulfur in the atmosphere is short (10). event [e.g., (12)], and we stress the unique
major role in the extinction. Keller et al. and Courtillot and Fluteau claim that we mis- aspects of the K-Pg boundary record. Chic-
Archibald et al. also mention that climate represent their 2009 paper (6). However, the xulub is by far the largest known impact event
change was a factor, and Archibald et al. paper includes exactly the numbers (reported in the Phanerozoic, and the projectile hit an
point to marine regression as well. as “0.1 to 1 Gt/a sulfur dioxide”) we stated. extraordinarily thick sulfur-rich sedimen-
We disagree with the hypothesis that vol- We did not note their finding that the sulfur tary sequence (see our Review). The absence
canic activity can explain the extinction. was released “over durations possibly as short of evidence for impact phenomena at other
First, geographically extensive biotic records as 100 years for each single eruptive event” mass extinctions, discussed by Archibald et
CREDIT: NASA
of marine microfossils and terrestrial pollen (6) because this does not affect our conclu- al., is irrelevant for our synthesis of the stra-
and spores that reveal the nature of the Creta- sions. Maintaining such a sulfur release for tigraphy and biotic response to the specific
ceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction with 100 years would indeed result in a total sulfur Chicxulub impact event.
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 21 MAY 2010 975

Published by AAAS
LETTERS
bridge, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, UK. 4Department of Earth 02204.x, in press.
Our work in no way diminishes the impor- Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London 14. S. Kelley, J. Geol. Soc. London 164, 923 (2007).
tance of gaining a better understanding of the WC1E 6BT, UK. 5Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania 15. K. G. Miller et al., Science 310, 1293 (2005).
environmental consequences of massive vol- State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. 6Institute 16. A. B. Smith, A. S. Gale, N. E. A. Monks, Paleobiology 27,
for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of 241 (2001).
canism. We do not doubt that such volcanism Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78759, USA. 7Earth System Sci-
can significantly perturb the global environ- ence, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brus-
ment. However, a robust correlation between sels, Belgium. 8Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space, and Astro-
nomical Research, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA,
Honing the Test-and-Treat
mass extinction and flood basalt volcanism
as suggested by Courtillot and Fluteau is
UK. 9Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College Lon-
don, London SW7 2BP, UK. 10Institut fur Planetologie, Uni-
HIV Strategy
unlikely [see reviews of (10, 14)]. versität Münster, D-48149 Münster, Germany. 11Department IN HIS NEWS FOCUS STORY (“TREATMENT AS
Keller et al. and Archibald et al. men- of Lithospheric Research, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse prevention,” 5 March, p. 1196), J. Cohen
14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. 12Planetary Exploration Research
tion that climate change contributed to the Center, Chiba Institute of Technology 2-17-1 Tsudanuma,
reviews ideas presented at the 17th Conference
extinction. As outlined in our Review and in Narashino, 275-0016 Chiba, Japan. 13Programa de Geología on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections
(1, 2), climate fluctuations during the latest de Exploracíon y Explotacíon, Dirección de Investigación y about the use of HIV treatment as prevention.
Maastrichtian (minor warming and subse- Posgrado, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Lázaro Cárde- Enthusiasm for the treatment-as-prevention
nas No. 152, C.P. 07730, México City, México. 14Earth Sci-
quent cooling) and the associated faunal and ences Sector, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A approach has grown in recent years as (i) the
floral consequences are clearly separated 0E4, Canada. 15Research and Collections Division, Denver drugs have become safer, better tolerated, and
from the abrupt mass extinction event at the Museum of Nature and Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, more widely available; (ii) widespread testing
Denver, CO 80205, USA. 16Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz
K-Pg boundary. Institute at the Humboldt University Berlin, Invalidenstrasse has become cheaper and more efficient; (iii)
In response to Archibald et al.’s point earlier therapy has become desirable; and (iv)

