The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass

Extinction, Chicxulub Impact,

and Deccan Volcanism

Gerta Keller

Abstract
After three decades of nearly unchallenged wisdom that a large impact (Chicxulub)
on Yucatan caused the end-Cretaceous mass extinction, this theory is facing its most
serious challenge from the Chicxulub impact itself, as based on evidence in Texas
and Mexico and from Deccan volcanism in India. Data generated from over 150
Cretaceous–Tertiary (KT) boundary sequences to date make it clear that the long-held
belief in the Chicxulub impact as the sole or even major contributor to the KT mass
extinction is not supported by evidence. The stratigraphic position of the Chicxulub
impact ejecta spherules in NE Mexico and Texas and the impact breccia within the
crater on Yucatan demonstrate that this impact predates the KTB by about 300,000
years. Planktic foraminiferal and stable isotope analyses across the primary impact
ejecta layer reveal that not a single species went extinct as a result of this impact and
no significant environmental changes could be determined. The catastrophic effects
of this impact have been vastly overestimated. In contrast, recent advances in Deccan
volcanic studies indicate three volcanic phases with the smallest at 67.5 Ma, the main
phase at the end of the Maastrichtian (C29r), and the third phase in the early Danian
C29r/C29n transition (Chenet et al. 2007). The main phase of eruptions occurred
rapidly, was marked by the longest lava flows spanning 1500 km across India, and
ended coincident with the KT boundary. The KT mass extinction may have been
caused by these rapid and massive Deccan lava and gas eruptions that account for
∼80% of the entire 3500 m thick Deccan lava pile.

Keywords
Cretaceous • Maastrichtian • Paleogene • Danian • Mass extinctions • Foraminifers •
Stable isotopes • Chicxulub impact • Deccan volcanism

Introduction

G. Keller () One of the main conclusions of the year 2000 assess-
Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, ment was that most studies on the Cretaceous–Tertiary
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
(KT) mass extinction in the marine realm concentrated
e-mail: gkeller@princeton.edu
almost exclusively on the narrow interval surrounding

J.A. Talent (ed.), Earth and Life, International Year of Planet Earth, 759
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3428-1_25, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
760
the iridium anomaly globally or the impact spherule
layers in Mexico and the Caribbean (Keller 2001). This
fixation on the narrow Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary
(KTB) interval can be traced to the publications of the
bolide impact theory in 1980 (Alvarez et al. 1980), the
discovery of the Chicxulub crater on Yucatan in 1991
(Hildebrand et al. 1991), and the subsequent media and
public fascination with it. But it was fueled mainly
by the large number of scientists that were convinced
that a meteorite caused the global extinction of the
dinosaurs and many other groups at the end of the
Cretaceous. Keller wrote (2001, p. 817):
This theory unquestionably has great sex appeal. The
largest and most fascinating creatures that ever roamed
the Earth were wiped out in a single day in a ball of
fire caused by a meteorite impact that leaves behind the
crater of doom. No wonder the hypothesis captured the
minds and hearts of the public. But apart from the appeal
to the imagination, the theory is also supported by unde-
niable geochemical and geophysical evidence of a bolide
impact on the Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years
ago. The existence of an impact crater alone, however,
neither proves nor explains the demise of the dinosaurs,
or the mass extinction of any other groups. . . .Ultimately,
the validity of any mass extinction hypothesis depends on
how well it explains the paleontological record.
This statement is as true today as it was in 2000—
only more so. During the past decades, the bells and
whistles that warned of a more complex extinction sce-
nario inherent in the fossils and sedimentary records
were largely ignored. In the 1980s and 1990s scien-
tists who discovered evidence inconsistent with the
impact extinction scenario or disagreed with the impact
theory were generally derided as old-fashioned gradu-
alists, incompetent, and much worse. In Luis Alvarez’
famous interview with New York Times’ Malcolm
Browne, he said, “I don’t like to say bad things about
paleontologists, but they’re really not very good scien-
tists. They’re more like stamp collectors” (New York
Times, January 19, 1988). If accumulating a large
database to test the validity of a theory is equated
with stamp collecting, then many scientists fall in this
category. Having analyzed over 150 KT sequences
worldwide (Fig. 1) certainly counts the author and col-
laborators among them. A large database is necessary
to find out what really happened globally and to test
the impact theory.
The Alvarez et al. (1980) impact theory gained
its strongest support from the Iridium anomaly in a
thin clay layer that separates Cretaceous and Tertiary
G. Keller
sediments at the Gubbio section in Italy and marks the
mass extinction in planktic foraminifera. This iridium
anomaly was attributed to a large meteorite impact, a
link that was established in the 1970s with the Apollo
lunar regolith samples (Morgan et al. 1975). Soon the
link between impacts (e.g., meteorites) and extinctions
implied by the Alvarez theory became the frequently
proposed scenario for all mass extinction events, even
though no evidence could be found that directly linked
impacts and mass extinctions in any of the other
extinction events (e.g., Courtillot 1999; Wignall 2001;
Courtillot and Renne 2003; Keller 2005). By the early
1990s, the twin discoveries of the Chicxulub crater on
Yucatan (Hildebrand et al. 1991) and impact spherule
ejecta in Haiti and NE Mexico (Izett et al. 1991; Smit
et al. 1992, 1996) were widely believed to prove the
KT impact theory—the smoking gun had been found.
Or was it not?
Despite the irrefutable evidence of a large meteorite
impact on Yucatan, nagging doubts persisted fueled by
a plethora of evidence that could not be reconciled
with the Chicxulub impact as the sole cause for the
mass extinction. A review of the evidence that led to
this premature conclusion and the evidence that con-
tradicts it help us understand this nearly three-decades-
old controversy. In the past few years, new evidence
increasingly points away from Chicxulub and toward
the other KT catastrophe—Deccan volcanism—as the
likely smoking gun.
Database and Methods
Over 150 KT sequences have been analyzed to date by
the author, collaborators, and many students over the
past 20 years (Fig. 1). The largest concentration of KT
sequences was analyzed throughout Central America
(Fig. 2) in order to evaluate the age and biotic con-
sequences of the Chicxulub impact. Over 45 sections
were analyzed in NE Mexico by a dozen students
and their advisors (Thierry Adatte, Gerta Keller, and
Wolfgang Stinnesbeck) who systematically mapped,
sampled, and studied outcrops containing the sand-
stone complex with Chicxulub impact spherules over
50 km2 (Lindenmaier 1999; Schilli 2000; Affolter
2000; Schulte 1999; Schulte et al. 2003, 2006; Lopez-
Oliva 1996; Lopez-Oliva, Keller 1996; Harting 2004).
Another 18 sequences were analyzed in southern
Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Haiti, and Cuba. These
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism 761

Fig. 1 Localities showing Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sequences analyzed worldwide by Keller and collaborators (modified after
Keller and Pardo 2004)

