Landscapes with Craters: Meteorite Impacts, Earth, and the Solar System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Landscapes with Craters 1 Landscapes with Craters: Meteorite Impacts, Earth, and the Solar System 1.1. THE NEW GEOLOGY: METEORITE planets, including Earth (Taylor, 1982, Chapter 3; 1992, IMPACTS ON THE EARTH Chapter 4); and (2) the ability to definitely identify terres- trial impact structures, especially large or ancient ones, During the last 30 years, there has been an immense and by the presence of unique petrological and geochemical unexpected revolution in our picture of Earth and its place criteria, particularly the distinctive shock-metamorphic in the solar system. What was once a minor astronomical effects produced in rocks and minerals by the intense shock process has become an important part of the geological main- waves generated in impact events (French, 1968a; French and stream. Impacts of extraterrestrial objects on the Earth, once Short, 1968). regarded as an exotic but geologically insignificant process, In the last few decades, geologists have gradually realized have now been recognized as a major factor in the geological that collisions of extraterrestrial objects with Earth — and and biological history of the Earth. Scientists and the public especially the rare but catastrophic impacts of kilometer-sized have both come to realize that terrestrial impact structures asteroids and comets — have significantly shaped Earth’s are more abundant, larger, older, more geologically complex, surface, disturbed its crust, and altered its geological history more economically important, and even more biologically (French, 1968a, 1990b; Shoemaker, 1977; Grieve, 1987, 1990, significant than anyone would have predicted a few decades 1991; Nicolaysen and Reimold, 1990; Pesonen and Henkel, ago. Impact events have generated large crustal disturbances, 1992; Dressler et al., 1994). produced huge volumes of igneous rocks, formed major The record of impacts on Earth is still being deciphered. ore deposits, and participated in at least one major biologi- Approximately 150 individual geological structures have cal extinction. already been identified as the preserved results of such im- Before the 1960s, collisions of extraterrestrial objects with pacts (Grieve, 1991, 1994; Grieve et al., 1995; Grieve and the Earth were not considered significant. Geologists did Pesonen, 1992, 1996), and it is estimated that several hun- agree (and had agreed since the early 1800s) that pieces of dred more impact structures remain to be identified (Trefil extraterrestrial material did occasionally penetrate the atmos- and Raup, 1990; Grieve, 1991). The known impact struc- phere and strike Earth’s surface, but the only visible results tures (Fig. 1.2) range from small circular bowls only a few of such collisions were a collection of meteorites to study kilometers or less in diameter (Fig. 1.1) to large complex and display in museums, together with a few small and structures more than 200 km in diameter and as old as geologically short-lived meteorite craters, usually located in 2 Ga (Figs. 1.3 and 1.4). Formation of the larger features, out-of-the-way desert areas (Fig. 1.1). Almost no one be- such as the Sudbury (Canada) and Vredefort (South Africa) lieved that extraterrestrial objects could produce major geo- structures, involved widespread disturbances in Earth’s crust logical effects or that such projectiles could be any more than and major perturbations in the geologic history of the re- a local hazard. gions where they were formed. This simple view has changed drastically, and the change In addition to the geological disturbances involved, im- reflects two major factors: (1) explorations of the solar sys- pact events have produced several geological structures tem by humans and robotic spacecraft, which have estab- with actual economic value; a production value of about lished the importance of impact cratering in shaping all the $5 billion per year has been estimated for North American 1 2 Traces of Catastrophe Fig. 1.1. A simple impact crater. Barringer Meteor Crater (Arizona), a young, well-preserved, and well-known impact crater, 1.2 km in diameter, has become the type example for small, bowl-shaped impact craters of the simple type. The crater was formed about 50,000 years ago when an iron meteorite approximately 30 m across struck the horizontal sediments of northern Arizona’s Colorado Plateau. After decades of controversy, the impact origin of the crater has been firmly established by the presence of preserved iron meteorites, the recognition of unique shock-metamorphic features in its rocks, and geological studies that detailed the mechanisms of its formation. This aerial view, looking northwest, shows typical features of young simple impact craters: a well-preserved