Biggest Mass Extinction Was Fastest, Too
It took just 60,000 years for the End Permian extinction to wipe out 96 percent of aquatic species and 70 percent of land species some 252 million years ago. Cynthia Graber reports
By Cynthia Graber
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
It was the largest of the five major mass extinctions in Earth’s history—well before the dinosaur-killer 66 million years ago. What’s called the End Permian extinction, 252 million years ago, wiped out 96 percent of aquatic species and 70 percent of species on land. Scientists have been trying to gauge the time frame of the extinction, in the hopes of determining its causes.
Now researchers say it’s the fastest mass extinction known.
Using new tools and models—including a fresh analysis of rock formations in China—the researchers determined that the extinction took only about 60,000 years. That’s incredibly quick by geological standards, and is more than 10 times faster than previous estimates.
The report is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Seth D. Burgess, Samuel Bowring and Shu-zhong Shen, High-precision timeline for Earth’s most severe extinction]
Study author Samuel Bowring from M.I.T. says they can’t yet compare the speed of the previous extinction to the extinction rates caused by human activities today. But, he says, their research is starting to help reveal how past environmental changes that influenced extinctions—such as levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—compare to the changes in those levels seen today. In the midst of what many call the sixth extinction.
—Cynthia Graber
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