Fig. 2 Localities showing Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sequences analyzed by Keller and collaborators in the Caribbean, Central
America, and southern USA that contain Chicxulub impact glass spherule ejecta (modified after Keller et al. 2003a)
762
studies are based on an interdisciplinary approach that
integrates paleontology, sedimentology, mineralogy,
and geochemistry. Numerous sections were also ana-
lyzed in Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, Spain, and Denmark. In
addition, the dataset covers KT localities from high lat-
itudes, every ocean basin, and open marine to marginal
depositional regimes. Planktic foraminifera were stud-
ied based on the same quantitative techniques (counts
of about 300 specimens per sample, Keller et al. 1995)
and consistent taxonomic concepts.
Problems with Chicxulub as KT Age Impact
The 1991 discovery of the Chicxulub impact crater on
Yucatan (Hildebrand et al. 1991) and impact spherules
throughout Central America and the Caribbean proved
that an impact occurred, but left the timing uncertain.
Despite repeated claims to the contrary, problems with
the Chicxulub impact as precisely KT age arose from
the very beginning. Impact craters are very difficult
to date. The first Chicxulub age dates were based on
39 Ar/40 Ar ages from melt rock within the impact brec-
cia (suevite) of the Yucatan crater and from melt rock
spherules in Haiti and NE Mexico (Izett et al. 1991;
Sigurdsson et al. 1991; Swisher et al. 1992). However,
39 Ar/40 Ar ages have typical error bars of ±1%, or
about ±300–500 ky for the KT boundary (Courtillot
and Renne 2003; Chenet et al. 2007), an uncertainty
that is too large to identify the Chicxulub impact as
KT age.
Better age control can be obtained from biostratigra-
phy, a relative dating method that places a sequence of
events in the order in which they occurred. Typically,
biostratigraphy is based on unique bioevents, includ-
ing the presence of short-lived species, evolution, and
extinctions. Coupled with global geochemical signals,
such as the carbon-13 shift and Ir anomaly that mark
the KTB, bioevents can yield precise relative dating.
With respect to the Chicxulub impact, relative dating
can place events unequivocally above, below, or at the
KT boundary (Keller 2008a).
The Chicxulub impact is commonly identified in
sediments by three types of signals: (1) impact (sue-
vite) breccia, which is restricted to proximal areas
surrounding the crater, (2) impact spherules, and (3)
the Ir anomaly. However, no Ir anomaly has ever
been documented in association with other Chicxulub
ejecta (e.g., suevite or impact spherules), and no
Chicxulub ejecta has ever been found at the KTB
G. Keller
in complete expanded sections (Keller 2008a), which
suggests that this meteorite was not enriched in irid-
ium and is not linked to the KTB. In contrast, impact
melt rock spherules are geochemically linked to the
Chicxulub crater (Izett 1990; Blum et al. 1993; Koeberl
1993; Schulte et al. 2003). These spherules range
from 1–5 mm in diameter and are commonly found
throughout Central America and various localities in
the United States (e.g., Texas, Alabama, New Jersey,
New Mexico). The stratigraphic position of these
spherules within the sedimentary column dates the
impact, provided that this is the primary spherule
deposit. Unfortunately, impact spherules are frequently
eroded, transported and redeposited into younger sedi-
ments, which can lead to erroneous age determinations
(Keller et al., 2008a). This is particularly problem-
atic in the Caribbean where reworked spherules are
frequently found in basal Danian sediments and erro-
neously interpreted as KTB age (e.g., Olsson et al.,
1997; Norris et al., 1999, 2000).
For example, the first discovery of Chicxulub
impact spherules was in Haiti at or near the KT
boundary and was considered proof that this impact
is KT in age (Izett et al. 1991; Maurasse and Sen
1991; Maurrasse et al. 2005). A subsequent study
found these impact spherules to be reworked into
early Danian sediments, similar to impact spherules
in Belize, Guatemala, and southern Mexico (Keller
et al. 2001, 2003a, b). Within a year new discoveries of
impact spherules were made in northeastern Mexico,
and these rapidly became the standard bearer of the
“Chicxulub impact generated tsunami event” (Smit
et al. 1992). As with Haiti, this conclusion was based
on the assumption that the Chicxulub impact is KTB
in age. How did this happen? A brief regional history
sets the background for understanding these sandstone
units and their depositional nature.
Northeastern Mexico Paleogeography
During the late Maastrichtian and Paleogene, north-
eastern Mexico was part of a shallow to moder-
ately deep shelf-slope environment that received a
steady influx of terrigenous clastic sediments from
the Laramide Orogeny and uplift of the Sierra Madre
Oriental to the west (Sohl et al. 1991; Galloway et al.
1991). Along the western Gulf of Mexico, a series of
basins formed in the present states of Veracruz and
Tamaulipas and in the southern and eastern parts of
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Nuevo Leon. Within these basins rhythmically bed-
ded marls, shales, and thin layers of volcanic ash were
deposited in outer neritic to upper bathyal pelagic
environments. These sedimentary rocks belong to the
Campanian to Maastrichtian Mendez Formation and
the Paleocene Velasco Formation.
During this time, the western Gulf of Mexico
was characterized by several large submarine canyon
systems that formed along the prograding unstable
continental margin. The best known of these are
the Lavaca and Yoakum paleocanyons in Texas and
the Chicontepec paleocanyon system in central east
Mexico. It is in the submarine channels of these
canyon systems that the thick sandstone complexes of
northeastern Mexico and Texas were deposited dur-
ing the late Maastrichtian. There are several such
sandstone units interbedded in the Maastrichtian
Mendez Formation in NE Mexico (e.g., a prominent
late Maastrichtian sandstone unit is exposed outside
Linares, Nuevo Leon). Each is correlative with a major
sea-level fall during the Maastrichtian that resulted
in erosion and increased detrital input from the ris-
ing Sierra Madre Oriental. But only the sandstone
complex closest to the KT boundary has Chicxulub
impact spherules at the base. Today these channel-fill
deposits, including the one near Linares, form the top
of low-lying hills throughout northeastern Mexico.
NE Mexico Sandstone Complex—Tsunami
or Sea-Level Change?
After the discovery of impact spherules in Haiti an
intensive search was underway to discover similar
deposits in Mexico. The first discovery was at El
Mimbral in NE Mexico, where a 1 m thick spherule
layer is present below a massive 2 m thick sandstone
that is overlain by alternating sand, silt, and shale
layers. The KTB and Ir anomaly are above these sed-
iments. Similar deposits were observed at El Mulato
and El Peñon (Figs. 3 and 4). The spatial separation
between impact spherules and the KTB in these out-
crops presented a major problem. If we assume that
the impact struck Yucatan at KTB time and caused
the mass extinction, then the impact spherules must
be KT in age, and the sandstone complex in between
must have been deposited within days. The simple
solution would be an impact-generated mega-tsunami
(Smit et al. 1992). This interpretation had already been
proposed for similar sandstone units in KT sequences
763
Fig. 3 The Cretaceous–Tertiary sequence at El Mulato, NE
Mexico. The KT boundary in NE Mexico is above a thick sand-
stone complex with Chicxulub impact spherules at the base.
This sandstone complex infills submarine channels. Based on
the assumption that the Chicxulub impact is KT in age, the
sandstone complex is commonly interpreted as impact-generated
tsunami deposit. Deposition during a sea-level fall is more
consistent with the evidence
along the Brazos River in Texas (Bourgeois et al.
1988). In this scenario the glass spherules rained from
the sky within hours of the impact and settled on
the ocean floor, the impact-generated tsunami waves
arrived soon after and deposited the massive sandstone,
which was followed by the waning tsunami waves
depositing the alternating sand, silt, and shale layers,
with the iridium settling during the subsequent weeks
(Fig. 4, Smit et al. 1992, 1996; Smit 1999; Kring 2007).
This scenario provided complete support for the KT
impact theory and was an instant hit in the early 1990s
and persists to this day (see Schulte et al. 2010). But
what is the evidence?
Scientists searching for verification of the impact
theory soon discovered dozens of outcrops with sand-
stone complexes similar to El Mimbral throughout
northeastern Mexico with the best localities at El
Peñon, El Mulato, La Lajilla, Loma Cerca, La Sierrita,
and Mesa Juan Perez (Figs. 2 and 3). At each local-
ity a thick (1 m to 8 m) sandstone complex infills
submarine channels with a lateral continuity of about
100–250 m. In most areas, the sandstone complexes
form the flat tops of low-lying hills with the overlying
sediments eroded. But in a few localities the overlying
sediments are preserved (e.g., El Mimbral, La Lajilla,
764
Fig. 4 Lithology and description of the sandstone complex at El Peñon with the impact-tsunami interpretation and the facts that
contradict this interpretation
El Mulato, Fig. 3). The sandstone complex consists of
three distinctive lithological units, although the thick-
ness is highly variable within an outcrop and from one
area to another and some units may be missing.
Unit 1: The thickest sandstone complex with all
three lithological units present is known from the
classic El Peñon locality (Fig. 4). Unit 1 is the
spherule-rich layer at the base of the sandstone com-
plex and is about 1 m thick. Sediments consist of green
altered impact glass spherules, 1 to 5 mm in size,
and characterized by abundant vesicles (Fig. 5a–e).
These spherules have been identified as microtektites
G. Keller
produced by melting and quenching of terrestrial rocks
during a hypervelocity impact (Izett 1990; Izett et al.
1991; Sigurdsson et al. 1991; Blum et al. 1993;
Koeberl 1993). The impact spherules are mixed with
abundant quartz sand, shallow water foraminifera, and
plant debris, which indicate erosion and transport from
shallow nearshore areas. Deposition occurred in an
upper bathyal environment at depths >500 m (Keller
et al. 2003a, 2004a, b; Alegret et al. 2001).
In many outcrops of NE Mexico, including El
Mimbral, La Lajilla, El Peñon, and Rancho Grande,
the spherule-rich unit 1 is separated into two spherule
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Fig. 5 Characteristics of the spherule unit 1 at the base of
the sandstone complex. (a) Rock of the spherule-rich layer.
(b) Remnant spherule glass preserved after acid treatment.
(c) Close-up of spherule-rich layer showing altered impact
glass. (d) Thin-section micrograph of spherule in debris matrix.
(e) Thin-section micrograph of spherules in calcite cement.
layers by a 15–25 cm thick sandy limestone layer
(SLL) (Figs. 4 and 5, Keller et al. 1997). Rare J-shaped
burrows infilled with spherules and truncated by ero-
sion are present (Fig. 5f–h, Keller et al. 1997; Ekdale
and Stinnesbeck 1998). This limestone layer indicates
a long period of normal sediment deposition. The sec-
ond spherule layer disconformably overlies the sandy
limestone and indicates a renewed influx of shallow-
water debris. These lithological characteristics are
inconsistent with deposition within hours as proposed
by the tsunami scenario (Smit et al. 1992, 1996; Smit
1999). Smit argued that the limestone layer was tec-
tonically injected into the spherule layer by the impact
disturbance, a feat that is difficult to contemplate over
765
(f) J-shaped burrow from sandy limestone within spherule unit
1. (g) Sandy limestone layer in spherule-rich unit 1 at El Peñon
with location of burrow truncated by erosion (close-up in f).
(h) Sandy limestone between spherule layers at El Mimbral with
sculpted upper surface (adapted from Keller 2008a)
the vast distance in which these layers are found in the
same stratigraphic unit 1.
Unit 2: Unit 2 is a massive sandstone that discon-
formably overlies unit 1 (Fig. 4). There is no grading,
no significant change in grain size, no exotic debris,
and near absence of clasts, except for some marl clasts
at the base. At El Peñon, occasional J-shaped bur-
rows infilled with spherules are present near the base.
At El Mimbral a large deposit of plants, leaves, and
wood marks the base of unit 2. Disconformities within
the sandstone indicate several depositional episodes.
These lithologic characteristics indicate slumps or
gravity flows. Unit 2 lacks the chaotic sediments that
are associated with tsunami deposition.
766
Fig. 6 (A) Alternating sand, silt, and shale layers of unit 3
disconformably overlying the sperule unit 1 at La Lajilla.
(B) Burrows of unit 3 at El Peñon. (a) Thalassinoides,
(b) Chondrites, (c) Zoophycos, (d) fine grained, laminated lay-
ers of unit 3 with common burrows (e) of Chondrites (vertical
Unit 3: Unit 3 consists of alternating layers of
sand, silt, and laminated shale (Fig. 6a, b), which are
topped by a rippled sandy limestone (RPL). The char-
acteristics of the alternating layers are clearly visible
in the resistant sand layers jutting out from the out-
crops as shown for La Lajilla, where unit 3 overlies
unit 1 (Fig. 6a). Sand layers show variable features,
including rippled, wavy, and convolute bedding. Trace
fossils are abundant, particularly in the fine silt and
shale layers where Chondrites burrows are abundant
(Fig. 6b, e–f). At El Peñon, trace fossils are par-
ticularly abundant in the sandy top layers, including
Thalassinoides, Zoophycos Chondrites (Fig. 6). Ekdale
and Stinnesbeck (1998) observed at least three suc-
cessive burrowing episodes that indicate unit 3 was
deposited over a long period of time with repeated
G. Keller
view), (f) bird’s-eye view. Multiple burrowed horizons within
unit 3 indicate that the ocean floor was colonized by inverte-
brates during sedimentation, which is inconsistent with tsunami
deposition over hours to days (modified after Keller et al. 1997)
colonization of the ocean floor. This is inconsistent
with tsunami deposition over a period of hours to days.
Two distinct layers enriched in zeolites are present
near the base and top of unit 3 at El Peñon, La Sierrita,
El Mulato, La Lajilla, and El Mimbral, as well as
in the spherule unit 1 and early Danian sediments
at El Mimbral (Figs. 4 and 7, Adatte et al. 1996).
These layers indicate significant volcaniclastic influx.
Because these layers are correlatable over long dis-
tances, they represent discrete volcanic input dur-
ing normal sedimentation, which is inconsistent with
tsunami deposition over a period of hours to days.
Evidence of unit 3 thus indicates long-term depo-
sition inconsistent with the tsunami scenario. Smit
et al. (1994, p. 100) argued that the “correct interpre-
tation of the many burrowing structures (Chondrites,
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Fig. 7 Correlation of the sandstone complex in NE Mexico
showing the continuity of two zeolite-enriched layers within
unit 3. These zeolite-enriched layers mark discrete episodes
Zoophycos) that occur on and in the top of the
KT clastic complex . . . . (is that they) clearly pene-
trate from above after deposition of the clastic com-
plex.” They further suggest that vertical tubes of
unknown origin, up to 3 m long and 1 cm diam-
eter, reach down into unit 3 and branch out hori-
zontally in the fine-grained layers. Though vertical
tubes representing water escape structures are occa-
sionally observed, these do not explain the multiple-
burrowing horizons truncated by erosion, or the small
Chondrites traces (Fig. 6b). Water-escape structures
are not inconsistent with the tsunami interpretation,
but repeated colonization of the ocean floor is, because
it requires long-term deposition. In addition, volcanic
influx (e.g., zeolite-enriched layers) requires a discrete
source and undisturbed deposition. Thus, both bur-
rows and discrete volcanic influx negate the tsunami
scenario.
What is a plausible alternative interpretation of this
sandstone complex? Keller et al. (1994b) and Adatte
et al. (1996) proposed a major sea-level fall with a
concomitant subaerial unconformity (sequence bound-
ary (SB) at the base of the sandstone complex) and
low sea level (LST) during which units 1 and 2
were deposited via erosion and transport of nearshore
767
of volcanoclastic influx that are inconsistent with tsunami
deposition over hours to days (modified from Adatte et al.
1996)
sediments (unit 1) and gravity flows and slumps (unit 2,
Fig. 8). Unit 3 was deposited during the subsequent
sea-level rise (TST), which reached the maximum
flooding surface (MFS) at the KTB. This scenario is
in agreement with the well-known Late Maastrichtian
sea-level changes (e.g., Haq et al. 1987, 1988; Baum
and Vail 1988; Donovan et al. 1988; Loutit et al. 1988).
Underlying the controversy over impact-tsunami or
sea-level fall interpretations is not the nature of sed-
iment deposition, but whether the Chicxulub impact
is KT age. If deposition of the sandstone complex
occurred over a long time period, then the Chicxulub
impact predates the KTB and cannot be the cause for
the KT mass extinction. The fact that the KT mass
extinction and Ir anomaly are always above the sand-
stone complex compounds the problem (Smit et al.
1992; Stinnesbeck et al. 1993; Keller et al. 1994a, b;
Rocchia et al. 1996). In addition, there is frequently a
thin layer of Maastrichtian marl between the sandstone
complex and the KTB (e.g., La Lajilla, El Mulato, La
Parida), which further jeopardizes the tsunami inter-
pretation (Lopez-Oliva and Keller 1996). A simple
solution was to redefine the KTB as the Chicxulub
impact, which automatically places the KTB at the
spherule layer at the base of the sandstone complex
768
Fig. 8 Sea-level changes inferred from the lithology of the
sandstone complex at El Mimbral, NE Mexico. The erosional
base of the channel marks a sequence boundary (SB) and the
(Smit et al. 1992, 1994, 1996, 2004; Smit 1999; Molina
et al. 2006; Arenillas et al. 2006; Kring 2007; Schulte
et al., 2010). This circular reasoning has not solved the
problem of the age of the Chicxulub impact.
Texas: Sandstone Complex—Tsunami
or Sea-Level Change?
The impact-tsunami hypothesis was first proposed
by Bourgeois et al. (1988) for a sandstone complex
that infills inner shelf channels near the KT bound-
ary along the Brazos River in Texas (Fig. 9). The
sandstone complex in this area is very similar to the
sandstone complex in NE Mexico, including reworked
impact spherules at the base, multiple burrowed hori-
zons within the sandstone, and the KT boundary
and Ir anomaly above it (Hansen et al. 1987, 1993;
Keller 1989; Yancey 1996; Schulte et al. 2006; Keller
et al. 2007a). Impact-tsunami proponents placed the
KT boundary at the base of the sandstone complex
based on the assumption that the impact is KT in age
G. Keller
lowest sea level. The sandstone complex was deposited during
the following slowly rising sea level (modified from Adatte et al.
1996)
(Bourgeois et al. 1988; Smit et al. 1996; Hansen et al.
1993; Schulte et al. 2006, 2008), a practice that was
followed in NE Mexico sections.
However, one cannot test the hypothesis that the
Chicxulub impact caused the KT mass extinction by
defining the impact as the K–T boundary, as Schulte
et al. (2008, 2010) proposed (see Keller et al. 2008a).
In our global analyses of over 150 KT sequences, the
most consistent markers are the mass extinction in
planktic foraminifera, the first appearance of Danian
species, and the δ13 C shift. The δ13 C shift is a global
oceanographic signal and therefore provides an inde-
pendent check on paleontological and impact criteria,
which is critical to avoid circular reasoning. In the
Brazos sections these KT defining criteria are well
documented above the sandstone complex (Jiang and
Gartner 1986; Keller 1989; Barrera and Keller 1990;
Keller et al. 2007a, 2008a, 2009a).
Detailed sedimentologic analysis of the sandstone
complex in Brazos sections revealed long-term depo-
sition, including multiple storm-related erosion sur-
faces followed by re-colonization of the sea floor
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Fig. 9 The Cretaceous–Tertiary sequence of the Darting
Minnow Creek (DMC), a tributary of the Brazos River, Falls
County in Texas. The KT boundary is well above the sandstone
complex with Chicxulub impact spherules at the base which
infills submarine channels. This deposit was originally inter-
preted as impact-generated tsunami (Bourgeois et al. 1988) but is
during a low sea level (Fig. 10) (Yancey 1996; Gale
2006; Keller et al. 2007a). Two to three upward-
fining spherule-rich layers with abundant shell hash
and glauconite are common at the base of the sandstone
complex along with clasts of the underlying sedi-
ments. In some outcrops, large clasts (5–10 cm) were
found at the base of the spherule deposits (Fig. 9a).
Some clasts contain common impact spherules (B)
and cracks infilled with spherules and sparry calcite
(Fig. 9c). These spherule-rich clasts demonstrate the
presence of an older spherule deposition event with
sediments lithified and subsequently exposed, at times
subaerially, to erosion followed by redeposition in
submarine channels (Keller et al. 2007a).
Above the sandstone complex deposition of dark
grey mudstones and claystones with few macrofossils
and burrows infilled by pyrite mark dysoxic conditions
and a rising sea level (Fig. 10). The KT boundary is
identified in the lower part of this dark claystone. Texas
sections thus demonstrate deposition of the sandstone
complex during a low sea level prior to the KTB, sim-
ilar to NE Mexico (Fig. 4). The reworked spherules in
769
now recognized as sea-level lowstand. (a) clasts at base of sand-
stone complex. (b) Thin section of clasts show impact spherules.
(c) Dessication racks in clasts are infilled with impact spherules
and reveal a history of Chicxulub ejecta well prior to erosion
and redeposition at the base of the sandstone complex (modified
from Keller et al. 2007a)
multiple layers and clasts indicate that the Chicxulub
