Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

Review
.2023 Sep 8;11(1):nwad237.
doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwad237. eCollection 2024 Jan.

Theory and classification of mass extinction causation

Affiliations
Review

Theory and classification of mass extinction causation

Thomas J Algeo et al. Natl Sci Rev..

Abstract

Theory regarding the causation of mass extinctions is in need of systematization, which is the focus of this contribution. Every mass extinction has both an ultimate cause, i.e. the trigger that leads to various climato-environmental changes, and one or more proximate cause(s), i.e. the specific climato-environmental changes that result in elevated biotic mortality. With regard to ultimate causes, strong cases can be made that bolide (i.e. meteor) impacts, large igneous province (LIP) eruptions and bioevolutionary events have each triggered one or more of the Phanerozoic Big Five mass extinctions, and that tectono-oceanic changes have triggered some second-order extinction events. Apart from bolide impacts, other astronomical triggers (e.g. solar flares, gamma bursts and supernova explosions) remain entirely in the realm of speculation. With regard to proximate mechanisms, most extinctions are related to either carbon-release or carbon-burial processes, the former being associated with climatic warming, ocean acidification, reduced marine productivity and lower carbonate δ13C values, and the latter with climatic cooling, increased marine productivity and higher carbonate δ13C values. Environmental parameters such as marine redox conditions and terrestrial weathering intensity do not show consistent relationships with carbon-cycle changes. In this context, mass extinction causation can be usefully classified using a matrix of ultimate and proximate factors. Among the Big Five mass extinctions, the end-Cretaceous biocrisis is an example of a bolide-triggered carbon-release event, the end-Permian and end-Triassic biocrises are examples of LIP-triggered carbon-release events, and the Late Ordovician and Late Devonian biocrises are examples of bioevolution-triggered carbon-burial events. Whereas the bolide-impact and LIP-eruption mechanisms appear to invariably cause carbon release, bioevolutionary triggers can result in variable carbon-cycle changes, e.g. carbon burial during the Late Ordovician and Late Devonian events, carbon release associated with modern anthropogenic climate warming, and little to no carbon-cycle impact due to certain types of ecosystem change (e.g. the advent of the first predators around the end-Ediacaran; the appearance of Paleolithic human hunters in Australasia and the Americas). Broadly speaking, studies of mass extinction causation have suffered from insufficiently critical thinking-an impartial survey of the extant evidence shows that (i) hypotheses of a common ultimate cause (e.g. bolide impacts or LIP eruptions) for all Big Five mass extinctions are suspect given manifest differences in patterns of environmental and biotic change among them; (ii) the Late Ordovician and Late Devonian events were associated with carbon burial and long-term climatic cooling, i.e. changes that are inconsistent with a bolide-impact or LIP-eruption mechanism; and (iii) claims of periodicity in Phanerozoic mass extinctions depended critically on the now-disproven idea that they shared a common extrinsic trigger (i.e. bolide impacts).

Keywords: biocrisis; bioevolutionary event; bolide; large igneous province; proximate cause; ultimate cause.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of China Science Publishing & Media Ltd.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Results of Google Scholar searches (February 2023) for ‘mass extinction’ combined with each of the five terms shown in the figure. Interest in bolides increased sharply after publication of [10], with similar rising trends for LIPs and Devonian plants after key papers proposing those triggers for mass extinctions in the early 1990s. Note: ‘Devonian plants’ was used in preference to ‘Bioevolutionary trigger’, as the latter more general term is not in widespread usage; papers on bioevolutionary mechanisms are thus undercounted in this survey. The large numbers of papers examining mass extinctions in the context of supernovas and periodicity are sourced disproportionately from the astrophysical community (e.g. [15]) and reflect an inadequate understanding of the current state of knowledge in the Earth sciences community regarding mass extinction causation. The numbers of publications for the 2020–2022 interval (*) have been multiplied by 5/3 to match the 5-year periods of the preceding time bins.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
C-cycle (δ13Ccarb, δ13Corg) and temperature (δ18O) proxy records for various mass extinctions. (A) End-Cretaceous Mass Extinction, or ECME (IODP Site U1403, Newfoundland [35]); (B) End-Permian Mass Extinction, or EPME (Meishan D, China, δ13C [36], δ18O [37]); (C) End-Triassic Mass Extinction, or ETME (St. Audrie's Bay, England, δ13C [38]; Lavernock Point, England, δ18O [39]); (D) Late Ordovician Mass Extinction, or LOME (Monitor Range, United States, δ13C [40], δ18O [41]); (E) End-Frasnian (Kellwasser) Event, part of the Late Devonian Mass Extinction, or LDME (Behringhauser Tunnel, Germany, δ13C [42], δ18O [43]); and (F) End-Cenomanian Event (Eastbourne, UK [44]). PCIE and NCIE represent positive- and negative carbon isotope excursions, respectively.C. =Clarkina, H. =Hindeodus, I. =Isarcicella. LKW = Lower Kellwasser; UKW = Upper Kellwasser; Sy = system; St = stage.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Generalized flowchart showing role of carbon-cycle response (yellow) in linking triggers (ultimate causes; green) to environmental responses (proximate causes; red) during major biocrises. For biocrises in which the trigger leads to carbon release (i.e. temperature-driven biocrises; left pathway), the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is responsible for changes in climate (i.e. warming), weathering intensity, marine productivity and other environmental effects. In contrast, for biocrises in which the trigger leads to carbon burial (i.e. productivity-driven biocrises; right pathway), carbon-cycle changes are dependent on an initial increase in terrestrial weathering and/or marine productivity (orange), and other environmental effects follow from the resulting decline in atmospheric CO2 levels and global cooling. Expansion of oceanic anoxia and intensification of continental weathering are commonly features of both models and therefore not diagnostic of either one.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Classification of mass extinctions, based on a combination of ultimate (y-axis) and proximate (x-axis) causation. The Big Five Phanerozoic mass extinctions are shown in bold, and second-order biocrises in regular font. The occurrence of Cryogenian and Paleoproterozoic extinctions among microbial biotas remains speculative, and carbon-cycle changes during the end-Ediacaran were complex, as indicated by question marks. See text for discussion of specific extinction events.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Stages of the Late Quaternary mass extinction (LQME). Stage 1 (from ∼50 to 0.25 ka), characterized by direct exploitation of species, comprised megafaunal extinctions in (A) Australasia, (B) the Americas and (C) the Indo-Pacific region. Stage 2 (from ∼0.25 ka to the near future) is dominated by extinctions due to habitat loss. Stages 3 and 4 (future; timeline speculative) will be marked by climate change and ecosystem collapse, respectively, as the dominant proximate causes of extinction, while invasive species will play a supporting role during Stages 2 to 4. In all stages, the technological evolution of humanity is the ultimate cause of biodiversity loss. Note that both axes have log scales, and that the y-scale is unquantified and relative. This figure is inspired by various literature sources cited in the text.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rudwick MJ. Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes: New Translations and Interpretations of the Primary Texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
    1. Raup DM, Sepkoski JJ. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science 1982; 215: 1501–3.10.1126/science.215.4539.1501 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Algeo TJ, Berner RA, Maynard JBet al. . Late Devonian oceanic anoxic events and biotic crises: “rooted” in the evolution of vascular land plants? GSA Today 1995; 5: 45–66.
    1. Bambach RK. Phanerozoic biodiversity mass extinctions. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 2006; 34: 127–55.10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122654 - DOI
    1. Penn JL, Deutsch C. Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming. Science 2022; 376: 524–6.10.1126/science.abe9039 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp