Trophic group and the end-Cretaceous extinction: Did deposit feeders have it made in the shade?

It has been suggested that a sudden event at the end of the Cretaceous period caused a major extinction that was felt disproportionately by creatures in the water column. It also has been argued that benthic deposit feeders, being relatively independent of abundance of organic particles in the water column, should have survived the crisis more readily than suspension feeders, which depended more upon feeding upon phytoplankton. I argue that the hypothesis of relative immunity of deposit feeders is insufficient, because deposit feeders by and large depend upon a supply of organic matter from the water column and would have succumbed to food shortage nearly as rapidly as suspension feeders, possibly within a maximum of three to six months. This near simultaneity of extinction would have been especially true of continental shelf environments. Even in some parts of the deep sea, it is likely that a dependence upon the water column above might have caused deep-sea deposit feeders to succumb rapidly. Therefore, deposit feeders would not necessarily have outsurvived suspension feeders during a crisis of depleted water-column phytoplankton, increased shading by inert particles, or poisoning of the water column and killing of phytoplankton. The relatively lower rate of extinction of nuculoid bivalves may relate instead to their presence in deeper-water refuge habitats, their apparent relative ability to diversify in higher latitudes, or their resistance to factors other than food shortage.