4.7 Article

Did the great dying of life take 700 k.y.? Evidence from global astronomical correlation of the Permian-Triassic boundary interval

Journal

GEOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 8, Pages 779-782

Publisher

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G32126.1

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR-0718905]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40830212, 40921062]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0770938]
  4. International Geological Correlation Programme [572]
  5. Australian Research Council [DP0770938] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cause of the great Permian-Triassic (P-T) boundary mass extinctions remains unknown. A crucial step in identifying the cause involves a precise timing of the mass extinction interval (MEI) in order to reconstruct the pattern of biotic evolution and the chronologic record of potential triggers. Here we present an estimate of the P-T boundary MEI duration based on astronomical tuning of multiple cyclic sedimentary records. Magnetic susceptibility data from Shangsi, southern China, provide evidence for strong 405 k.y. orbital eccentricity forcing throughout the P-T boundary interval. Radioisotope dating combined with 405 k.y. tuning provides an absolute time scale through the P-T boundary interval at unprecedented high resolution. An estimated similar to 700 k.y. duration for the MEI at Shangsi is supported by eccentricity tuned estimates of four other sections in China and Austria. In addition, at Shangsi, the onset of mass extinction occurred shortly following a coincidence of minima in the observed similar to 1.5 m.y., 405 k.y., and similar to 100 k.y. cycles. A change in the magnetic susceptibility response to astronomical forcing occurred just prior to the onset of extinction, with reduced 100-k.y.-scale cyclicity continuing into the Early Triassic for more than 2 m.y.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available