LIP during cretaceous would be related to  instability or disturbance in mantle -core boundary. this is the time when super Pangea got broke, I feel one needs to look into role of super wells that regulate equilibrium.

LIP during Cretaceous period appears to be result of major dynamic change that occurred in Super Wells in Indian, S Africa and Atlantic. This resulted in split of continents followed by LIP. However am not sure of clear mechanism.

As you are thinking about both LIPs and OAE, I suggest you to began with the Cretaceous Ontong Java LIP in the link below. Much more info and references in the same parent web.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/OJ.html

Just for clarification...Pangea broke up in the Jurassic. Laurasia and Gondwana broke up in the Cretaceous.

About climate change at the KT boundary, I have discovered that important from my evolutionary theory. Continent variation trend of geological time, they will be considered to have shown with climate change the relationship, such as the very tight gear. I found that the quadrupole structure of the earth's magnetic field at the KT boundary is inferred. Continent variation trend and climate change and biological evolution of the Earth, I am learning the theory that these are very disciplined.　

LIPs are crustal manifestations of dynamic pro- cessesin the Earth's mantle; hence LIP parameters may be applied as boundary conditions to invert such processes. See: https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjABahUKEwjVjarzzoHHAhUBqqYKHTDwAHk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseismo.berkeley.edu%2F~manga%2FLIPS%2Fcoffin.pdf&ei=LHK5VdXHKoHUmgWw4IPIBw&usg=AFQjCNHl8g8YahWdXtB9kcrHC1kdeD8NQg&sig2=S1bRACk7F4ilcSbBRD2dIw&bvm=bv.99028883,d.dGY

Hi there

Much research is out there which addresses this. For a review of Late Cretaceous LIP formation I would suggest Kerr and Mahoney (2007, Chemical Geology), though there may be recent reviews. Many think oceanic plateau (OP) or LIP are the result of emplacement of mantle plumes, possible from the core-mantle boundary. That many in the Western Pacific are of similar age with similar lava chemistry and intervals of magmatism (major pulse circa 120 Ma, secondary circa 90 Ma, e.g., Ontong Java Plateau, Manihiki) has led some (e.g., B. Taylor) to surmise that these - and perhaps other in WP- were extruded essentially as a single 'giant' LIP prior to subsequent fragmentation via drift.

Scott

Have a look also at the article:

Erba 1994. Nannofossils and superplume: The Early Aptian nannoconid crisis. Paleoceanography, vol. 9, no. 3, pag. 4i83-501.

A Erba and Larson, 1991, Nannofossils and superplume, EOS Transaction AGU, 72(17).

They link OAEs and superplumes in the Cretaceous.

The temporal link between radiometrically-dated Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs)  and mass extinctions is well proved, exemplified perfectly by the end-Permian ecosystem collapse. However, the causal link between LIPs and global environmental perturbation remains conjectural, even if several relevant models and feedbacks were proposed. Generally, massive volcanic CO2 degassing is seen as a main triggering mechanism. As summarized lastly by Bond and Wignall (2014): “Warming and marine anoxia feature in many extinction scenarios, indicating that the ability of a large igneous province to induce these proximal killers (from CO2 emissions and thermogenic greenhouse gases) is the single most important factor governing its lethality. Intriguingly, many voluminous large igneous province eruptions, especially those of the Cretaceous oceanic plateaus, are not associated with significant extinction losses. This suggests that the link between the two phenomena may be controlled by a range of factors, including continental configuration, the latitude, volume, rate, and duration of eruption, its style and setting (continental vs. oceanic), the preexisting climate state, and the resilience of the extant biota to change”.

In fact, paroxysmal emplacement of the Cretaceous plateaus is also thought to be the main cause for global oceanic anoxia and severe acidification, as well as to biotic and climatic changes. For example, Aptian biocalcification crises and recoveries correlate with C, Pb, and Os isotopic anomalies, paired with trace metal anomalies. Erba et al. (2015) indicated: “Massive volcanism occurring at equatorial versus high paleolatitudes and submarine versus subaerial settings triggered very different climate responses but similar disruptions in the marine carbonate system. Excess CO2 arguably induced episodic ocean acidification that was detrimental to marine calcifiers, regardless of hot or cool conditions. Global anoxia was reached only under extreme warming, whereas cold conditions kept the oceans well oxygenated even at times of intensified fertility”.

Two recent GSA Special Papers are especially recommended (505, 2014; 511, 2015) and the papers are useful in the questions:

http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/03/05/2015.2511_15.full.pdf+html

http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/early/2014/06/10/2014.2505_02.full.pdf

http://www.le.ac.uk/gl/ads/SiberianTraps/PDF%20Files/V1n5_Saunders.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223356673_Chapter_10_Late_Permian_double-phased_mass_extinction_and_volcanism_an_oceanographic_perspective

Article Chapter 10 Late Permian double-phased mass extinction and vo...