impact must predate the KT boundary (discussed in
Section “Texas—Primary Spherule Layer”).
Deep-Sea-Spherule Deposits
Advocates for a KT age of the Chicxulub impact
frequently point to the stratigraphic proximity of
spherules and an Ir anomaly in some deep-sea marine
sequences (e.g., Blake Nose, Bass River, Demerara
Rise) as unequivocal evidence that Chicxulub caused
the KT mass extinction (Olsson et al. 1997; Norris
et al. 1999, 2000; Klaus et al. 2000; MacLeod et al.
2007). Differential settling of iridium is often used to
explain the proximity of the Ir anomaly at or a few
cm above the spherule layer. This argument is plau-
sible only if there is continuous sedimentation and no
inverse grading or other disturbances in the spherule
layer, and no disconformities due to erosion or non-
deposition—all are features evident at Bass River,
Blake Nose, and Demerara Rise (Keller 2008a).
770
Fig. 10 Lithologic description and sea-level interpretation of Brazos sections (modified from Gale 2006)
The Bass River core of New Jersey was described
as a complete KT boundary sequence that provides
“unequivocal evidence” that the Chicxulub impact is
KT in age (Olsson et al. 1997). However, this shallow
water (∼100 m) sequence is demonstrably incomplete.
The Maastrichtian consists of highly bioturbated glau-
conitic clay with only an 8 cm interval representing
the Micula prinssi (CC26) zone, which spans the last
500 ky of the Maastrichtian (Fig. 11). This indicates
that most of the uppermost Maastrichtian is missing.
The spherule layer is poorly sorted with clasts contain-
ing Maastrichtian microfossils that indicate erosion,
transport, and redeposition. Above the spherule layer
the first 280 ky of the Danian (zones P0 and P1a,
Parvularugoglobigerina eugubina) is represented by
just 8 cm with an assemblage indicative of the upper
part of this interval (subzone P1a(2), Fig. 11), which
G. Keller
indicates that most of the early Danian is missing. The
juxtaposition of the spherule layer, the clasts, and early
Danian sediments is thus due to a major hiatus, which
allows no conclusion as to the timing of the Chicxulub
event.
At Blake Nose ODP Site 1049 the close proxim-
ity of the spherule layer, Ir anomaly, and early Danian
planktic foraminifera have also been claimed as proof
that the Chicxulub impact is KT age (Norris et al.
1999, 2000; Klaus et al. 2000; Martínez-Ruiz et al.
2002). The spherule layer is 15 cm thick and discon-
formably overlies mottled, mixed carbonate ooze of
the basal M. prinsii zone and planktic foraminiferal
zone CF3 (Fig. 11). The spherule layer contains clasts
of limestone, dolomite, chert, and schist, which indi-
cate eroded and transported sediments. A rich lower
Danian planktic foraminiferal assemblage of subzone
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Fig. 11 Deep-sea Cretaceous–Tertiary sequences are often
claimed to be complete and proof that the Chicxulub impact
is KT in age. However, they are generally condensed and
incomplete. Comparison with the more complete and expanded
P1a(1) is present in the spherule layer along with
reworked Cretaceous species. This indicates that the
spherules were eroded from older rocks and rede-
posited in the lower Danian. At the top is a 3 mm
thick limonitic layer followed by 3–4 cm thick dark
grey mottled and bioturbated ooze with abundant
quartz and limestone chips that also indicate ero-
sion. A mix of Cretaceous foraminifera and abundant
Parvularugoglobigerina eugubina (48% in 58–61 cm
interval) are also present above the reworked spherule
layer. The Ir anomaly (1.3 ppb) within these sediments
therefore does not represent primary deposition. Thus
at Blake Nose, the stratigraphic record of Site 1049
is incomplete and the juxtaposition of the spherule
layer and Ir anomaly therefore provides no proof that
Chicxulub is KT age.
Demerara Rise ODP Site 1259 recovered a sim-
ilar KT transition as Site 1049 on Blake Nose. A
2 cm thick spherule layer separates chalk of the late
Maastrichtian M. prinsii and CF1 zones from overlying
early Danian claystone with an Ir anomaly (1.5 ppb,
Fig. 11) (MacLeod et al. 2007). The first Danian
771
sequences along the Brazos River in Texas reveals the juxtaposi-
tion of Danian sediments with impact spherules as an artifact of
an incomplete record in the Northwest Atlantic and Caribbean
species appear about 3 cm above the spherule layer and
mark the Parvularugoglobigerina eugubina P1a zone.
The characteristic KT boundary clay layer is miss-
ing. To date no quantitative faunal data are available
to assess the continuity of this stratigraphic record.
Given the discontinuous records at Blake Nose and
Bass River to the north, the Demerara Rise sedimen-
tation may have undergone similar erosion by currents
and the juxtaposition of spherules, Ir anomaly, and the
KTB may be an artifact of a condensed record.
These deep-sea sequences cannot be considered
proof that the Chicxulub is KT age or has the same ori-
gin as the Ir anomaly. Stratigraphic comparison with
complete and expanded sequences along the Brazos
River reveals that they are not only highly condensed
but also have significant hiatuses at the KT boundary
(Fig. 11). The spherule-rich condensed layers span the
equivalent of the primary and reworked spherule lay-
ers in Brazos sections, plus the sandstone complex.
In addition, the basal Danian appears missing in all
three deep-sea sections. The presence of an Ir anomaly
is no guarantee that the KTB is present because Ir
772
and mineral phases with adsorbed Ir may have been
remobilized after deposition and concentrated at redox
boundary (see Section “Deccan Volcanism Linked to
KTB”).
Chicxulub Predates the KTB—The
Evidence
Northeastern Mexico—Primary
Spherule Layer
The evidence for long-term deposition of the sandstone
complex with its reworked impact spherules in Mexico
and Texas implied that the original Chicxulub spherule
layer should be present in older marine sediments for
which no detailed studies existed. Until the late 1990s
investigators exclusively concentrated on the sand-
stone complex and overlying sediments in the belief
that all the answers could be found there. Between
1996 and 2002, a major team effort was launched
by students and advisors from Princeton, Neuchatel
(Switzerland), and Karlsruhe (Germany) Universities
Fig. 12 Correlation of El Peñon 1 outcrops showing similar
horizontal deposition of marls, marly limestone, and primary
impact spherule layer, which were deposited in a submarine
channel centered at El Peñon 1B. El Peñon can be correlated
G. Keller
to systematically investigate late Maastrichtian to
Danian sequences throughout northeastern Mexico
(Fig. 2). These investigations revealed numerous out-
crops with impact spherule layers interbedded in marls
of the Mendez Formation near the base of planktic
foraminiferal zone CF1 (range of Plummerita han-
tkeninoides, Pardo et al. 1996), which spans the last
300,000 years of the Maastrichtian. The most signifi-
cant of these are at Loma Cerca, Mesa Juan Perez, and
El Peñon where 1 and 2 m thick spherule layers were
discovered in upper Maastrichtian sediments about 9,
2, and 4 m below the sandstone complex, respec-
tively (Fig. 12) (Keller et al. 2002, 2003a; Schulte
et al. 2003; Keller 2008a, b). Some workers inter-
pret this older spherule layer as slump, citing a small
(<60 cm) fold within the reworked spherule layer at
Mesa Juan Perez (Soria et al. 2001; Schulte et al.
2003; Smit et al. 2004, but see Keller and Stinnesbeck
2002).
There are many reasons why this interpretation
is not supported by evidence. For example, corre-
lation of the late Maastrichtian spherule layer over
35 km from El Peñon to Loma Cerca and Mesa Juan
to Loma Cerca and Mesa Juan Perez sections at 25 and 35 km to
the north, respectively. Variable erosion in submarine channels
accounts for the reduced marl layer at Loma Cerca A and Mesa
Juan Perez (modified from Keller et al. 2009c)
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Perez reveals that slumps or tsunami deposition cannot
account for such continuous emplacements (Fig. 12).
Spherule layers at these sections are interbedded in
pelagic marls of the Mendez Formation that show no
evidence of disturbance. They are normally bedded,
bioturbated pelagic marls that at El Peñon contain
marly limestone layers as well as a condensed red clay
that truncates burrows (e.g., hardground, hiatus) and
a bentonite layer (Keller et al. 2009c). Such bedding
and distinct lithologies are not characteristics of slump
deposits. The lateral continuity of the Maastrichtian
spherule layer at El Peñon can be traced for at least 80
m parallel to the sandstone complex above, which indi-
cates normal deposition (Fig. 13). Over this distance
the spherule layer remains a coherent unit, but thins
Fig. 13 El Peñon hill showing the base of the sandstone com-
plex with reworked spherules (dashed line) dipping to the
northeast. Parallel to the sandstone complex and 4–5 m below
is the primary Chicxulub impact spherule ejecta layer (solid
line) interbedded in late Maastrichtian marls. Locations b, c,
773
from 2 m to 1 m and then to 25 cm, which suggests
deposition in a depression or submarine channel. In the
Mesa Juan Perez and Loma Cerca area, the variable
vertical distance between spherules at the base of the
sandstone complex and the late Maastrichtian spherule
layer interbedded in marls below is largely due to the
variable erosion in the submarine channels at the base
of the sandstone complex.
With the slump argument Soria et al. (2001)
and Schulte et al. (2003, 2010) contend that the
late Maastrichtian spherule layer is the same as the
reworked spherule layer(s) at the base of the sandstone
complex. For the El Peñon section it was even sug-
gested that seismic shaking from the impact caused
marls to liquefy permitting the spherules to sink 4–5 m
and d illustrate exposures of the spherule layer. Welded impact
spherules (e) and concave–convex contacts (f) indicate depo-
sition while still hot. Oval spherule (g) with characteristic air
bubbles. Circle marks classic El Peñon 1 outcrop (modified from
Keller et al. 2009c)
774
and accumulate in the dense 2 m thick layer in which
they are now found. Unexplained in this scenario
is how this liquefaction/sinking would happen. How
resettling could occur in a dense spherule layer with
only calcite cement, with distinct sublayers of welded
amalgamated glass (Fig. 13e–g). And how resettling
could exclude the clastic shallow water debris, wood,
plants or shallow-water foraminifera that character-
ize the reworked spherule layers from which they
supposedly originated.
The two spherule layers, in fact, reflect very differ-
ent depositional histories. The upper spherule layers
at the base of the sandstone complex are eroded from
shallow nearshore areas and transported across the
shelf and slope to rest in submarine canyons at >500
m depth (Smit et al. 1992; Keller et al. 1994a, b;
Alegret et al. 2001). The lower spherule layer lacks
this shallow-water component and contains mainly cal-
cite cement and welded glass that suggest rapid settling
through the water column. In the upper part of the
spherule unit spherules are dispersed in a marl matrix
suggesting some current reworking. We consider this
the primary impact spherule ejecta layer (Keller et al.
in press). The stratigraphic position of this spherule
layer near the base of zone CF1 is the basis for esti-
mating the age of the Chicxulub impact as predating
the KT boundary by about 300 ky.
Chicxulub Crater Well Yaxcopoil-1—Impact
Breccia and KTB
Yaxcopoil 1 (Yax-1), drilled within the Chicxulub
crater in 2001–2002, was expected to yield the final
proof that this impact occurred precisely 65 m.y. ago
and caused the mass extinction at the Cretaceous–
Tertiary (KT) boundary (Dressler et al. 2003,
2004). Instead, contrary evidence was discovered.
Yaxcopoil-1 recovered a 100 m thick impact breccia
(suevite) with upward fining clasts and current bedding
in the upper 15 m. Above the breccia is a 50 cm thick
laminated limestone layer with the KT boundary at the
top. The age of this limestone layer turned out to be
latest Maastrichtian based on five independent prox-
ies (sedimentologic, biostratigraphic, magnetostrati-
graphic, stable isotopic, and iridium) that revealed the
Chicxulub impact predates the KT boundary by about
300,000 years and could not have caused the mass
G. Keller
extinction (Keller et al. 2004a, b). This is demon-
strated by the presence of five bioturbated glauconite
layers, planktic foraminiferal assemblages of the latest
Maastrichtian zone CF1, magnetostratigraphic chron
29R, and characteristic late Maastrichtian stable iso-
tope signals (Fig. 14). Critics proposed that this lime-
stone interval represents chaotic backwash and crater
infill from the Chicxulub impact (Arz et al. 2004;
Dressler et al. 2003, 2004; Smit et al. 2004). Jan Smit
maintains to this day that there are no foraminifera
in these sediments and the ones identified as such
are just dolomite crystals, despite the independent
confirmation by his own consultants (M. Caron) and
Arz et al. (2004).
The 50-cm thick limestone layer shows no evi-
dence of chaotic deposition from backwash and crater
wall collapse (Fig. 14, Keller et al. 2004a, b). The
limestone layer is laminated but shows some oblique
1 cm thick bedding as would be expected in shallow
platform sediments. Each of the five thin glauconite
clay layers represents condensed sedimentation during
tens of thousands of years under low hydrodynamic
conditions. Bioturbation is common and indicates the
seafloor was colonized during deposition. The pre-
KT age was based on late Maastrichtian biostratig-
raphy (zone CF1), magnetostratigraphy, and stable
isotopes, all followed by the KT characteristic nega-
tive shift, mass extinction, and evolution of first Danian
species. Chicxulub crater core Yaxcopoil-1 thus sup-
ports the pre-KT age findings from NE Mexico and
Texas.
Correlation of Yucatan Wells
Yaxcopoil-1 was not the first crater evidence that the
Chicxulub impact predates the KT boundary. Lopez-
Ramos (1973, 1975) and Meyerhoff et al. (1994)
described Cretaceous assemblages in limestones over-
lying breccias in Yucatan Pemex wells Y6 and C1,
which are close to Yaxcopoil-1 (Yax-1) (Fig. 15). Ward
et al. (1995, p. 873) re-examined the geophysical logs,
sedimentology, and biostratigraphy of seven Pemex
wells from northern Yucatan and concluded that there
is evidence that “the impact breccia unit is overlain
by about 18 m of uppermost Maastrichtian marls,”
suggesting an impact before the Cretaceous–Tertiary
boundary.
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Fig. 14 Chicxulub impact crater core Yaxcopoil-1: Stratigraphy
of the KT transition from the impact (suevite) breccia to the
KT boundary shows a 50-cm thick limestone layer with five
thin glauconite clay layers deposited over tens of thousands of
years. Magnetostratigraphy and planktic foraminiferal assem-
blages indicate sediment deposition above the impact breccia
Stratigraphic correlation of Yucatan Wells shows
a predominance of limestones, dolomites, and evap-
orites (anhydrites) below the impact breccia unit,
which marks very shallow carbonate platform envi-
ronments (e.g., sabkha, lagoons). An organic-rich dark
shale layer was deposited during the late Cenomanian
marine transgression and ocean anoxic event OAE2
(Rotalipora cushmani zone–Whiteinella archeocre-
tacea zone) and can be correlated from wells Y2 to
T1, Yax-1, Y5A, and Y4 (Fig. 15, Ward et al. 1995;
Stinnesbeck et al. 2004). The stratified nature of these
late Cretaceous sediments with correlatable biohori-
zons over several hundred kilometers within and out-
side the impact crater indicates normal sedimentation
below the impact breccia, rather than chaotic distribu-
tion of megablocks. Moreover, Ward et al. (1995) and
Stinnesbeck et al. (2004) concluded that the sediments
are well preserved without the strong thermal alteration
one would expect from a large impact.
The thickness of the impact breccia in the Yucatan
wells varies from 100 m to 500 m, and some cores
775
occurred during C29R and zone CF1, which spans the last 300 ky
of the Maastrichtian. Foraminifera are illustrated from thin sec-
tions of the dolomitic limestone (left column). For comparison,
SEM illustrations are shown of the same species (right column).
Modified from Keller et al. (2004a)
have a significant melt rock component (Y5A, C1, Y6,
T1, Fig. 15). The petrography and geochemistry of
the breccia unit in Yax-1 is detailed in Dressler et al.
(2004). Ward et al. (1995) observed a layer of evaporite
(anhydrite) in the breccia of well Y2 and thick (50–
100 m) layers of dolomite in the breccia and melt rock
of wells Y6, Y4 and C1 (Fig. 15). They could not deter-
mine whether these sediments are normally stratified
or represent chaotic blocks. Limestone and dolomite
layers were also observed within the breccia unit of
the UNAM wells (Stinnesbeck “unpublished data”).
Sediments above the impact breccia are predomi-
nantly limestones and marls, which indicates a deeper
carbonate platform environment. Dolomites prevail
only in wells Y5A and Y4 (Fig. 15). The contact
between the breccia and overlying sediments is often
not available for study in PEMEX or UNAM wells.
As noted earlier, Cretaceous planktic foraminiferal
assemblages are documented from wells Y6 and C1
by Lopez-Ramos (1973, 1975), and Meyerhoff et al.
(1994), and from Yax-1 by Keller et al. (2004a, b)
776
Fig. 15 Stratigraphic correlation of Yaxcopoil-1 (Yax-1) and
PEMEX wells across northern Yucatan. Correlation is based on
lithology, biostratigraphy, and electric logs (modified from Ward
(Fig. 14). These Cretaceous sediments indicate a pre-
KT age for the Chicxulub impact, which correlates
with observations in NE Mexico and Texas.
Texas—Primary Spherule Layer
The pre-KT age determined from the crater core
Yaxcopoil-1 for the Chicxulub impact caused renewed
controversy. After more than a dozen years of hailing
G. Keller
et al. 1995). Note the Maastrichtian-age limestone layer over-
lying the impact breccia in Yax-1, Y6, and C1 (modified from
Ward et al. 1995)
Mexico’s KT localities as providing unambiguous evi-
dence in support of a KT age for the Chicxulub impact
(e.g., Smit et al. 1996; Smit 1999), Mexico was now
claimed to be too close to the impact crater to provide
good age control (Smit et al. 2004; Kring 2007). This
critique could be answered by KT localities along the
Brazos River of Falls County, Texas, where sediment
deposition occurred in a shallow middle to inner neritic
environment without any trace of tectonic disturbance.
The Texas KT localities were restudied, and two new
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
wells drilled by DOSECC (Drilling, Observation and
Sampling of Earths Continental Crust). The results
provide confirmation not only of the pre-KT age of
the Chicxulub impact but also of the sandstone com-
plex and associated sea-level fall (Fig. 10) (Keller et al.
2007a).
In well Mullinax-1 (Mull-1), the KT boundary is
80 cm above the sandstone complex, including upward
fining sediments (Fig. 16). The sediments consist of
dark organic-rich bedded mudstones and claystones
with burrows frequently infilled by pyrite, small shells,
and small Cretaceous planktic foraminifera (mostly
low-oxygen-tolerant heterohelicids and Guembelitria
cretacea, Keller et al. 2009a). The KT boundary is
marked by the mass extinction, by the δ13 C shift,
and immediately above by the evolution of Danian
Fig. 16 New core Mullinax-1: GK and Jerry Baum examine
the spherule-rich sandstone complex, upward fining, and 80 cm
of dark organic-rich burrowed and bedded mudstone with late
Maastrichtian microfossils (planktic foraminifera, nannofossils,
palynomorphs), followed by the KT boundary mass extinction
and characteristic carbon isotope shift (modified from Keller
2008b)
777
species. These results were duplicated in outcrops
(Keller et al. 2008a). The only significant difference
between six sequences analyzed is the interval between
the sandstone complex and the KTB, which varies
from 20 to 80 cm due to erosion and paleotopography.
The spherule-rich clasts at the base of the sand-
stone complex described in Section “Texas: Sandstone
Complex—Tsunami or Sea-Level Change?” (Fig. 9)
indicate the existence of an older primary spherule
layer. This primary Chicxulub impact spherule layer
was discovered 45–65 cm below the sandstone com-
plex in the Cottonmouth Creek section as a 2–4 cm
thick yellow clay layer consisting of impact glass now
altered to cheto smectite (Fig. 17, Keller et al. 2007a).
Two reworked spherule layers at the base of the sand-
stone complex above show the same alteration to cheto
smectite, which consists of nearly 100% Mg smec-
tite. The same alteration is also observed in the three
upward fining spherule layers of Mull-1, as well as
in spherule-rich deposits throughout Central America
(Keller et al. 2003b). Planktic foraminifera indicate
deposition of the Brazos primary impact spherule layer
near the base of zone CF1 predating the KT boundary
by about 300,000 years similar to NE Mexico and
Yucatan crater well Yaxcopoil-1 (Keller et al. 2007a,
2008a, 2009a). The pre-KT age of the Chicxulub
impact was thus confirmed in three different and
widely separated localities with the primary impact
spherule layer discovered in NE Mexico and Texas.
In the Brazos sections, the primary Chicxulub
impact spherule layer was deposited in a middle ner-
itic environment at about 80 m depth and prior to
the sea-level fall to inner neritic depth of less than
30 m, as indicated by the diversity and increased
abundance of benthic foraminifera and low diversity
and abundance of planktic foraminifera, beginning
with the sandstone complex (Fig. 10). This sea-level
fall exposed nearshore areas to erosion, including
the primary spherule deposit, and scoured subma-
rine channels into which the eroded and reworked
sediments were transported and redeposited. These
reworked sediments include glauconite, shell hash,
impact spherules, and lithified clasts with spherules
from the primary spherule deposit (Fig. 9). In deeper
areas or depressions where submarine scour was more
limited, the primary Chicxulub impact spherule layer
was preserved (Fig. 17).
778 G. Keller

