3 ms·
The article mentions that small animals that could subsist on seeds rather than live plants could have survived. This sounds plausible depending on how long it
by mark-r 9y ago
The article mentions that small animals that could subsist on seeds rather than live plants could have survived. This sounds plausible depending on how long it took for plant life to reestablish.
- mannykannot 9y agoThanks - I was overlooking that seeds can survive a lot longer than the plants that make them. Also roots and rhizomes can survive the death of their above-ground components. Then there are plants that germinate only in response to fire, plants that undergo mass flowerings, and cyclical insects like cicadas - I imagine any of these things could help small mammals and birds survive.
- UnpossibleJim 9y agoDon't forget, animals (dinosaurs, but also insects) of this size needed the higher concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere that was present, pre impact. Even a temporary disturbance in oxygen output of the huge forests and robust plant life (including algaes) would have killed animals of this size much quicker than starvation or temperature change.
- mark-r 9y agoThat's one thing I haven't read about yet, what happened to those oxygen levels of the distant past? Has anybody tried to estimate oxygen levels over time, especially during the extinction event?