Meteor that wiped out dinosaurs shook up plants too, say scientists

The space rock that struck Earth some 66 million years ago did more than usher the non-avian dinosaurs to extinction, allowing mammals to flourish. New research shows that conditions after the impact were also a boon for deciduous plants.

NSF Harvard Forest LTER Site
Deciduous plants, which drop their leaves, flourished after a killer meteorite impact 66 million years ago.

The killer meteorite that extinguished the dinosaurs also torched North America's forests and plants. The harsh conditions after the impact favored fast-growing flowering plants, nudging forests toward a new pecking order, a new study reports.

As a result, today's forests would baffle a Brachiosaurus. Most of the slow-growing trees and shrubs munched by dinosaurs are minor players in modern forests, because the plants couldn't adapt to post-impact climate swings, researchers report today (Sept. 16) in the journal PLOS Biology.

"When you look at forests around the world today, you don't see many forests dominated by evergreen flowering plants," lead study author Benjamin Blonder said in a statement. "Instead, they are dominated by deciduous species, plants that lose their leaves at some point during the year."

Dinosaurs stomped through forests ruled by evergreen angiosperms, which never drop leaves. Angiosperms are flowering plants, grasses and trees, excluding conifers like spruce and pine. The dinosaur-era angiosperms included ancient relatives of holly, rhododendrons and sandalwood. Other plants in the ancient forests included beeches, cycads, gingkoes, ferns and palm trees. [See Photos of a Fossilized Forest in the Canadian Arctic]

Fossil records show that angiosperms of all kinds thrived before a meteorite or asteroid crashed into Earth 66 million years ago. That stupendous blast charred vast woodlands that had grown from Canada to New Mexico. In North America, about 60 percent of plant species went extinct, according to earlier studies.

After the blaze, deciduous angiosperms, which drop their leaves seasonally, bounced back much better than the evergreens.

Blonder, an ecologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, wanted to know why the deciduous angiosperms outcompeted their evergreen cousins during the cold, dark years after the impact (called an impact winter). The researchers pored through thousands of prehistoric leaves from Wyoming's Hell Creek Formation. The fossilized leaves spanned the impact, from the last 1.4 million years of the Cretaceous Period through the first 800,000 years of the Tertiary Period.

Based on their analysis, the researchers said the properties of the plant leaves likely helped them withstand the bleak climate. The impact winter pushed ecosystems toward plants with faster growing strategies, Blonder told Live Science in an email interview. "Leaves represent a drain on a plant's resources when photosynthesis can't occur. Thus, deciduous species should be favored over evergreen species," he said.

The researchers analyzed leaf mass per area, which indicates how much carbon a plant invests in growing a leaf. "[This] tells us whether the leaf was a chunky, expensive one to make for the plant, or whether it was a more flimsy, cheap one," Blonder said. The scientists also looked at leaf vein density, a measure of how fast a plant takes up carbon.

"Our study provides evidence of a dramatic shift from slow-growing plants to fast-growing species," Blonder said. "This tells us that the extinction was not random. And, potentially, this also tells us why we find that modern forests are generally deciduous and not evergreen."

Email Becky Oskin or follow her @beckyoskin. Follow us @livescienceFacebook Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.