Fig. 17 The Cottonmouth Creek (a tributary of the Brazos layers at the base. Note that the glass spherule alteration to Cheto
River) shows the primary Chicxulub impact spherule layer now smectite is the same in the all three layers. The KT boundary
altered to Cheto smectite (yellow layer) between 45 and 60 cm at this locality is about 40 cm above the top of the sandstone
below the sandstone complex with its two reworked spherule complex (modified from Keller et al. 2009a)

crises have made them ideal index fossils for high-

Kill Effect of the Chicxulub Impact
resolution biostratigraphic dating and correlations.
At the KTB planktic foraminifera suffered the most
Planktic Foraminifera as Environmental
devastating mass extinction with 2/3 of the species
Proxies
extinct (first documented by Keller 1988) and 1/3
surviving into the early Danian, with only one long-
The Brazos and NE Mexico sections provide an
term survivor (e.g., Keller 1996, 2001; Molina et al.
unprecedented opportunity to evaluate the biotic
2006). Evolution of the new early Danian species
effects of the Chicxulub impact in comparison with
began almost immediately after the mass extinction
the KT mass extinction in both upper slope and
and was followed by rapid evolutionary diversification.
marginal shelf environments within 600–1000 km of
No other microfossil group records such immediate
the Chicxulub impact crater. Planktic foraminifera are
and devastating biotic effects. For all these reasons,
the best microfossil group to evaluate biotic and envi-
planktic foraminifera are the ideal fossil group for
ronmental changes across the KT transition for several
evaluating the biotic effects of catastrophes, such as
reasons. These single-celled marine microorganisms
impacts and volcanism, as well as long-term climate
form shells of calcium carbonate in isotopic equilib-
and sea-level changes.
rium with the seawater in which they lived, and their
shells thus record climate and productivity conditions
during their lifetimes. Today, as in Cretaceous times, Biotic Effects of the Chicxulub Impact
they live in the upper water mass of oceans from
high to low latitudes and are very sensitive to varia- In the Brazos sections, sea level fell from about 80 m to
tions in temperature, salinity, oxygen, and nutrients, 20–30 m depth and even lower in some areas depend-
which are reflected in species abundance variations, ing on the paleotopography (Fig. 10). The primary
extinctions, and evolutionary diversification. Their spherule layer was deposited in deeper waters, the
high-evolutionary turnover rates at times of biotic reworked spherule layers during the low sea level
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Fig. 18 Cottonmouth Creek KT transition with planktic
foraminiferal ranges and species abundances across the primary
Chicxulub impact layer (Cheto smectite), sandstone complex
with reworked spherules, and KTB above. Most Cretaceous
species persist to the KTB marked by the δ13 C shift and first
Danian species. Gradual decrease in species richness is due to
(sandstone complex) and the KTB during the sub-
sequent sea-level rise. In this shallow, but variable
environment, it is now possible to evaluate the biotic
effects of the Chicxulub impact, the sea-level fall, and
the KTB event based on diversity and abundances of
planktic foraminifera (Fig. 18).
Across the primary impact spherule layer planktic
foraminifera show no significant changes. No species
went extinct and no significant environmental changes
occurred as a result of the Chicxulub impact (Keller
et al. 2009a). The δ13 C shift at the primary impact
spherule layer may be due to diagenetic alteration,
although short-term environmental effects due to the
impact cannot be ruled out (Fig. 18). The four species
that disappeared at or below the primary spherule layer,
as well as rare and sporadically present species, are
deeper dwellers and known to become extinct at the
KTB. Their early disappearance or sporadic occur-
rence is due to the shallowing sea.
The sea-level drop to <30 m marked by the sand-
stone complex resulted in high stress conditions for all
species, as indicated by the rare and sporadic occur-
rences of species known to go extinct by the KTB.
In this shallow environment all larger, deeper dwelling
species had disappeared, though some dwarfed forms
779
sea-level fall and exclusion of deeper dwelling larger species.
Negative δ13 C and δ18 O excursions in primary Chicxulub impact
layer is not associated with significant changes in diversity or
abundance of species and may be diagenetic in origin (modified
from Keller et al. 2009a)
survived (Fig. 18) (Keller et al. 2009a). Most of the
surviving species also became dwarfed as a result of
the high stress conditions (MacLeod et al. 2000; Keller
and Abramovich 2009).
The KT boundary is marked by the mass extinction,
characteristic δ13 C shift, and evolution of first Danian
species (Fig. 18). A number of small species (e.g.,
heterohelicids, hedbergellids) survived into the early
Danian as indicated by their Danian stable isotope sig-
nals (Barrera and Keller 1990). This gradual species
extinction pattern across the impact spherule layer,
sandstone complex, and the KT boundary appears
unequivocally one of a gradually changing environ-
ment related to the fall in the sea level from middle to
inner neritic depths. The observed mass extinction pat-
tern is consistent with shallow sequences worldwide
(e.g., Denmark, Tunisia, Argentina, Keller et al. 1993,
1998, 2007b).
In NE Mexico, the biotic effects of plank-
tic foraminifea were analyzed across the primary
Chicxulub impact spherule layer in the upper-slope
environment of El Peñon and Loma Cerca A and B
(Keller et al. 2002; Keller et al. 2009c). No biotic
effects are apparent across the primary impact spherule
layer (Fig. 19). No species went extinct even within
780
Fig. 19 (a) The KT transition at La Sierrita in NE Mexico
shows the characteristic mass extinction pattern including a red
layer with a small Ir anomaly and carbon isotope shift, but
no impact evidence. (b) A 2 m thick primary impact spherule
layer is present in zone CF1, 4–5 m below the reworked impact
G. Keller
spherules at the base of the sandstone complex. This impact
spherule layer predates the KTB by ∼300 ky. No species extinc-
tions occurred at this time (modified from Stinnesbeck et al.
1996; Keller et al. 2009c)
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism 781

