Nonmarine Mass Extinctions
Nonmarine Mass Extinctions
复制标题
DOI：
10.2517/2021pr004
复制
发表时间：
2021-10
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
S. Lucas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Lucas
抽象的。一个与海洋无脊椎动物的所谓的“大5大规模灭绝”（晚奥陶纪，晚泥盆纪，二叠纪末，三叠纪末和白垩纪末）以及可能的第六次大规模灭绝在海洋领域，结束瓜达卢佩灭绝的假定非海洋质量灭绝的批判性审查，揭示了同时代的海洋和非海洋质量灭绝的证据很少。在奥陶纪期间，除了一种类似于玄武岩的植物群外，几乎没有什么生物生活在陆地上，这种植物群在晚奥陶纪期间似乎一直在多样化，而不是灭绝。晚泥盆世的海洋灭绝与石炭纪的陆地植物多样性增加是不可能的，四足动物的化石记录也不足以确定任何大规模灭绝。一个例子可以为同时代的植物/四足动物灭绝和结束瓜达卢佩海洋灭绝，所以这可能是第一个同时代的海洋-非海洋大规模灭绝。然而，问题的时间和问题的非海洋晚期/末期瓜达卢佩的灭绝程度表明，需要进一步的研究。在二叠纪-三叠纪的界线上，没有大量的陆生植物、昆虫或四足动物。晚三叠世是一个低起源和高灭绝率的时期，陆地和海洋;在这两个领域都没有单一的三叠纪末大灭绝。白垩纪末为同时代的陆-海大规模灭绝提供了最有力的证据，但没有陆生植物的大规模灭绝，昆虫灭绝的证据是基于对昆虫多样性代理的分析，四足动物灭绝是非常有选择性的。因此，白垩纪末的非海洋生物灭绝是否是一次大规模灭绝值得质疑。由于非海相化石记录的质量相对较差和取样不均匀，部分无法识别非海相块状沉积物的原因是埋藏巨化石。陆地生物的抗灭绝性和恢复力也是非海洋生物群体灭绝缺乏的一个可能因素，这值得进一步研究。
Abstract. A critical review of putative nonmarine mass extinctions associated with the so-called “Big 5 mass extinctions” of marine invertebrates (Late Ordovician, Late Devonian, end Permian, end Triassic and end Cretaceous) as well as a likely sixth mass extinction in the marine realm, the end-Guadalupian extinction, reveals little evidence of coeval marine and nonmarine mass extinctions. Little lived on land during the Ordovician other than a bryophyte-like flora that appears to have been diversifying, not going extinct, during the Late Ordovician. No case can be made for mass extinctions on land coeval with the marine extinctions of the Late Devonian-land plant diversity increased into the Carboniferous, and the tetrapod fossil record is inadequate to identify any mass extinctions. A case can be made for coeval plant/tetrapod extinctions and the end-Guadalupian marine extinctions, so this may be the first coeval marine-nonmarine mass extinction. However, problems of timing and questions about the extent of the nonmarine late/end-Guadalupian extinctions indicate that further research is needed. There were no mass extinctions of land plants, insects or tetrapods across the Permo–Triassic boundary. The Late Triassic was a time of low origination and high extinction rates on land and in the seas; there was no single end-Triassic mass extinction in either realm. The end-Cretaceous provides the strongest case for coeval land–sea mass extinctions, but there is no mass extinction of land plants, evidence of insect extinction is based on assumption-laden analyses of proxies for insect diversity and the tetrapod extinction was very selective. So, whether the nonmarine extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a mass extinction is worth questioning. Part of the inability to identify nonmarine mass extinctions stems from taphonomic megabiases due to the relatively poor quality and uneven sampling of the nonmarine fossil record. Extinction resistance and resilience of terrestrial organisms is also a likely factor in the dearth of nonmarine mass extinctions, and this merits further investigation.