43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany. 17Center for Lunar Science and
about marine regressions, we note that marine Exploration, Universities Space Research Association–Lunar mathematical modeling by some (1) (but by
and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX 77058–1113, USA.
mass extinctions may have coincided with 18
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri,
no means all) has suggested that a test-and-
global sea-level changes [e.g., (15)]. How- Columbia, MO 65211, USA. 19Earth and Atmospheric Sci- treat strategy could control the spread of HIV.
ever, because sea-level changes are numer- ences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907–2051, Cohen cites an observational analysis,
ous (15), this association seems coincidental USA. 20Osservatorio Geologico di Coldigioco, 62021 Apiro by Donnell et al., that reported considerable
(MC), Italy. 21Department of Civil Engineering and Geologi-
rather than causal (16). Sea-level change also cal Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN reduction of HIV transmission in HIV discor-
fails to explain the disruption of vegetation 46556, USA. 22SIO Geological Collections, Scripps Institution dant couples when ART was provided to the
and the faunal change observed in terrestrial of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92093–0244, USA. 23Plane- HIV-infected index partner (2). This finding—
tary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA. 24Department
environments at the K-Pg boundary (1). of Geology and Geophysics, School of Ocean and Earth Sci-
similar to work from Sullivan et al. presented
We disagree with the comments of Keller ence and Technology, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hono- at Conference on Retroviruses and Opportu-
et al. regarding the association between lulu, HI 96822, USA. 25Unidad de Ciencias del Agua, Cen- nistic Infections in 2009 (3)—helps to support
Chicxulub impact ejecta and the K-Pg tro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Cancún, Quintana the key assumption that ART reduces infec-
Roo, 77500, México. 26Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et
boundary, and we point out that our Review de l’Environnement, Institut Pierre et Simon Laplace, Com- tiousness. However, these studies report only
addressed all of the issues to which they mission à l’Énergie Atomique/CNRS/Université de Versailles short-term observations; they do not address
refer. Our Review integrated new data with Saint Quentin en Yveunes-UMR 1572, Avenue de la Terrasse, the durability of this effect or the risk of trans-
F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. 27Bruker Nano GmbH,
previous work in the peer-reviewed litera- Schwarzschildstraße 12, D-12489 Berlin, Germany. 28Depart- mitted drug-resistant HIV strains, two critical
ture to provide substantial corroborating evi- ment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, K.U.Leuven, Box considerations for the test-and-treat strategy.
dence for a global correlation of the Chicxu- 2408, Celestijnenlaan 200E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. 29Natu- TIMOTHY D. MASTRO1* AND MYRON S. COHEN2
ral Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Calgary,
lub impact with the K-Pg boundary. 3303 33rd Street NW, Calgary, AB T2L 2A7, Canada. 30Labora-
1
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC
PETER SCHULTE,1* LAIA ALEGRET,2 IGNACIO ARE- torio de Paleomagnetismo y Paleoambientes, Programa Uni- 27709, USA. 2Division of Infectious Diseases, University of
NILLAS,2 JOSÉ A. ARZ,2 PENNY J. BARTON,3 versitario de Perforaciones en Oceanos y Continentes, Insti- North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
PAUL R. BOWN,4 TIMOTHY J. BRALOWER,5 GAIL tuto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
L. CHRISTESON,6 PHILIPPE CLAEYS,7 CHARLES (UNAM), DF 04510 México, México. 31Department of Earth
tmastro@fhi.org
and Ecosystem Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, 223
S. COCKELL,8 GARETH S. COLLINS,9 ALEXANDER 62 Lund, Sweden. 32Department of Geology and Geophysics, References
DEUTSCH,10 TAMARA J. GOLDIN,11 KAZUHISA University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA. 1. R. M. Granich, C. F. Gilks, C. Dye, K. M. De Cock,
GOTO,12 JOSÉ M. GRAJALES-NISHIMURA,13 B. G. Williams, Lancet 373, 48 (2009).
RICHARD A. F. GRIEVE,14 SEAN P. S. GULICK,6 *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: 2. D. Donnell et al., abstract 136, presented at the 17th
schulte@geol.uni-erlangen.de Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections,
KIRK R. JOHNSON,15 WOLFGANG KIESSLING,16
References San Francisco, CA, 16 to 19 February 2010.
CHRISTIAN KOEBERL,11 DAVID A. KRING,17 3. P. Sullivan et al., abstract 52bLB, presented at the 16th
1. D. J. Nichols, K. R. Johnson, Plants and the K-T Boundary
KENNETH G. MACLEOD,18 TAKAFUMI MATSUI,12 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections,
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).
JAY MELOSH,19 ALESSANDRO MONTANARI,20 2. P. Wilf, K. R. Johnson, B. T. Huber, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Montreal, Canada, 8 to 11 February 2009.
JOANNA V. MORGAN,9 CLIVE R. NEAL,21 U.S.A. 100, 599 (2003).
RICHARD D. NORRIS,22 ELISABETTA PIERAZZO,23 3. D. E. Fastovsky, P. M. Sheehan, GSA Today 15, 4 (2005).
GREG RAVIZZA,24 MARIO REBOLLEDO-VIEYRA,25 4. V. Riera, O. Oms, R. Gaete, A. Galobart, Palaeogeogr. Letters to the Editor
Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 283, 160 (2009).
WOLF UWE REIMOLD,16 ERIC ROBIN,26 5. T. D. Herbert, I. Premoli-Silva, E. Erba, A. G. Fischer, Soc. Letters (~300 words) discuss material published
TOBIAS SALGE,27 ROBERT P. SPEIJER,28 Econ. Paleont. Mineral. Spec. Publ. 54, 81 (1995). in Science in the previous 3 months or issues of
ARTHUR R. SWEET,29 JAIME URRUTIA- 6. A.-L. Chenet et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, B06103 (2009). general interest. They can be submitted through
FUCUGAUCHI,30 VIVI VAJDA,31 7. A. E. Jay et al., J. Geol. Soc. 166, 13 (2009). the Web (www.submit2science.org) or by regular
8. T. J. Bralower et al., Geology 38, 199 (2010). mail (1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC
MICHAEL T. WHALEN,32 PI S. WILLUMSEN31 9. S. Jiang et al., Nat. Geosci. 3, 280 (2010).
1
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 20005, USA). Letters are not acknowledged upon
10. P. B. Wignall, Earth Sci. Rev. 53, 1 (2001).
Schlossgarten 5, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. 2Departa- 11. R. V. White, A. D. Saunders, Lithos 79, 299 (2005). receipt, nor are authors generally consulted before
mento de Ciencias de la Tierra e Instituto Universitario de 12. V. Vajda, S. McLoughlin, Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 144, publication. Whether published in full or in part,
Investigación de Ciencias Ambientales de Aragón, Univer- 99 (2007). letters are subject to editing for clarity and space.
sidad de Zaragoza, Pedro Cerbuna 12, E-50009 Zaragoza, 13. W. Kiessling, C. Simpson, Global Change Biol., published
Spain. 3Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cam- online 24 February 2010; 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.
976 21 MAY 2010 VOL 328 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Published by AAAS