600 km of the Chicxulub impact crater. In contrast,

the mass extinction is characterized by the extinction
of all large, complex tropical and subtropical species
at or shortly before the KT boundary, as shown for
the La Sierrita section about 25 km north of El Peñon
(Fig. 19). This mass extinction pattern is consistent
with deeper marine sequences worldwide. The absence
of species extinctions or any significant environmen-
tal effects associated with the primary impact spherule
layer in Mexico and Texas indicates that the destruc-
tive effects of the Chicxulub impact have been vastly
overestimated.
A survey of impact craters and mass extinctions
over the past 500 years reveals that apart from the
K–T boundary, none of the five major mass extinc-
tions are associated with an impact (Courtillot 1999;
Wignall 2001; Keller 2005). The Chicxulub crater
with a maximum diameter of 180 km is the largest Fig. 20 Map of India with main Deccan Volcanic Province. The
known impact. Other well-studied impacts that show longest lava flows ranged 800–1000 km across India and out
no extinctions or significant other biotic effects include to the Gulf of Bengal. The KT boundary was first identified in
the 90–100 km in diameter late Eocene Chesapeake Rajahmundry quarries in intertrappean sediments between these
lava flows, which mark the main phase of Deccan volcanism.
Bay and Popigai craters and the 100–120 km in The KTB has also been identified in intertrappean sediments
diameter, the late Triassic Manicouagan and the late at Jhilmili and in sections of Meghalaya (modified from Keller
Devonian Alamo and Woodleigh craters (Montanari et al. 2009d)
and Koeberl 2000; Poag et al. 2002; Keller 2005).
the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other groups
has lagged for two main reasons: (1) the popularity
Deccan Volcanism and the KT Mass of the Chicxulub impact theory as the cause for the
Extinction mass extinction and (2) the absence of a direct link
between the mass extinction and Deccan volcanism.
Deccan volcanic eruptions once covered most of India Indeed, until very recently it was not possible to pin-
and even today with much of it eroded or buried, expo- point the KTB within the Deccan lava pile (Keller et al.
sures still cover an area the size of France (Fig. 20). 2008b).
Lava eruptions piled up flow after flow to several thou-
sand meters thick, which today still form 3500 m high
mountains (Fig. 21). Some massive eruptions reached Age of Deccan Volcanism
up to 1500 km across India and out to the Gulf of
Bengal, forming the longest lava flows known on Earth The Deccan Traps (named for the stepwise sequence
(Self et al. 2008a). It is therefore no surprise that of successive lava flows) and its correlation with the
scientists advocated Deccan volcanism as the major KTB mass extinction is the most extensively stud-
contributor or cause of the KT mass extinction even ied CFB volcanism. However, a direct correlation
before the impact theory was proposed (McLean 1978) has been difficult to establish because the estimated
and through the 1980–1990s (McLean 1985; Courtillot duration of Deccan volcanism varied from less than
et al. 1986, 1988; Courtillot 1999). More recently con- one to several million years based on paleomagnetic
tinental flood basalts (CFB) have been correlated with studies and 40 Ar/39 Ar dating (Courtillot et al. 1986,
most major mass extinctions (Wignall 2001), leading 1988, 2000; Duncan and Pyle 1988; Vandamme et al.
Courtillot and Renne (2003) to suggest that this may 1991; Vandamme and Courtillot 1992; Venkatesan
be the general cause of mass extinctions. But accep- et al. 1993, 1996; Baksi et al.1994; Raju et al. 1995;
tance of CFB volcanism as the catastrophe that led to Hofmann et al. 2000; Widdowson et al. 2000; Sheth
782
Fig. 21 Deccan Traps of
India form 3500 m high
mountains of layered volcanic
rocks. Volcanic eruptions
occurred in three phases: an
initial relatively small pulse at
67.5 Ma, the main phase in
C29R was rapid, accounts for
80% of the total eruptions,
and led to the KT mass
extinction. The last phase
erupted at the C29R/C29N
transition about 280 ky after
the KT mass extinction (photo
S. Self)
et al. 2001). In the past few years, significant advance-
ments have been made with respect to the age of vol-
canic eruptions based on comprehensive 40 K/40 Ar and
40 Ar/39 Ar dating (e.g., Knight et al. 2003, 2005; Pande
et al. 2004; Baksi 2005; Chenet et al. 2007, 2008) and
geochemical characterization of different eruptions
(Jerram and Widdowson 2005; Jay and Widdowson
2008; Jay et al. 2009).
Based on these studies, Chenet et al. (2007, 2008)
proposed that Deccan volcanism occurred in three
short mega-pulses with the initial smaller pulse around
67.5 Ma near the C30R/C30N transition, the largest
pulse in C29R and the last pulse in the early Danian
spanning the C29R/C29N transition. Nearly 80% of
the total Deccan eruptions are estimated to have
occurred during the main phase in C29R, possibly over
a very short time period (e.g., on the order of thousands
of years). This mega-pulse consists of several major
eruptive events with volumes ranging from 20,000 km3
to 120,000 km3 , attaining a thickness up to 200 m and
emplaced over hundreds of km (Chenet et al. 2008).
The longest lava flows reached 1500 km across India to
Rajahmundry and out to the Bay of Bengal (Fig. 20).
Deccan Volcanism Linked to KTB
Until recently, the best link to the KTB was based on
lava flows that straddle thick intertrappean sediments
exposed in quarries of Rajahmundry (Fig. 22). These
G. Keller
lava flows, known as lower and upper Rajahmundry
traps, are reversed and normal polarity zones in C29R
and C29N, respectively (Subbarao and Pathak 1993).
The best age determinations to date are based on
40 K/40 Ar (absolute) and 40 Ar/39 Ar (relative) dates of
plagioclase separates (Fig. 23) (Knight et al. 2003,
2005; Baksi 2005; Chenet et al. 2007). Error bars
for these radiometric ages are large (1% or 0.6 m.y.),
which permit no determination of the KTB posi-
tion. Nevertheless, radiometric ages for the upper trap
are within the C29R/C29N transition. But the age
for the lower trap is not well constrained, though it
still overlaps with C29R of Cande and Kent (1991).
Based on paleomagnetic, radiometric, and geochemi-
cal data, the upper and lower Rajahmundry traps can
be correlated to the Mahalabeshwar and Ambenali
Formations, respectively, in the main Deccan volcanic
province (Chenet et al. 2007; Jay and Widdowson
2008; Jay et al. 2009).
Despite the improved dating of upper and lower
traps in the Rajahmundry quarries, a direct link
between volcanism and the mass extinction remained
elusive without marine intertrappean sediments with
age diagnostic microfossils. A search for marine sed-
iments in the main Deccan province remained futile
because intertrappean beds were largely deposited in
terrestrial to fluvio-lacustrine environments (Cripps
et al. 2005). Previous studies reported marine micro-
fossils spanning the KTB in cores from the Krishna-
Godavari Basin (Fig. 20), though the precise position
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism 783

Fig. 22 Intertrappean
sediments between lower
(C29R) and upper
(C29R/C29N) lava flows in
the Gauriputnam Quarry of
Rajahmundry. These
intertrappean sediments were
deposited in shallow estuarine
to marine sediments that
contain planktic foraminifera
of the earliest Danian (zones
P0–P1a). Four of the longest
lava flows mark the end of the
main phase of the Deccan
eruptions in C29R and the KT
mass extinction in the
Rajahmundry area and
Krishna–Godavari Basin

