volume 3 issue 5 pages 338-354

The Chicxulub impact and its environmental consequences

Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2022-04-12
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR13.465
CiteScore70.0
Impact factor71.5
ISSN2662138X
Pollution
Atmospheric Science
Earth-Surface Processes
Nature and Landscape Conservation
Abstract
The extinction of the dinosaurs and around three-quarters of all living species was almost certainly caused by a large asteroid impact 66 million years ago. Seismic data acquired across the impact site in Mexico have provided spectacular images of the approximately 200-kilometre-wide Chicxulub impact structure. In this Review, we show how studying the impact site at Chicxulub has advanced our understanding of formation of large craters and the environmental and palaeontological consequences of this impact. The Chicxulub crater’s asymmetric shape and size suggest an oblique impact and an impact energy of about 1023 joules, information that is important for quantifying the climatic effects of the impact. Several thousand gigatonnes of asteroidal and target material were ejected at velocities exceeding 5 kilometres per second, forming a fast-moving cloud that transported dust, soot and sulfate aerosols around the Earth within hours. These impact ejecta and soot from global wildfires blocked sunlight and caused global cooling, thus explaining the severity and abruptness of the mass extinction. However, it remains uncertain whether this impact winter lasted for many months or for more than a decade. Further combined palaeontological and proxy studies of expanded Cretaceous–Palaeogene transitions should further constrain the climatic response and the precise cause and selectivity of the extinction. The Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago caused catastrophic environmental changes, leading to the extinction of three-quarters of plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs. This Review explores how the Chicxulub impact structure provides insight into cratering processes and events leading to the Cretaceous–Palaeogene extinction.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
Journal of South American Earth Sciences
3 publications, 5.45%
Earth-Science Reviews
3 publications, 5.45%
Cretaceous Research
3 publications, 5.45%
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
3 publications, 5.45%
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology
2 publications, 3.64%
Meteoritics and Planetary Science
2 publications, 3.64%
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
2 publications, 3.64%
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
2 publications, 3.64%
Global and Planetary Change
2 publications, 3.64%
Chinese Science Bulletin (Chinese Version)
2 publications, 3.64%
Scientific Reports
1 publication, 1.82%
Geoscience Frontiers
1 publication, 1.82%
Cambridge Prisms Extinction
1 publication, 1.82%
Frontiers in Earth Science
1 publication, 1.82%
Acta Palaeobotanica
1 publication, 1.82%
Nature Geoscience
1 publication, 1.82%
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
1 publication, 1.82%
Biological Reviews
1 publication, 1.82%
PNAS Nexus
1 publication, 1.82%
Science advances
1 publication, 1.82%
Interpretation
1 publication, 1.82%
Geological Society Special Publication
1 publication, 1.82%
BMC Genomics
1 publication, 1.82%
Nature Communications
1 publication, 1.82%
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
1 publication, 1.82%
Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology
1 publication, 1.82%
Evolving Earth
1 publication, 1.82%
Paleobiology
1 publication, 1.82%
Journal of Geophysical Research Planets
1 publication, 1.82%
1
2
3

Publishers

5
10
15
20
25
Elsevier
22 publications, 40%
Springer Nature
7 publications, 12.73%
American Geophysical Union
5 publications, 9.09%
Wiley
4 publications, 7.27%
Oxford University Press
3 publications, 5.45%
Cambridge University Press
2 publications, 3.64%
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
2 publications, 3.64%
Science in China Press
2 publications, 3.64%
Frontiers Media S.A.
1 publication, 1.82%
Walter de Gruyter
1 publication, 1.82%
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1 publication, 1.82%
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
1 publication, 1.82%
Geological Society of London
1 publication, 1.82%
5
10
15
20
25
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
56
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Morgan J. V. et al. The Chicxulub impact and its environmental consequences // Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2022. Vol. 3. No. 5. pp. 338-354.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Morgan J. V., Bralower T. J., Brugger J., Wünnemann K. The Chicxulub impact and its environmental consequences // Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2022. Vol. 3. No. 5. pp. 338-354.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1038/s43017-022-00283-y
UR - https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00283-y
TI - The Chicxulub impact and its environmental consequences
T2 - Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
AU - Morgan, Joanna V
AU - Bralower, Timothy J.
AU - Brugger, Julia
AU - Wünnemann, Kai
PY - 2022
DA - 2022/04/12
PB - Springer Nature
SP - 338-354
IS - 5
VL - 3
SN - 2662-138X
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2022_Morgan,
author = {Joanna V Morgan and Timothy J. Bralower and Julia Brugger and Kai Wünnemann},
title = {The Chicxulub impact and its environmental consequences},
journal = {Nature Reviews Earth & Environment},
year = {2022},
volume = {3},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {apr},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00283-y},
number = {5},
pages = {338--354},
doi = {10.1038/s43017-022-00283-y}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Morgan, Joanna V., et al. “The Chicxulub impact and its environmental consequences.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 3, no. 5, Apr. 2022, pp. 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00283-y.