Fossil plant remains preserved as charcoal within proximal ejecta blankets of impact craters reveal the influence of asteroid collisions with the Earth’s surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact craters are formed when an asteroid strikes the surface with the hyper-velocity (usually higher than ~1km/s). The kinetic energy of the impactor is released as an explosion, a crater is formed, and target material is deposited outside, forming a proximal and later distal ejecta blanket. This consists of rocks, the surface soil layer and numerous plants remains (Cassidy et al. 1965, Khryanina 1981, Herd et al. 2008), including remains of trees directly killed by the asteroid (Losiak et al. 2016, Losiak et. Al. 2020). We have found a number of charcoals that we suggest are related to the formation of the following confirmed impact craters: Kaali Main, Kaali 2/8 (Estonia, Losiak et al. 2016), Morasko (Poland, Szokaluk et al. 2019), Whitecourt (Canada, Herd et al. 2008) and Ries crater (Buchner and Schmieder 2009). Three of these locations represent small (30-100 m in diameter) impact craters developed primarily in unconsolidated materials such as glacial tills and fluvioglacial sands. Whereas, Ries is a much larger and older crater: it is 24 km in diameter and 14.5 Ma old. Here we present the results from a set of experiments that reproduce the process of formation of charcoals within the proximal ejecta blankets of small impacts. Firstly, charring experiments were achieved using the iCone Calorimeter that recreated a range of heating possibilities that might results from small impact cratering processes. The iCone allows samples to be heated, with or without ignition at a range of radiant heat fluxes for given durations; these heat fluxes can be static or transient, both of which may be relevant to different impact formation mechanisms. Secondly, we buried leaves and fragments of different woods in heated sand over a range of temperatures durations and cooling regimes to assess the potential for relatively cool ejecta to cause transformations of organic material to char in situ. All the chars created in the experiments were analysed via reflectance microscopy and compared with the charcoal that have been produced by modern wildfires. Our aim being to better understand the environmental effects of differently sized impact craters, but also to study the mode of preservation of plants killed during such extraterrestrial impact events. Buchner & Schmieder 2009. MAPS44:1051–1060. Cassidy et al. 1965. Science149:1055-1064. Herd et al. 2008. Geology36:955–958. Hudspith et al. 2010. PPP291:40–51. Khryanina 1981Int. Geology Rev.23:1-10. Losiak et al. 2016. MAPS51:681–695. Losiak et al. 2020. MAPSaccepted. Scott 2010 PPP291:11–39. Sztokaluk et al. MAPS54:1478-1494.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".