Fig. 23 40 K/40 Ar and 40 Ar/39 Ar ages of the lower and upper in the latest Maastrichtian with the uppermost of four lava flows
Rajahmundry Deccan traps yield ages with an accuracy of 1% at the KT boundary and mass extinction (modified from Keller
or ± 0.3 m.y., which is too imprecise to locate the KT bound- et al. 2008b)
ary. Planktic foraminiferal biostratigraphy places the lower trap
784
of the KTB could not be determined (Raju et al. 1994,
1995; Bhandari 1995; Jaiprakash et al. 1993; Saxena
and Misra 1994; Prasad and Pundeer 2002; Khosla and
Nagori 2002).
Keller et al. (2008b) concentrated on the thick
intertrappean sediments of the Rajahmundry quarries
(Fig. 22), which revealed the first direct link between
the KT mass extinction and Deccan volcanism based
on planktic foraminifera. In the Rajahmundry area
intertrappean sediments in quarries show similar bios-
tratigraphy and depositional environments as shown
for the Government Quarry (Fig. 24). Sediment depo-
sition above the lower trap basalt begins with dolomitic
mudstone with clasts containing the small earliest
Danian planktic foraminifera indicative of Zone P0 or
base of zone P1a. In the area 4 m above, sediments vary
from silty claystone with rare shells and foraminifera
to limestones with common shells, calcareous nanno-
fossils (early Danian NP1), and foraminifera indicative
of zone P1a. The upper 3.4 m consist of paleosoil
followed by the upper trap basalt. Sediments thus indi-
cate a sea-level transgression at the base of the Danian
Fig. 24 Lithology, biostratigraphy, and sea-level changes of
intertrappean sediments between lower and upper Traps at the
Government Quarry, Rajahmundry. Sediment deposition after
the main phase of volcanic eruptions occurred in a shallow
G. Keller
followed by fluctuating estuarine to inner neritic
environments and a return to terrestrial deposition well
prior to the arrival of the upper trap basalt (Fig. 24).
Biostratigraphic data thus indicate that the lower
Rajahmundry trap directly underlies earliest Danian
sediments. This indicates that the mass extinction coin-
cides with the end of the main phase of Deccan
volcanism as represented by the last of at least four of
the longest (800–1000 km) lava flows that are observed
in the Krishna-Godavari Basin (Jaiprakash et al. 1993;
Self et al. 2008a, b).
A surprising discovery of early Danian zone P1a
planktic foraminifera was made in intertrappean sed-
iments at Jhilmili, in Central India (Fig. 20, Keller
et al. 2009b, d). These intertrappeans were considered
to be terrestrial and of late Maastrichtian age. The pres-
ence of early Danian zone P1a planktic foraminifera
between lower and upper trap basalts of the Ambenali
and Mahalabeshwar Formation, respectively, has thus
confirmed the link between the main phase of Deccan
volcanism and the mass extinction. But this discovery
has also revealed the presence of a major seaway across
estuarine to marine environments with repeated emersions.
Planktic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils mark this time
as earliest Danian zones P0–P1a, immediately following the
mass extinction (modified from Keller et al. 2008b)
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
India during the KT transition. The seaway likely
followed the Narmada-Tapti rift extending from the
west 800 km across India and existed already during
the late Cenomanian marine transgression (Chiplonkar
and Badve 1968; Badve and Ghare 1977; Sahni 1983).
Discussion
Chicxulub Controversy
Over the past 15 years numerous discoveries revealed
that the Chicxulub impact is not KT age and there-
fore could not have caused the mass extinction. The
evidence is multi-disciplinary, including paleontol-
ogy, biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, stable iso-
tope geochemistry, trace element geochemistry, and
mineralogy. Moreover, the findings have been dupli-
cated in numerous KT sequences in NE Mexico (e.g.,
Adatte et al. 1996; Keller et al. 1997, 2003a, b; Stüben
et al. 2005), confirmed in the Chicxulub crater well
Yaxcopoil-1, and Pemex wells (Ward et al. 1995;
Keller et al. 2004a, b), and once again duplicated
and confirmed in outcrops and cores along the Brazos
River in Texas (Gale 2006; Keller et al. 2007a, 2008a,
2009a). The interdisciplinary nature of the studies, the
duplication and confirmation of results in three widely
separated regions (Yucatan, NE Mexico, Texas), and
very different environments (e.g., impact crater, slope
environment, and shallow middle to inner shelf) pro-
vide the best evidence that these findings are not
artifacts of the rock record (see Keller 2008a) but rep-
resent the age and environmental conditions during the
KT transition.
Ordinarily, just a fraction of the evidence accumu-
lated would suffice to make a convincing argument.
But this is the KTB interval, and even an overkill
of accumulated evidence showing that Chicxulub is
not the KT killer will leave many scientists firmly
believing in the impact theory as the sole cause for
the mass extinction. A commonly expressed senti-
ment to this mountain of evidence is this: I can’t
believe it. How could so many be so wrong for so
long? Counterarguments have been weak. They range
from outright denial that the evidence exists (e.g.,
foraminifera and glauconite layers don’t exist in crater
core Yaxcopoil-1, Smit et al. 2004) to arguing for
regional tectonic and seismic disturbance based on no
more than occasional small folds (<60 cm) (Soria et al.
785
2001; Schulte et al., 2003; Smit et al. 2004) and to
redefining the KTB based on impact evidence (Smit
et al. 1996; Smit 1999; Schulte et al. 2006, 2008;
Arenillas et al. 2006; Molina et al. 2006). The lat-
ter invariably leads to circular reasoning: Chicxulub is
KT age, therefore the presence of Chicxulub impact
spherules marks the KTB (see Schulte et al. 2008 and
reply by Keller et al. 2008a). A group of 41 authors
recently published an article in Science concluding
that Chicxulub is precisely KTB in age and the cause
of the KTB mass extinction as originally proposed
30 years ago (Schulte et al. 2010). Data to the con-
trary, as presented in this paper were largely ignored or
misrepresented in reaching this conclusion.
The controversy over the cause of the end-
Cretaceous mass extinction, which began 33 years
ago, thus rages on supported by the popular consensus
that the Chicxulub impact caused the mass extinc-
tion. Any evidence to the contrary is generally greeted
with disbelief, citing the lack of consensus. But any
decades-old controversy will never achieve consensus
nor is consensus a precondition to advance science and
unravel truth. What is necessary is careful documen-
tation of results that are reproducible and verifiable.
But convincing scientists that a long-held belief in the
impact theory is wrong demands extraordinary docu-
mentation of verifiable evidence. This review shows
that this step has been taken and the extraordinary doc-
umentation of verifiable evidence has been amassed.
Impact Spherules and KTB
In principle, the stratigraphic position of Chicxulub
impact glass spherules in any sedimentary sequence
should mark the time of this impact. In reality,
impact spherules are frequently eroded, transported,
and redeposited after their primary deposition. As a
result, multiple impact spherule layers are common
in late Maastrichtian sediments of north and central
Mexico and Texas, early Danian sediments of south-
ern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and Haiti (Keller et al.
2003a, b, 2009c), and deep-sea sections of Bass River,
New Jersey, and Blake Nose (Fig. 11). Therefore, only
the stratigraphically oldest spherule layer represents
the time of the impact. This means that a careful search
for the oldest and primary spherule layer must be
conducted and its stratigraphic position determined rel-
ative to the KTB. But the primary spherule layer may
786
only be rarely preserved due to erosion. To date the
oldest and primary Chicxulub impact spherule layer
has been discovered in late Maastrichtian zone CF1
sediments and predating the KTB by about 300,000 ±
30,000 years in Texas and El Peñon and Loma Cerca
(Fig. 12) in NE Mexico (Keller et al. 2007a, 2009a, c).
Why are Chicxulub impact spherules so commonly
reworked? Their stratigraphic positions yield clues.
The most prominent and best-known spherule deposits
infill the base of submarine channels in the deep-water
(>500 m) continental slope sections of NE Mexico (see
Section “NE Mexico Sandstone Complex—Tsunami
or Sea-Level Change?”) and shallow shelf sections of
the Western Interior Seaway that is now Texas (Section
“Texas: Sandstone Complex—Tsunami or Sea-Level
Change?”). In both areas scoured channels are infilled
with a spherule-rich unit at the base with abundant
glauconite, shallow water debris (plants, wood frag-
ments, shallow water benthic foraminifera, and shell
fragments), and clasts from the underlying sediments
(Fig. 4). Above it are sandstones that represent debris
flows in the slope environment (Keller et al. 1997)
and hummocky cross-bedded current deposition in
the shallow Texas sections (Gale 2006; Keller et al.
2007a). Deposition of these spherule-rich sandstone
complexes in NE Mexico and Texas occurred during
the latest Maastrichtian sea-level fall and subsequent
early sea-level rise (Fig. 8).
Multiple spherule-rich layers are common in early
Danian sediments of Guatemala, Belize, and Haiti
within zone P1a that marks the first 180 ky of the
Paleocene (Keller et al. 2001, 2003b). These deposits
are associated with the sea-level falls of zone P1a, at
the P0/P1a, subzone boundary P1a(1)–P1a(2), and at
the top of zone P1a (Keller and Stinnesbeck 1996;
Keller et al. 2007a). With each drop in sea-level ero-
sion, transport and redeposition of sediments, includ-
ing impact spherules, occurred in the shallow plat-
form environments of Central America. On a global
scale, these sea-level falls are associated with hiatuses
(MacLeod and Keller 1991; Keller and Stinnesbeck
1996).
In deep-sea sections, sea-level falls are generally
associated with condensed sedimentation and hia-
tuses because of intensified bottom current circula-
tion as first documented on a global basis by Keller
and Barron (1983). This also appears to be the case
in the deep-sea sections of Demerara Rise, Blake
Nose, and Bass River, where the Danian sediments
G. Keller
and impact spherules are juxtaposed (Fig. 11). The
multiple Chicxulub impact spherule layers in late
Maastrichtian and early Danian sediments thus can be
easily explained by sea-level changes and associated
erosion, transport, and redeposition of sediments. The
stratigraphic position of impact spherule layers there-
fore does not a priori indicate the time of the Chicxulub
impact, but most often reflects erosion and redeposi-
tion during subsequent sea-level changes. Only in NE
Mexico and Texas has the primary impact spherule
deposit been discovered to date.
Iridium Anomaly and the KTB
Anomalous concentrations of iridium at or near the
KTB are frequently used as KT defining criteria and
proof that an impact caused the mass extinction. The
Chicxulub impact is generally assumed to have been
this impact, although no Ir anomaly or other PGE
concentrations have ever been observed in Chicxulub
impact spherule layers (review in Keller 2008a). The
widespread presence of an Ir anomaly at the KTB
has led Keller et al. (2002, 2003a) and Stüben et al.
(2005) to suggest that a second large impact at KT
time may have been the cause. But the absence of any
biotic effects attributable to the Chicxulub impact in
Mexico and Texas suggests that even a larger impact
alone would not likely have been sufficient to cause
the KT mass extinction. In addition, there is currently
no credible evidence of a second larger impact at KT
time. Another problem is that the KT Ir anomaly is
frequently not just a single anomaly as commonly
reported, but multiple anomalies of diverse origins
(e.g., impact, volcanic, redox conditions, Graup et al.
1989; Stüben et al. 2005; Grachev et al. 2005; Keller
2008a) that have yet to be fully understood. The
Ir anomaly can thus no longer be considered suffi-
cient credible evidence for a large impact at the KT
boundary.
Ir anomalies are generally interpreted as indictors
of extraterrestrial sources, such as asteroids, comets,
cosmic dust, or impact ejecta. This has been justified
on the basis that iridium is highly depleted in Earth’s
crust but enriched in some asteroids and comets and
in Earth’s interior, from where it is brought to the
surface by volcanic activity. Because volcanic irid-
ium is expected to have extruded over a long time
period, a sharp peak in iridium concentrations is
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
generally interpreted as a cosmic marker. However,
sharp peaks most often result from condensed sedi-
mentation. In addition, Ir anomalies typically occur
in organic-rich shales or clays, which serve as low-
permeability redox boundaries. In these sediments Ir
can move both upward and downward from redox
boundaries (Gilmore et al. 1984, Tredoux et al. 1988,
Sawlowicz 1993, Wang et al. 1993).
The complex behavior of iridium and other PGEs
in sedimentary environments is still poorly understood,
but the variability in distribution and multiple anoma-
lies caution against considering it as solely a cosmic
interpretation (Gertsch et al. 2011). Now that Deccan
volcanism is understood to have occurred in massive
rapid eruptions over very short time periods with the
main eruptions centered at KT time, Ir anomalies may
well contain a major component of volcanic origin.
Deccan Volcanism and KTB
The critical link between Deccan volcanism and the
KT mass extinction has now been established in inter-
trappean sediments in Rajahmundry quarries of south-
eastern India and subsequently confirmed in intertrap-
pean sediments at Jhilmili in central India (Keller et al.
2008b, 2009b). Paleontologic, paleomagnetic, radio-
metric, and geochemical studies have linked the KT
mass extinction to the longest lava flows on Earth,
spanning over 1500 km across India (e.g., Knight
et al. 2003, 2005; Chenet et al. 2007, 2008; Jay and
Widdowson 2008; Keller et al. 2008b, 2009b; Self
et al. 2008a, b). The main phase of Deccan volcanism,
which encompasses 80% of the Deccan lava pile, can
now be positively linked to the KT mass extinction.
In the Rajahmundry area at least four closely spaced
lava flows reached across India and out to the Gulf of
Bengal.
Environmental consequences of these massive erup-
tions were likely devastating. Based on rare gas bub-
bles preserved in Deccan volcanic rocks, Self et al.
(2008a) estimate annual gas rates released by Deccan
lavas at many times the rate of anthropogenic emis-
sions of SO2 and more than an order of magnitude
greater than the current global background volcanic
emission rate. Chenet et al. (2007, 2008) estimate
gas emissions based on volume of Deccan lavas.
Concentrating on the largest 30 eruption pulses, they
estimated that each pulse injected up to 150 GT of SO2
787
gas over a very short time (decades). Thus each one of
30 Deccan eruption pulses injected SO2 in quantities
at least the equivalent of the Chicxulub impact (e.g.,
50–500 GT). The total Deccan volcanic eruptions are
estimated to have released 30 to 100 times the amount
of SO2 released by the Chicxulub impact.
It is not just the sheer volume of SO2 injection, but
also the rapid succession of volcanic eruptions that
would have compounded the adverse effects of SO2
leading to severe environmental consequences (e.g.,
cooling, acid rain, extinctions), preventing recovery
and likely causing a run-away effect. By comparison,
CO2 emissions (greenhouse gases) would have been
small compared with the mass already in the atmo-
sphere during the Cretaceous and would have had
more limited effects. It is granted these estimates have
large error margins for both Deccan volcanic emissions
and the Chicxulub impact, but they serve as basis for
comparison.
How Deccan volcanism affected the environment
and how it may have led to the mass extinction of
dinosaurs and other organisms in India and globally
are still unknown. Documentation of the biotic and
environmental effects of Deccan volcanism is still in
the early stages. Age correlation between terrestrial
sequences with dinosaur fossils and the KTB remains
problematic without marine microfossils. Age control
for the onset of the main phase of Deccan volcanism
that ended at the KTB still remains to be determined
along with the immediate biotic and environmental
effects leading up to the KT mass extinction. Despite