Dear Colleagues: Dhananjay, Carlos, Randall, Keiko, Francis, Scott, Silvia and Grzegorz

What an amazing response and I thank each of you for providing important links. When addressing crucial geoscientific issues, researchers tend to top Factual stories with an icing of Fictional stories to serve commercial interests and popular appeal. If we hold an oceanic or continental piece of basaltic rock in our hand, its real and factual but when we strive to create a causative hypothetical model based on sophisticated geochemical, geophysical and geodynamic data, we tend tread into the realm of Fictional story like Plume and Superplume to match empirical data. Thus origin of LIPs remains controversial. Its a factual story that Mid-Cretaceous witnessed decrease in magnetic reversals (Normal Polarity Superchron), increased production of oceanic crust due to rapid seafloor spreading, raised global temperature, rise in eustatic sea level, massive deposition of Black Shales (OAE) and enhanced Oil generation. Linking of LIPs episodes to either mass extinction, OAE or metal anomalies is a fallacy and no evidence is forthcoming to firmly establish cause and effect.   

Dear Colleague Syed,

My reply concerns only this firm conclusion: "Linking of LIPs episodes to either mass extinction, OAE or metal anomalies is a fallacy and no evidence is forthcoming to firmly establish cause and effect".  

Temporal link between LIPs and at least twelve mass extinctions and lesser biotic crises is more or less clearly evidenced in the Phanerozoic. Also large-scale volcanic CO2 (and SO2, etc.) degassing is undoubted. This is neither random nor “fictional story” but “factual story”! Of course, establishing cause and effect in the geological record is mostly (?always) a kind of hypothesis, but we cannot so easily ignore the key observations. In fact, we also have got some actualistic premises  to recognize the complex feedbacks. For example, Genin et al. (1995; Nature 377: 507–510) demonstrated a remarkable succession of causally linked events, leading to extensive mortality of reef communities in the weakly stratified part of the Red Sea following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1992.

So, be so kind and  provide us rationale arguments (“factual stories”)  and/or quote references in the  RG answer  (e.g., LIP radiometric dates are totally unreliable), but not unsubstantiated generalities,

Dear colleague,

As Grzegorz mentioned, there are multiple possible sources for LIPs such as mantle plumes, plate tectonics, meteorite impacts, and hot spots. Each of these sources themselves depend on several factors, therefore, we may consider combination of all these factors responsible for LIPs. There is also other important factors such as climate condition, amount of oxygen, carbon and other atmospheric gases which may contribute to LIPs. Although there are reports showing linkage between LIPs and mass extinction, but this is not the same for all the time. I think one can also compare LIPs occurrences with geomagnetic polarity too, which may help in interpretation of these episodes.        

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for so graciously participating in RG Question-Answer Session. However, my stand with regard to the origin of LIPs and its possible role in mass extinction, OAE and metal anomalies remains unchanged. All big five mass extinctions in the Phanerozoic are not linked to LIPs. It is also a factual story that degassing is a natural phenomenon, however, the lethal effect of degassing is confined to exclusively local areas and can under no circumstances cause global mass extinction on planet earth - which means massive loss of life during a short time span and cutting across all ecological niche - shallow to deep marine, high to low latitudes etc.. Backed by logical argument, it can be safely assumed that no natural catastrophic event, be it be a extraterrestrial bolide impact or localized LIP could ever cause mass extinction as described above. Even Volcanic eruption cited by Grzegorz causing damage to reef is a localized event. Only gradualistic neodarwinian paradigm model can explain patterns of extinction-innovation of life including mass extinction, which pictures mass extinction as accidental clustering of background extinctions occurring only 5 times in nearly 600Ma history of Phanerozoic (see Dynamics of Terminal Cretaceous global biotic turnover - Jafar, 2014 at RG). 

Dear Colleague Syed,

This is evident from your comments that in fact you WELL KNOW answer on many debatable LIPs questions, including erroneously proposed causal links with biodiversity crises, as well as at all the seeming nature of so-called catastrophic mass extinctions. Thus, YOUR OPENING QUESTION was only a kind of intellectual provocation, and an occasion to highlight your personal specific views, as revealed by the quoted conference paper on dynamics of end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

However, as for me, such approach is in disagreement with the RG principle in elucidation of problems raised by asking, and therefore a reason to end my “expert answer activity”.

PS. “Only gradualistic neodarwinian paradigm model can explain patterns of extinction-innovation of life including mass extinction.”  Wow!!! This is idea commonly accepted decades ago (before establishment the Alvarez’s impact theory in 1980) … recently  in truth absent in the standard geoscience academic textbooks exemplified by Steven M. Stanley’s “Earth System History” (4th revised edition, 2014).