near-circular outline, an uplifted rim, and hummocky deposits of ejecta just beyond the rim (e.g., white areas at lower left). The uplifted layers of originally horizontal sedimentary target rocks can be seen in the far rim of the crater at the right. (Photograph copyright D. J. Roddy; used with permission.) impact structures alone (Grieve and Masaitis, 1994). The eco- Terrestrial life itself has not escaped this cosmic bom- nomic products of impact structures include such diverse bardment. During the last 20 years an impressive amount of items as local building stone, diamonds, and uranium. evidence has accumulated to show that at least one large Hydrocarbons (petroleum and gas) are an especially impor- impact event about 65 m.y. ago redirected biological evolu- tant product from impact structures (Donofrio, 1997; Johnson tion on Earth by producing the major extinction that now and Campbell, 1997). Large impacts crush and shatter the marks the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary target rocks extensively beneath and around the crater; in a periods, the point at which the dinosaurs died and mam- few structures [e.g., Ames (Oklahoma); Red Wing Creek mals (our ancestors) became major players in the history of (North Dakota)], the resulting breccia zones have served as terrestrial life (Alvarez et al., 1980; Silver and Schultz, 1982; traps for oil and gas. Within and around other impact cra- McLaren and Goodfellow, 1990; Sharpton and Ward, 1990; ters, the other kinds of breccias produced by the impact Ryder et al., 1996; Alvarez, 1997). The giant crater produced have provided building stone [Ries Crater (Germany); by that collision has now been definitely identified, a struc- Rochechouart (France)] and industrial limestone [Kentland ture [Chicxulub (Mexico)] at least 180 km across, completely (Indiana)]. In some cases, the sediments that subsequently buried under the younger sediments of Mexico’s Yucatán fill the crater depressions may contain deposits of such eco- Peninsula (Hildebrand et al., 1991; Sharpton et al., 1992; nomic materials as oil shale [Boltysh (Ukraine)], diatomite Morgan et al., 1997). Active debates continue about how this [Ragozinka (Russia)], gypsum [Lake St. Martin (Canada)], catastrophic event actually produced the extinction and and lead-zinc ores [Crooked Creek (Missouri)]. whether similar impacts have caused the other major and The biggest impact-related bonanza (current production minor extinctions recorded in the geologic record. about $2 billion per year) is the Sudbury structure (Canada), Although the recognition of impact events and their ef- which contains one of the largest nickel-copper sulfide de- fects on Earth has been marked by debate and controversy posits on Earth (Guy-Bray, 1972; E. G. Pye et al., 1984; (e.g., Dietz, 1963; Bucher, 1963; French, 1968a, 1990b; Dressler et al., 1994; Lightfoot and Naldrett, 1994). The de- Sharpton and Grieve, 1990; Nicolaysen and Reimold, 1990), posit occurs at the base of a large igneous body (the Sudbury there is no longer any need to demonstrate either the exist- Igneous Complex), which is in turn emplaced in a large, com- ence or the importance of such impact events. The young plex, and highly deformed impact basin nearly 2 b.y. old. but maturing science of impact geology is turning toward Fig. 1.2. Distribution of terrestrial impact structures. Locations of 145 currently known terrestrial im- pact structures (see Grieve, 1991; Grieve et al., 1995; Grieve and Pesonen, 1996; Koeberl and Anderson, 1996b). The clearly nonrandom geographic distribution reflects geological and social factors rather than the original random bombardment flux: (1) increased preservation of impact structures on continental shield and cratonic areas that have been stable, and not deeply eroded, over long periods of time; (2) the restriction of past studies to continental areas, and a lack of systematic searches for submarine impact Landscapes withCraters structures; (3) the active research and discoveries of particular workers, especially in Canada (Beals et al., 1963; Dence, 1965; Dence et al., 1968), Russia (Masaitis et al., 1980) and Ukraine (Gurov and Gurova, 1991), Fennoscandia (Pesonen, 1996; Pesonen and Henkel, 1992), and Australia (Glikson, 1996b; Shoemaker and Shoemaker, 1996). The observed distributions of crater sizes and ages (inset) have been biased by postimpact geological processes; the ages of the great majority of preserved impact structures are <200 Ma, and small structures (0–5 km diameter) are greatly underrepresented. Diagram courtesy of V. L. Sharpton. 3 4 Traces of Catastrophe or volcanic activity) had been debated for just as long (for historical reviews, see Hoyt, 1987; Mark, 1987; Wilhelms, 1993). The Apollo program provided better views of the lu- nar surface, as well as samples returned