The Unique Significance and Origin of the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary: Historical Context and Burdens of Proof
The abruptness and intensity of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary have been deemphasized by some authors over recent years, mainly by those skeptical of an impact origin for the boundary. However, it was recognized at the birth of stratigraphy as both abrupt and of major importance. It was used to define the change from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic; the boundary has become continually more precisely defined and its global sequences more correlatable. It is now unique in being an event boundary marked by an iridium-bearing layer of global extent, rather than an arbitrary boundary in a sequence of little change. The Permian-Triassic boundary, in contrast, is arbitrary and the transition is not yet proven to be abrupt, the extinctions that define it perhaps having taken place in pulses over several millions of years. Some of those who have denied the importance (and in some cases even the existence) of an impact in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions have placed burdens of proof on the impact hypothesis that they do not place on strictly terrestrial mechanisms. Terrestrial mechanisms have always been unsatisfactory (or at least unconvincing for global, massive, multienvironment faunal change) and are now even more so. Some authors have required of the impact hypothesis attributes that are not inherent in it, including particular patterns of extinction selectivity and timing.
Assessing the record and causes of Late Triassic extinctions
Accelerated biotic turnover during the Late Triassic has led to the perception of an end-Triassic mass extinction event, now regarded as one of the ‘‘big five’’ extinctions. Close examination of the fossil record reveals that many groups thought to be affected severely by this event, such as ammonoids, bivalves and conodonts, instead were in decline throughout the Late Triassic, and that other groups were relatively unaffected or subject to only regional effects. Explanations for the biotic turnover have included both gradualistic and catastrophic mechanisms. Regression during the Rhaetian, with consequent habitat loss, is compatible with the disappearance of some marine faunal groups, but may be regional, not global in scale, and cannot explain apparent synchronous decline in the terrestrial realm. Gradual, widespread aridification of the Pangaean supercontinent could explain a decline in terrestrial diversity during the Late Triassic. Although evidence for an impact precisely at the boundary is lacking, the presence of impact structures with Late Triassic ages suggests the possibility of bolide impact-induced environmental degradation prior to the end-Triassic. Widespread eruptions of flood basalts of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) were synchronous with or slightly postdate the system boundary; emissions of CO2 and SO2 during these eruptions were substantial, but the contradictory evidence for the environmental effects of outgassing of these lavas remains to be resolved. A substantial excursion in the marine carbon-isotope record of both carbonate and organic matter suggests a significant disturbance of the global carbon cycle at the system boundary. Release of methane hydrates from seafloor sediments is a possible cause for this isotope excursion, although the triggering mechanism and climatic effects of such a release remain uncertain. D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Archaeological Survey of Dangoyama Kofun by 3DGPR
We presented a three-dimensional ground penetrating radar (3DGPR) system for the archeological investigation in a harsh site, where we have to deal with many trees and/or great topographic variations. This system consists of a commercial GPR system with a laser positioning system. With this system, we can move the GPR antenna freely, on which a positioning detector can record accurate position for each GPR data trace. We applied our 3DGPR system at Dangoyama Kofun, a burial mound, in Fukushima prefecture, Japan. A lot of trees and bushes covered the survey area and cannot be cut. We acquired six datasets in two days in this area. We successfully imaged the boundary between the original surface of the burial mound and the covering soil clearly at about 0.3 m depth around the mound. Furthermore, we found some strong reflections appeared at 0.8 m depth in the top area of the mound, which can be from the artificial parts of the burial mound. The results would greatly aid the following archaeological excavation. In addition, we compared the non-interpolated depth slice with interpolated depth slice at same position and demonstrated that the interpolation process on threedimensional GPR data may introduce some artifacts which might mislead our interpretation.