Schulte Et Al-2010 The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at The K-PG Boundary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schulte Et Al-2010 The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at The K-PG Boundary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction

at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

Supporting Online Material can be found at:

This article cites 54 articles, 17 of which can be accessed for free:

This article appears in the following subject collections:

Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary tations of the K-Pg boundary mass extinction

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

P global scale and abruptness of the major

What Is the Evidence for Correlating the Impact

1214 5 MARCH 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

and tsunamis in the Gulf of

10 spherules and the subsequent,

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 327 5 MARCH 2010 1215

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

unit were proposed as evidence

(36), indicate that deposition of 4- clastic 0 - 0-

boundary. Geochronologic data Breccia Lignite Ni-rich spinels

1216 5 MARCH 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 327 5 MARCH 2010 1217

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 4, 2010

1218 5 MARCH 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Supporting Online Material for

The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: schulte@geol.uni-erlangen.de

Published 5 March 2010, Science 327, 1214 (2010)

This PDF file includes:

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

3. Electron microprobe: Wavelength-dispersive (WDS) and energy-dispersive (EDS)

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 2

Supporting Text, Tables and Figures

Definition of the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary

Chicxulub impact ejecta at the K-Pg boundary

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 3

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 4

?#/*#"'/*8$( !"#$%&%'( )*+ b,-) ;+) ./"0"12 3"4/"5$678"9:&

!"#$ ?@"$A 8 68 48 =8 06 07 8 7 8 6 4 8 78 68 8 98 788 798

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 5

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 6

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 7

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 8

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 9

6-(7%&'($ :'+-#"(";$+-< 6"0&%&'($ 3-+0 62-0$ !"#$%&'($ !-#"(-&"'( 3-+0450-%&%

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 10

Figure S7: (caption on next page)

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 11

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 12

Figure S8 (caption on next page).

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 13

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 14

Figure S9 (caption on next page).

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 15

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 16

2-$'%28# H-11<02)95)2=D ?9==9.)23F)G2..9.2 ?9==9. C23/93)95)2=D

;)& Q-.24030Q9.2 X4I-W9.0/<9F)

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 17

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 18

Schulte et al. Science 2010! Page 19

?#/#"'/8$( !"#$%&%'( )*+ b,-) ;+) ./"0"12 3"4/"5$678"9:&