the many unanswered questions, Deccan volcanism is
closely linked to the KT mass extinction, whereas the
Chicxulub impact is not.
Conclusions
Evidence from Texas, NE Mexico, and the
Chicxulub impact crater on Yucatan demonstrates
that the Chicxulub impact and KT mass extinc-
tion are two separate and unrelated events with
the Chicxulub impact predating the KTB by about
300,000 years. Planktic foraminifera, which suf-
fered the most severe mass extinction at the KT
boundary, show that not a single species went
extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact in either
Mexico or Texas. The biotic and environmental
effects of this large impact have been vastly overes-
timated. Chicxulub thus joins all other known large
impacts, such as Alamo, Woodleigh, Manicouagan,
788
Popigai, and Chesapeake, that caused no mass
extinctions (review in Keller 2005).
The cause for the KT mass extinction must
lie with the other end-Cretaceous catastrophe—the
massive continental flood basalt eruptions of India
as originally suggested by McLean (1978, 1985)
and Courtillot et al. (1986, 1988). Recent advances
in Deccan volcanic studies revealed three volcanic
eruption phases with the smallest phase at 67.5 Ma,
the main phase at the end of the Maastrichtian
(C29R), and the third phase in the early Danian
C29R/C29N transition (Chenet et al. 2007, 2008).
The main phase of eruptions occurred rapidly, was
marked by the longest lava flows (Self et al. 2008b),
and ended coincident with the KT mass extinction
(Keller et al. 2008b, 2009b). All indications thus
point to the main phase of Deccan volcanism as
the cause for the KT mass extinction. How and
why this volcanic phase caused such devastation
globally remains to be explored.
Acknowledgments The KT studies in Texas, Mexico, and
throughout Central America that have led to the discovery of
the complex history of the Chicxulub impact and the KT mass
extinction are the result of long-term collaborations particu-
larly with Thierry Adatte, Zsolt Berner, Doris Stueben, and
Wolfgang Stinnesbeck along with many students. Thierry Adatte
was also instrumental in Deccan studies along with Silvia
Gardin, Annachiara Bartolini, and Sunil Bajpai. I’m grateful
to all of them. I also thank Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet,
and Frédéric Fluteau for many discussions during a sabbatical
visit at the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris. I’m grate-
ful also to reviewers Karl Föllmi and William D. MacDonald
for their comments to improve the manuscript. The material of
this study is based upon work supported by the US National
Science Foundation through the Continental Dynamics Program,
Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology Program, and Office of
International Science and Engineering’s India Program under
NSF Grants EAR-0207407 and EAR-0447171.
References
Adatte T, Stinnesbeck W, Keller G (1996) Lithostratigraphic
and mineralogical correlations of near-K/T boundary clastic
sediments in northeastern Mexico: implications for mega-
tsunami or sea level changes? Geol Soc Am Spec Paper
307:197–210
Affolter M (2000) Etude des depots clastiques de la límite
Cretace–Tertiaire dans la region de la Sierrita, Nuevo Leon,
Mexique, MS thesis. Geological Institute University of
Neuchatel, Neuchatel, Switzerland, 133p
Alegret L, Molina E, Thomas E (2001) Benthic foraminifera
at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary around the Gulf of
Mexico. Geology 29:891–894
G. Keller
Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, Michel HV (1980)
Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction:
experimental results and theoretical interpretation. Science
208:1095–1108
Arenillas I, Arz JA, Grajales-Nishimura JM, Murillo-
Muneton G, Alvarez W, Camargo-Zanguera A, Molina
E, Rosales-Dominguez C (2006) Chicxulub impact
event is Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary in age: new
micropaleontological evidence. Earth Planet Sci Lett
249:241–257
Arz JA, Alegret L, Arenillas I (2004) Foraminiferal biostratig-
raphy and environmental reconstruction at the Yaxcopoil-1
drillcore, Chicxulub crater, Yucatań Peninsula. Meteoritics
Planet Sci 39:1099–1111
Badve RM, Ghare MA (1977) Palaeoecological aspects of the
Bagh Beds, India. Recent Res Geol 4:388–402
Baksi AK (2005) Comment on “40 Ar/39 Ar dating of the
Rajahmundry Traps, easternIndia and their relations to the
Deccan Traps” by Knight et al. [Earth Planet Sci Lett
208(2003):85–99]. Earth Planet Sci Lett 239:368–373
Baksi AK, Byerly GR, Chan LH, Farrar E (1994) Intracanyon
flows in the Deccan province, India: case history of the
Rajahmundry Traps. Geology 22:605–608
Barrera E, Keller G (1990) Stable isotope evidence for
gradual environmental changes and species survivorship
across the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Paleoceanography
5:867–890
Baum GR, Vail PR (1988) Sequence stratigraphic concepts
applied to Paleogene outcrops, Gulf and Atlantic basins. In:
Wilgus CK, Hastings BS, Kendall CG, Posamentier HW,
Ross CA, Van Wagoner JC (eds) Sea-level: an integrated
approach. Soc Econ Paleontol Mineral, Spec Pub, vol 42,
pp 309–327
Bhandari A (1995) Ostracodes from the inter-trappean beds
near Duddukuru, Andhra Pradesh and a note on their
age and paleoecological significance. Indian J Petrol Geol
4:89–107
Blum JD, Chamberlain CP, Hingston MP, Koeberl C, Marin
LE, Schuraytz BC, Sharpton VL (1993) Isotopic compar-
ison of K–T boundary impact glass with melt rock from
the Chicxulub and Manson impact structures. Nature 364:
325–327
Bourgeois I, Hansen TA, Wiberg PL, Kauffman EG (1988)
A tsunami deposit at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in
Texas. Science 241:567–570
Cande S, Kent DV (1991) Revised calibration of the geo-
magnetic polarity timescalefor the Late Cretaceous and
Cenozoic. J Geophys Res 100:159–190
Chenet A-L, Quidelleur X, Fluteau F, Courtillot V (2007)
40 K/40 Ar dating of the main Deccan large igneous province:
further evidence of KTB age and short duration. Earth Planet
Sci Lett 263:1–15
Chenet A-L, Fluteau F, Courtillot V, Gerard M, Subbarao KV
(2008) Determination of rapid Deccan eruptions across the
KTB using paleomagnetic secular variation: (I) Results from
1200 m thick section in the Mahabaleshwar escarpment.
J Geophys Res 113:B04101
Chiplonkar GW, Badve RM (1968) Age and affinities of the
Bagh fauna – a Reassessment. Symposium Deccan Trap
Country Special Issue. Bull Indian Nat Sci Acad (issued
1973) 45:19–29
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Courtillot V (1999) Evolutionary catastrophes: the science of
mass extinctions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
171p
Courtillot VE, Renne PR (2003) On the ages of flood basalt
events. Curr Res Geosci 335:113–140
Courtillot V, Besse J, Vandamme D, Montigny R, Jaeger JJ,
Capetta H (1986) Deccan flood basalts at the Cretaceous/
Tertiary boundary. Earth Planet, Sci Lett 80:361–374
Courtillot V, Feraud G, Maluski H, Vandamme D, Moreau
MG, Besse J (1988) Deccanflood basalts and the
Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Nature 333:843–846
Courtillot V, Gallet Y, Rocchia R, Féraud G, Robin E,
Hofmann C, Bhandari N, Ghevariya ZG (2000) Cosmic
markers, 40 Ar/39 Ar dating and Paleomagnetism of the KT
sections in the Anjar area of the Deccan large igneous
province. Earth Planet, Sci Lett 182:137–156
Cripps JA, Widdowson M, Spicer RA, Jolley DW (2005) Coastal
ecosystem response to late stage Deccan Trap volcanism:
the post-K–T boundary (Danian) palynofacies of Mumbai
(Bombay), west India. Paleogeogr Paleoclimatol Palaeoecol
216:303–332
Donovan AD, Baum GR, Blechschmidt GL, Loutit TS, Pflum
CE, Vail PR (1988) Sequence stratigraphic setting of
the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in central Alabama. In:
Wilgus CK, Hastings BS, Kendall CG, Posamentier HW,
Ross CA, Van Wagoner JC (eds) Sea-level: an integrated
approach. Soc Econ Paleont Mineral, Spec Pub, vol 42,
pp 299–307
Dressler BO, Sharpton VL, Morgan J, Buffler R, Smit J, Stoeffler
D, Urrutia J (2003) Investigating a 65-Ma-old smoking gun:
deep drilling of the Chicxulub impact structure. EOS Trans,
Am Geophys Union 84(14):125–130
Dressler BO, Sharpton VL, Schwandt CS, Ames D (2004)
Impactites of the Yaxcopoil-1 drilling site, Chicxulub impact
structure: petrography, geochemistry and depositional envi-
ronment. Meteoritics Planet Sci 39:857–878
Duncan RA, Pyle DG (1988) Rapid eruption of the Deccan
flood basalt at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Nature 333:
841–8443
Ekdale AA, Stinnesbeck W (1998) Ichnology of Cretaceous–
Tertiary (K/T) boundary beds in northeastern Mexico.
Palaios 13:593–602
Gale A S (2006) The Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary on the
Brazos River, Falls County, Texas: is there evidence for
impact-induced tsunami sedimentation? Proc Geol Assoc
117:173–185
Galloway WE, Bebout DG, Fisher WL, Dunlap JB Jr, Cabrera-
Castro R, Lugo-Rivera JE, Scott TM (1991) Cenozoic. In:
Salvador A (ed) The Gulf of Mexico basin: the geology
of North America, vol J. Geol Soc Am, Boulder, CO,
pp 245–324
Gertsch B, Keller G, Adatte T, Berner Z (2011, in press)
Platinum Group Elements (PGE) geochemistry of Brazos
sections, Texas, USA. In: Keller G, Adatte T (eds) The End-
Cretaceous Mass Extinction and the Chicxulub Impact in
Texas, SEPM Special Publication No. 100
Gilmore JS, Knight JD, Orth CL, Pillmore CL, Tschudy RH
(1984) Trace element patterns at a non-marine Cretaceous–
Tertiary boundary. Nature 307:224–228
Grachev AF, Korchagin OA, Kollmann HA, Pechersky DM,
Tsel’movich VA (2005) Anew look at the nature of the
789
transitional layer at the K/T boundary near Gams, Eastern
Alps, Austria, and the problem of the mass extinction of the
biota. Russian J Earth Sci 7(6)ES600:1–45
Graup G, Spettel B, Herm D, Weidich KF (1989) Mineralogy
and phase-chemistry of an ir-enriched pre-K/T layer from the
Lattengebirge, Bavarian Alps, and significance for the KTB
problem. Earth Planet Sci Lett 95:271–290
Hansen T, Farrand RB, Montgomery HA, Billman HG,
Blechschmidt G (1987) Sedimentology and extinction pat-
terns across the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary interval in
east Texas (USA). Cretaceous Res 8:229–252
Hansen TA, Upshaw B III, Kauffman EG, Gose W (1993)
Patterns of molluscan extinction and recovery across the
Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in east Texas; report on new
outcrops. Cretaceous Res 14:685–706
Haq BU, Hardenbol J, Vail PR (1987) The chronology of fluctu-
ating sea level since the Triassic. Science 235:1157–1167
Haq BU, Hardenbol J, Vail PR (1988) Mesozoic and Cenozoic
chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea-level change. In:
Wilgus CK, Hastings BS, Kendall CG, Posamentier HW,
Ross CA, Van Wagoner JC (eds) Sea-level: an integrated
approach. Soc Econ Paleontol Mineral Spec Pub, vol 42,
pp 71–108
Harting M (2004) Zum Kreide/Tertiar-Ubergang in NE Mexico:
geochemische characterisiering der Chicxulub Impactejekta.
Karlsruhe University, 131p
Hildebrand AR, Penfield GT, Kring DA, Pilkington M, Jacobsen
S, Boynton WV (1991) Chicxulub crater: a possible
Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico. Geology 19:867–871
Hofmann C, Féraud G, Courtillot V (2000) 40 Ar/39 Ar dating of
mineral separates and whole rocks from the Western Ghats
lava pile: further constraints on duration and age of the
Deccan traps. Earth Planet Sci Lett 180:13–27
Izett GA (1990) The Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary interval,
Raton Basin, Colorado and New Mexico, and its content
of shock-metamorphosed minerals: evidence relevant to the
K/T boundary impact-extinction hypothesis. Geol Soc Am,
Spec Pap, vol 249, 100 pp
Izett G, Dalrymple GB, Snee LW (1991) 40 Ar/39 Ar age of K–T
boundary tektites from Haiti. Science 252:159–1543
Jaiprakash BC, Singh J, Raju DSN (1993) Foraminiferal events
across the K/T boundary and age of Deccan volcanism in
Palakollu area, Krishna–Godavari Basin, India. J Geol Soc
India 41:105–117
Jay AE, Widdowson M (2008) Stratigraphy, structure and vol-
canology of the south-east Deccan continental flood basalt
province: implications for eruptive extent and volumes.
J Geol Soc 165:177–188
Jay AE, MacNiocaill C, Widdowson M, Self S, Turner W (2009)
NewPalaeomagnetic data from the Mahabaleshwar Plateau,
Deccan Flood Basalt Province, India: implications for the
volcanostratigraphic architecture of Continental Flood Basalt
Provinces. J Geophys Res 166:1–12. doi:10.1144/0016-
76492007-150
Jerram DA, Widdowson M (2005) The anatomy of Continental
Flood Basalt Provinces: geological constraints on the pro-
cesses and products of flood volcanism. Lithos 79:385–405
Jiang MJ, Gartner S (1986) Calcareous nannofossil succes-
sion across the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in east-central
Texas. Micropaleontology 32:232–255
790
Keller G (1988) Extinctions, survivorship and evolution across
the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary at El Kef, Tunisia. Marine
Micropal 13:239–263
Keller G (1989) Extended K/T boundary extinctions and delayed
populational change in planktic Foraminiferal faunas from
Brazos River Texas. Paleoceanography 4:287–332
Keller G (1996) The K/T mass extinction in planktic
foraminifera biotic constraints for catastrophe theories. In:
MacLeod N, Keller G (eds) The Cretaceous–Tertiary mass
extinction: biotic and environmental events. Norton Press,
New York, pp 63–100
Keller G (2001) The end-Cretaceous mass extinction: year 2000
assessment. J Planet Space Sci 49:817–830
Keller G (2005) Impacts, volcanism and mass extinctions: ran-
dom coincidence or cause and effect? Australian J Earth Sci
52:725–757
Keller G (2008a) Impact stratigraphy: old principle, new reality.
Geol Soc Am, Spec Pap 437:147–178
Keller G (2008b) Cretaceous climate, volcanism, impacts and
biotic effects. Cretaceous Res 29:754–771
Keller G, Abramovich S (2009) Lilliput Effect in late
Maastrichtian planktic foraminifera: response to envi-
ronmental stress. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol
284:47–62
Keller G, Barron JA (1983) Paleoceanographic implications of
Miocene deep-sea hiatuses, Geol Soc Am Bull 94:1–30
Keller G, Pardo A (2004) Disaster opportunists Guembelitridae:
index for environmental catastrophes. Marine Micropal
53:83–116
Keller G, Stinnesbeck W (1996) Sea-level changes, clastic
deposits and megatsunamis across the Cretaceous–Tertiary
boundary. In: MacLeod N, Keller G (eds) Cretaceous–
Tertiary mass extinctions. WW Norton & Co, New York,
pp 415–450
Keller G, Stinnesbeck W (2002) Slumping and a sand-
bar deposit at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in the
El Tecolote section (Northeastern Mexico): an impact-
induced sediment gravity flow – comment. Geology 30:
382–383
Keller G, Barrera E, Schmitz B, Mattson E (1993) Gradual mass
extinction, species survivorship and long-term environmental
changes across the Cretaceous–Tertiary Boundary in high
latitudes. Geol Soc Am Bull 105:979–997
Keller G, Stinnesbeck W, Lopez-Oliva JG (1994a) Age, depo-
sition and biotic effects of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary
event at Mimbral, NE Mexico. Palaios 9:144–157
Keller G, Stinnesbeck W, Adatte T, MacLeod N, Lowe DR
(1994b) Field guide to Creataceous–Tertiary boundary sec-
tions in northeastern Mexico, vol 827. Lunar and Planetary
Institute, LPI Contribution, Houston,110p
Keller G, Li L, MacLeod N (1995) The Cretaceous/Tertiary
boundary stratotype section at El Kef, Tunisia: how catas-
trophic was the mass extinction? Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol
Palaeoecol 119:221–254
Keller G, Lopez-Oliva JG, Stinnesbeck W, Adatte T (1997) Age,
stratigraphy and deposition of near K/T siliciclastic deposits
in Mexico: relation to bolide impact? Geol Soc Am Bull
109:410–428
Keller G, Adatte T, Stinnesbeck W, Stuben D, Kramar U, Berner
Z, Li L, von Salis Perch-Nielsen K (1998) The Cretaceous–
Tertiary transition on the shallow Saharan Platform in south-
ern Tunisia. GeoBios 30:951–975
G. Keller
Keller G, Adatte T, Stinnesbeck W, Stueben D, Berner Z (2001)
Age, Chemo- and Biostratigraphy of Haiti spherule-rich
deposits: a Multi-event K–T scenario. Canadian J Earth Sci
38:197–227
Keller G, Adatte T, Stinnesbeck W, Affolter M, Schilli L,
Lopez-Oliva JG (2002) Multiple spherule layers in the late
Maastrichtian of northeastern Mexico. Geol Soc Am Spec
Pub 356:145–161
Keller G, Stinnesbeck W, Adatte T, Stüben D (2003a) Multiple
impacts across the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary. Earth-Sci
Rev 62:327–363
Keller G, Stinnesbeck W, Adatte T, Holland B, Stueben D,
Harting M, De Leon C, de la Cruz J (2003b) Spherule
deposits in Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sediments in
Belize and Guatemala. J Geol Soc London 160:783–795
Keller G, Adatte T, Stinnesbeck W, Rebolledo-Vieyra M, Urrutia
Fucugauchi J, Kramar U, Stueben D (2004a) Chicxulub
crater predates K–T mass extinction. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 101:3753–3758
Keller G, Adatte T, Stinnesbeck W, Stüben D, Berner Z,
Harting M (2004b) More evidence that the Chicxulub impact
predates the K/T mass extinction. Meteoritics Planet Sci
39:1127–1144
Keller G, Adatte T, Harting M, Berner Z, Baum G, Prauss M,
Tantawy AA, Stueben D (2007a) Chicxulub impact predates
the K–T boundary: new evidence from Texas. Earth Planet
Sci Lett 255:339–356
Keller G, Adatte T, Tantawy AA, Berner Z, Stueben D (2007b)
High Stress Late Cretaceous to early Danian paleoenvi-
ronment in the Neuquen Basin, Argentina. Cretaceous Res
28:939–960
Keller G, Adatte T, Baum G, Berner Z (2008a) Reply to
‘Chicxulub impact predates K–T boundary: new evidence
from Brazos, Texas’ comment by Schulte et al. Earth Planet
Sci Lett 269:620–628. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.12.025
Keller G, Adatte T, Gardin S, Bartolini A, Bajpai S (2008b)
Main Deccan volcanism phase ends near the K–T boundary:
evidence from the Krishna-Godavari Basin, SE India. Earth
Planet Sci Lett 268:293–311. doi:101016/j.epsl.2008.01.015
Keller G, Abramovich S, Berner Z, Adatte T (2009a) Biotic
effects of the Chicxulub impact, K–T catastrophe and
sea-level change in Texas. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol
Palaeoecol 271:52–68. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.09.007
Keller G, Sharma R, Khosla A, Khosla SC, Bajpai S (2009b)
Early Danian planktic foraminifera from Intertrappean beds
at Jhilmili, Chhindwara district, Madhya Pradesh, India.
J Foram Res 39:40–55
Keller G, Adatte T, Pardo Juez A, Lopez Oliva JG (2009c)
New evidence concerning the age and biotic effects of
the Chicxulub impact in NE Mexico. J Geol Soc London
166:393–411
Keller G, Adatte T, Bajpai S, Mohabey DM, Widdowson M,
Khosla A, Sharma R, Khosla SC, Gertsch B, Fleitmann D,
Sahni A (2009d) K–T transition in Deccan Traps of cen-
tral India marks major marine seaway across India. EPSL
282:10–23
Khosla SC, Nagori ML (2002) Ostracodes from the Inter-
trappean beds (Early Paleocene) of the east coast of India.
Paleontol Res 6:191–210
Klaus A, Norris RD, Kroon D, Smit J (2000) Impact-induced
mass wasting at the K–T Boundary, Blake Nose, western
North Atlantic. Geology 28:319–322
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Knight KB, Renne PR, Halkett A, White N (2003) 40 Ar/39 Ar
dating of the Rajahmundry traps, Eastern India and their
relationship to the Deccan Traps. Earth Planet Sci Lett
208:85–99
Knight KB, Renne PR, Baker J, Waight T, White N (2005)
Reply to 40 Ar/39 Ar dating of the Rajahmundry Traps,
Eastern India and their relationship to theDeccan Traps:
discussion by AK Baksi. Earth Planet Sci Lett 239:
374–382
Koeberl C (1993) Chicxulub crater, Yucatan: Tektites, impact
glasses, and the geochemistry of target rocks and breccias.
Geology 21:211–214
Kring DA (2007) The Chicxulub impact event and its environ-
mental consequences at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary.
Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol 255:4–21
Lindenmaier F (1999) Geologie und Geochemie an der
Kreide/Tertiär-Grenze im Nordosten von Mexiko.
Diplomarbeit, Institut für Regionale Geologie, Karlsruhe,
90p
Lopez-Oliva JG (1996) Stratigraphy of the Cretaceous–Tertiary
(K–T) boundary transition in northeastern and east-central
Mexico. Princeton University, Princeton, 246p
Lopez-Oliva JG, Keller G (1996) Age and stratigraphy of near-
K/T boundary clastic deposits in NE Mexico. Geol Soc Am,
Spec Pap 307:227–242
Lopez-Ramos E (1973) Estudio geológico de la Peninsula
de Yucatan. Boletin Associacion Mexicana de Geologos
Petroleros 25:23–76
Lopez-Ramos E (1975) Geological summary of the Yucatan
Peninsula. In: Nairn AEM, Stehli FG (eds) The ocean basins
and margins. The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, vol 3.
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 257–282
Loutit TS, Hardenbol J, Vail PR, Baum GR (1988) Condensed
sections: the key to age dating and correlation of continental
margin sequences. In: Wilgus CK, Hastings BS, Kendall CG,
Posamentier HW, Ross CA, Van Wagoner JC (eds) Sea-level
changes: an integrated approach. Soc Econ Paleontol Mineral
Spec Pub, vol 42, pp. 183–213
MacLeod N, Keller G (1991) Hiatus distributions and mass
extinctions at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Geology
19:497–501
MacLeod N, Ortiz N, Fefferman N, Clyde W, Schulter C,
MacLean J (2000) Phenotypic response of foraminifera to
episodes of global environmental change. In: Culver SJ,
Rawson P (eds) Biotic response to global environmental
change: the last 145 million years. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–78
MacLeod KG, Whitney DL, Huber BT, Koeberl C (2007)
Impact and extinction in remarkably complete Cretaceous–
Tertiary boundary sections from Demerara Rise, tropical
western North Atlantic. Geol Soc Am Bull 119:101–115.
doi:10.1130/B25955.1
Martínez-Ruiz F, Ortega-Huertas M, Palomo-Delgado I, Smit J
(2002) Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary at Blake Nose (Ocean
drilling Program Leg 171B): a record of the Chicxulub
impact ejecta. Geol Soc Am, Spec Pap 356:189–200
Maurasse FJMR, Sen G (1991) Impacts, tsunamis and
the Haitian Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary layer. Science
252:1690–1693
Maurrasse FJMR, Lamolda MA, Aguado R, Peryt D, Sen
G (2005) Spatial and temporal variations of the Haitian
791
K/T boundary record: implications concerning the event or
events. J Iberian Geol 31:113–133
McLean DM (1978) A terminal Mesozoic “Greenhouse”:
lessons from the past. Science 201:401–406
McLean DM (1985) Deccan Traps mantle degassing in the
terminal Cretaceous marine extinctions. Cretaceous Res 6:
235–259
Meyerhoff AA, Lyons JB, Officer CB (1994) Chicxulub struc-
ture: a volcanic sequence of Late Cretaceous age. Geology
22:3–4
Molina E, Alegret L, Arenillas I, Arz J A, Gallala N, Hardenbol
J, von Salis K, Steurbraut E, Vandenberghe N, Zaghbib-
Turki D (2006) The global boundary stratotype section and
point for the base of the Danian stage (Paleocene, Paleogene,
“Tertiary”, Cenozoic) at El Kef, Tunisia – original definition
and revision. Episodes 29:263–273
Montanari A, Koeberl C (2000) Impact stratigraphy. Lecture
Notes in Earth Sciences, no. 93. Springer, Heidelberg,
Germany, 364p
Morgan JW, Ganapathy R, Krähenbühl U (1975) Meteoritic
trace elements in lunar rock 14321, 184. Geoch Cosmoch
Acta 39:261–264
Norris RD, Huber BT, Self-Trail J (1999) Synchroneity of the
K–T oceanic mass extinction and meteorite impact: Blake
Nose, western North Atlantic. Geology 27:419–422
Norris RD, Firth J, Blusztajn Ravizza G (2000) Mass failure
of the North Atlantic margin triggered by the Cretaceous–
Paleogene bolide impact. Geology 28:1119–1122
Olsson RK, Miller KG, Browning JV, Habib D, Sugarmann
PJ (1997) Ejecta layer at the Cretaceous–Tertiary bound-
ary, Bass River, New Jersey (Ocean Drilling Program Leg
174AX). Geology 25:759–762
Pande K, Pattanayak SK, Subbarao KV, Navaneethakrishna P,
Venkatesan TR (2004) 40 Ar/39 Ar age of a lava flow from the
Bhimashankar Formation, Giravali Ghat, Deccan Traps. Proc
Indian Acad Sci 113:755–758
Pardo A, Ortiz N, Keller G (1996) Latest Maastrichtian and
K/T boundary foraminiferal turnover and environmental
changes at Agost, Spain. In: MacLeod N, Keller G (eds) The
Cretaceous–Tertiary mass extinction: biotic and environmen-
tal effects. Norton Press, New York, pp. 157–191
Poag CW, Plescia JB, Molzer PC (2002) Ancient impact struc-
tures on modern continental shelves: the Chesapeake Bay,
Montagnais, and Toms Canyon craters, Atlantic margin of
North America. Deep Sea Res Pt II(49):1081–1102
Prasad B, Pundeer BS (2002) Palynological events and zones
in Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sediments of Krishna-
Godavari and Cauvery basins, India. Palaeontographica Abt
B 262:39–70
Raju DSN, Jaiprakash BC, Kumar A, Saxena RK, Dave A,
Chatterjee TK, Mishra CM (1994) The magnitude of hia-
tus and sea-level changes across K/T boundary in Cauvery
and Krishna-Godavari basins, India. J Geol Soc India 44:
301–315
Raju DSN, Jaiprakash BC, Kumar A, Saxena RK, Dave A,
Chatterjee TK, Mishra CM (1995) Age of Deccan volcan-
ism across KTB in Krishna-Godavari Basin: new evidences.
J Geol Soc India 45:229–233
Rocchia R, Robin E, Froget L, Gayraud J (1996) Stratigraphic
distribution of extraterrestrial markers at the Cretaceous–
Tertiary boundary in the Gulf of Mexico area: implications
792
for the temporal complexity of the event. In: Ryder G,
Fastovsky D, Gartner S (eds) The Cretaceous–Tertiary
boundary event and other catastrophes in Earth history.
Geol Soc Am, Boulder, Colorado, Spec Pap, vol 307,
pp. 279–286
Sahni A (1983) Upper Cretaceous Palaeobiogeography of
Peninsular India and the Cretaceous–Paleocene transition:
the vertebrate evidence. In: Maheshwari HK (ed) Cretaceous
of India. Indian Association. Palynostratigraphers, Lucknow,
pp. 128–140
Sawlowicz Z (1993) Iridium and other platinum-group ele-
ments as geochemical markers in sedimentary environments.
Paleogeogr Paleoclimatol Paleoecol 104:253–270
Saxena RK, Misra CN (1994) Time and duration of Deccan vol-
canism in the Rezole area, Krishna-Godavari Basin, India.
Curr Sci 66:74–76
Schilli L (2000) Etude de la limite K–T dans la région de
la Sierrita, Nuevo Leon, Mexique, MS thesis, Geological
Institute, University of Neuchatel, Neuchatel, Switzerland,
138p
Schulte P (1999) Geologisch-sedimentologische Untersuch-
ungen des Kreide/Tertiär (K/T)-Übergangs im Gebiet zwis-
chen La Sierrita und El Toro, Nuevo Leon, Mexiko:
Diplomarbeit, Universität Karlsruhe, Institut für Regionale
Geologie, Karlsruhe, Germany, 134p
Schulte P, Stinnesbeck W, Steuben D, Kramar U, Berner Z,
Keller G, Adatte T (2003) Multiple slumped? Chicxulub
ejecta deposits with iron-rich spherules and quenched car-
bonates from the K/T transition, La Sierrita, NE Mexico. J Int
Earth Sci 92:114–142
Schulte P, Speijer RP, Mai H, Kontny A (2006) The Cretaceous–
Paleogene (K–P) boundary at Brazos, Texas: sequence
stratigraphy, depositional events and the Chicxulub impact.
Sed Geol 184 77–109
Schulte P, Speijer RP, Brinkhuis H, Kontny A, Caleys P, Galeotti
S, Smit J (2008) Comment on the paper, ‘Chicxulub impact
predates K–T boundary: new evidence from Brazos, Texas’
by Keller et al. (2007). Earth Planet Sci Lett 269:613–619.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.11.066
Schulte P, and 40 others (2010) The Chicxulub asteroid impact
and mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary.
Science 327:1214–1218
Self S, Jay AE, Widdowson M, Keszthelyi LP (2008a)
Correlation of the Deccan and Rajahmundry Trap lavas: are
these the longest and largest lava flows on Earth? J Vocanol
Geothermal Res 172:3–19
Self S, Blake S, Sharma K, Widdowson M, Sephton S (2008b)
Sulfur and Chlorine in Late Cretaceous Deccan Magmas and
Eruptive gas release. Science 319:1654–1657
Sheth HC, Pande K, Bhutani R (2001) 40 Ar/39 Ar age of
a national geological monument: the Gilbert Hill basalt,
Deccan Traps, Bombay. Curr Sci 80:1437–1440
Sigurdsson H, Bonté P, Turpin L, Chaussidon M, Metrich N,
Steinberg M, Pradel P, D’Hondt S (1991) Geochemical
constraints on source region of Cretaceous–Tertiary impact
glasses. Nature 353:839–842
Smit J (1999) The global stratigraphy of the Cretaceous–Tertiary
boundary impact ejecta. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 27:75–113
Smit J, Montanari A, Swinburne NHM, Alvarez W, Hildebrand
A, Margolis SV, Claeys P, Lowerie W, Asaro F (1992)
G. Keller
Tektite-bearing deep-water clastic unit at the Cretaceous–
Tertiary boundary in northeastern Mexico. Geology 20:
99–104
Smit J, Montanari A, Alvarez W (1994) Tsunami-generated beds
at the KT boundary in northeastern Mexico. In: Keller G,
Stinnesbeck W, Adatte T, MacLeod N, Lowe DR (eds) Field
guide to Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sections northeaster
Mexico, vol 827. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston,
pp. 95–101
Smit J, Roep TB, Alvarez W, Montanari A, Claeys P, Grajales-
Nishimura JM, Bermudez J (1996) Coarse-grained clastic
sandstone complex at the K/T boundary around the Gulf
of Mexico: deposition by tsunami waves induced by the
Chicxulub impact. Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 307:151–182
Smit J, van der Gaast S, Lustenhouwer W (2004) Is the transition
to post-impact rock complete? Some remarks based on XRF
scanning electron microprobe and thin section analyses of the
Yaxcopoil-1 core. Meteoritics Planetary Sci 39:1113–1126
Sohl NF, Martinez RE, Salmerón-Ureña P, Soto-Jaramillo F
(1991) Upper Cretaceous. In: Salvador A (ed) The Gulf
of Mexico basin: the geology of North America. Journal
of Geological Society of America, Vol J. Boulder, CO,
pp. 205–244
Soria AR, Llesa CL, Mata MP, Arz JA, Alegret L, Arenillas
I, Melendez A (2001) Slumping and a sandbar deposit at
the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in the El Tecolote section
(northeastern Mexico): an impact-induced sediment gravity
flow. Geology 29:231–234
Stinnesbeck W, Barbarin JM, Keller G, Lopez-Oliva JG,
Pivnik D, Lyons J, Officer C, Adatte T, Graup G, Rocchia
R, Robin E (1993) Deposition of channel deposits near
the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary in northeastern Mexico:
Catastrophic or “normal” sedimentary deposits? Geology
21:797–800
Stinnesbeck W, Keller G, Adatte T, Lopez-Oliva JG, MacLeod
N (1996) Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary clastic deposits in
northeastern Mexico: impact tsunami or sea level lowstand?
In: MacLeod N, Keller G (eds) Cretaceous–Tertiary mass
extinctions: biotic and environmental changes. WW Norton
& Company, New York, pp. 471–518
Stinnesbeck W, Keller G, Adatte T, Harting M, Stueben D,
Istrate G (2004) Yaxcopoil-1 and the Chicxulub impact. Int J
Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) 93:1042–1065
Stüben D, Kramar U, Harting M, Stinnesbeck W, Keller G
(2005) High-resolution geochemical record of Cretaceous–
Tertiary boundary sections in Mexico: new constraints on the
K/T and Chicxulub events. Geochemica et Cosmochimica
Acta 69(10):2559–2579
Subbarao KV, Pathak S (1993) Reversely magnetized flows,
Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 41:71–72
Swisher CC, Grajales-Nishimura JM, Montanari A, Margolis
SV, Claeys P, Alvarez W, Renne P, Cedillo-Pardoa E,
Maurrasse FJ-MR, Curtis GH, Smit J, McWilliams MO
(1992) Coeval 40 Ar/39 Ar ages of 65 million years ago from
Chicxulub crater melt rock and Cretaceous–Tertiary bound-
ary tektites. Science 257:954–958
Tredoux M, de Wit MJ, Hart RJ, Linsay NM, Verhagen
B, Sellschop JPF (1988) Chemostratigraphy across the
Cretaceous–Teriary boundary and a critical assessment of the
iridium anomaly. J Geol 97:585–605
The Cretaceous–Tertiary Mass Extinction, Chicxulub Impact, and Deccan Volcanism
Vandamme D, Courtillot V (1992) Paleomagnetic constraints
on the structure of the Deccan Traps. Phys Earth Planet Int
74:241–261
Vandamme D, Courtillot V, Besse J, Montigny R (1991)
Paleomagnetism and age determinations of the Deccan
traps (India): results of a Nagpur–Bombay traverse and
review of earlier work. Rev Geophys Space Phys 29:
159–190
Venkatesan TR, Pande K, Gopalan K (1993) Did Deccan volcan-
ism pre-date the Cretaceous/Tertiary transition? Earth Planet
Sci Lett 119:181–189
Venkatesan TR, Pande K, Ghevariya ZG (1996) 40 Ar–39 Ar ages
of lava flows from Anjar, Western Deccan Province, India
and its relation to the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary events.
Curr Sci 70:990–996
793
Yancey TE (1996) Stratigraphy and depositional environments
of the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary complex and basal sec-
tion, Brazos River, Texas. Gulf Coast Assoc Geol Soc Trans
46:433–442
Wang K, Attrep M Jr, Orth CJ (1993) Global iridium
anomaly, mass extinction and redox change at the Devonian–
Carboniferous boundary. Geology 21:1071–1074
Ward W, Keller G, Stinnesbeck W, Adatte T (1995) Yucatan
subsurface stratigraphy: implications and constraints for the
Chicxulub impact. Geology 23:873–876
Widdowson M, Pringle MS, Fernandez OA (2000) A post K–
T boundary (Early Paleocene) age for Deccan-type feeder
dykes, Goa, India. J Petrol 41:1177–1194
Wignall PB (2001) Large igneous provinces and mass extinc-
tions. Earth Sci Rev 53:1–33