The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Linking large impacts, gas hydrates, and carbon isotope excursions through widespread sediment liquefaction and continental slope failure: The example of the K-T boundary event
Abstract
We present a mechanism linking large impacts, such as Chicxulub, to signifi cant continental sedimentary slope failures and gas hydrate releases, and hence to carbon isotope excursions. Extensive continental margin failures and seabed sediment liquefaction at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary up to thousands of kilometers from Chicxulub have been linked to this impact in previous studies: here we analyze the implied seismic shaking and explore its effects in terms of gas hydrate release from failed continental margin sediments. Paleoseismic analysis of published studies of liquefaction and slope failure at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in North America and adjacent regions suggests that, due to low seismic attenuation in plate interior rocks, there was a suffi cient seismic forcing to cause the observed widespread sediment liquefaction and failure along tens of thousands of kilometers of continental slope. The implied magnitude of the impact-related seismicity (equivalent to an earthquake with moment magnitude <11) is shown to be broadly consistent with the characteristics of the Chicxulub impact structure. An extended period of post-impact liquefaction and slope failure may account for the observed complexity of Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary sequences in Mexico and North America. We favor a seismic shaking model for the triggering of slope failure over previous models implicating impact generated tsunamis, because the shallow-water Chicxulub impact itself is now recognized…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These latter events are important because the largest tectonic earthquakes are known to cause liquefaction effects only up to ~500 km from the earthquake source, so that these margin-collapse events imply that Chicxulub dynamic stresses must have resulted from the equivalent of a M w > 10 event (Day and Maslin, 2005).”
From Triggering of the largest Deccan eruptions by the Chicxulub impact (2015) · cites this paper as Day and Maslin, 2005
In the citing paper
“These latter events are important because the largest tectonic earthquakes are known to cause liquefaction effects only up to ~500 km from the earthquake source, so that these margin-collapse events imply that Chicxulub dynamic stresses must have resulted from the equivalent of a M w > 10 event (Day and Maslin, 2005).”
From Triggering of the largest Deccan eruptions by the Chicxulub impact (2015) · cites this paper as Day and Maslin, 2005
Citations
Cited by
Triggering of the largest Deccan eruptions by the Chicxulub impact
Richards, M. A., Alvarez, W., Self, S., Karlstrom, L., Renne, P. R., Manga, M., Sprain, C. J., Smit, J., Vanderkluysen, L., & Gibson, S. A. (2015) · Geological Society of America Bulletin · doi:10.1130/b31167.1 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Day, S., & Maslin, M.
- Venue
- Large Meteorite Impacts III
- Publisher
- Geological Society of America
- Published
- 2005
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
