Reply to comment on “Mantle plume: the invisible serial killer — Application to the Permian–Triassic boundary mass extinction” by E. Heydari, N. Arzani and J. Hassanzadeh [Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 264 (2008) 147–162]

In a recent article, Heydari et al. (2008) suggested that the perturbation at the Permian–Triassic boundary (PTB) was initiated by processes associated with an end-Permian mantle plume including igneous intrusions and uplift. These events resulted in the massive release of CH 4 primarily from the dissociation of marine gas hydrates, and secondarily from maturation of organic-rich sediments and fracturing of petroleum reservoirs. Injection of CH 4 into the ocean changed seawater composition (the acid-bath ocean) leading to marine mass extinction. Transfer of CO 2 and CH 4 from the ocean to the atmosphere created a hot climate (the end-Permian inferno) which caused the terrestrial mass extinction. We suggested that the Siberian trap volcanism and marine anoxia played little role in this catastrophe. Wignall and Racki (2009-this issue) have raised three criticisms to our article. The first is that our interpretation has been previously advocated by others. Our re-evaluation indicates that our interpretation was in fact opposite of those considered by Wignall and Racki (2009-this issue) to have presented scenarios similar to ours. The second, Wignall and Racki (2009-this issue) also suggest that our proposed change in carbonate mineralogy across the PTB did not occur because such a change “should produce a large positive excursion rather than the observed negative excursion”. Wignall and Racki (2009-this issue) have made a basic mathematical error in evaluating the effect of carbonate mineralogy on δ 13C values. Therefore, they have reached two wrong conclusions: one about the validity of a change in carbonate mineralogy and the other regarding its effect on the shift in δ 13C values at the PTB. A change in carbonate mineralogy produced a larger negative excursion rather than a positive shift. The third, Wignall and Racki (2009-this issue) indicate that the PTB ocean was anoxic to the rim. This criticism is not supported by the rock record because highly bioturbated strata were deposited in environments ranging from shallow shelves to deep waters under oxygenated water column at the time of the PTB mass extinction. If the ocean were totally stratified for 20 Ma, and if anoxia extended all the way to the shoreline, and if the ocean were anoxic to the rim and H 2S were oozing out of it, then we should see at least 100 m of organic-rich, varved-laminated strata in areas ranging from the abyssal plain to the shoreline environments. Such strata have not yet been fo