The end-Permian mass extinction was the most dramatic event to impact life on Earth (Erwin
1990,
2006;
Benton 2003;
Benton & Twitchett 2003). On land and sea, life was nearly extinguished, ecosystems were devastated and many long-lived lineages disappeared. Most studies hitherto have focused on the effects of this extinction on marine life. It has been more difficult to determine the effects on land because rock successions are typically less complete, and only two major sedimentary basins have so far yielded extensive faunas spanning the boundary: the Karoo Basin of South Africa and the South Urals Basin of Russia.
During the last two decades, our understanding of the end-Permian extinction has increased significantly. It is now widely believed that this devastating event was caused by large-scale volcanism in Siberia, which led to major atmospheric changes and the collapse of ecosystems worldwide (
Benton 2003). Earlier evidence suggested that this extinction was prolonged through the Late Permian (
Erwin 1990;
Teichert 1990), but hints of an earlier event, noted first among terrestrial vertebrate faunas (Benton
1985,
1989;
King 1991), have been confirmed (
Retallack et al. 2006) as the same end-Guadalupian extinction of marine organisms, already noted independently (
Jin et al. 1994;
Stanley & Yang 1994;
Rohde & Muller 2005). During both extinction events, diversity losses were not simply a reflection of increased rates of extinction but also of depressed origination rates (
Benton 1998;
Bambach et al. 2004).
The terrestrial vertebrate record of the Permian is also confounded by an additional earlier event, or gap, between the Kungurian and Roadian stages, 271 million years (Myr) ago. This marks the turnover between Early Permian pelycosaur-rich faunas to those dominated by therapsids and pareiasaurs and has been termed ‘Olson's gap’ (
Lucas & Heckert 2001) or ‘Olson's extinction’ (Sahney & Benton in preparation), depending on whether it is seen as a failure of fossil preservation or a real ecological event. Frustratingly, tetrapod footprint faunas of this time show an even longer hiatus than the skeletal evidence, so that the validity of each interpretation is difficult to verify (
Lucas 2004).
The impact of the end-Permian event was devastating. In the sea, the level of species loss was 80–96%, and blastoid echinoderms, tabulate and rugose corals, graptolites, trilobites, eurypterids, acanthodians and placoderms disappeared entirely (
Hallam & Wignall 1997). On land, the dominant
Glossopteris flora was replaced, eight orders of insects became extinct (
Labandeira & Sepkoski 1993) and two-thirds of tetrapod families were lost (
Benton 1989). The only tetrapod lineages to survive were procolophonoids, dicynodonts, and presumably therocephalians, cynodonts, and archosauromorphs, and their Triassic recovery was slow (
Benton et al. 2004).
There are several meanings for the term ‘recovery’ after mass extinctions. Past studies have revealed that faunal revival after a devastating ecological event may follow a pattern similar to ecological succession (
Sole et al. 2002), and recovery may be considered as the point at which the model is complete and the new ecosystem is stable. On both the scale of modern ecological recovery and recovery from mass extinction, disaster (‘weedy’ or generalist) taxa are known to insinuate themselves into empty guilds, pushing the boundaries of their geographical range and ecospace. Early Triassic terrestrial ecosystems are clearly dominated by a small number of genera, most notably the dicynodont
Lystrosaurus, which accounted for approximately 90% of terrestrial vertebrates (
Benton 1983). Disaster taxa then experienced rapid turnover in the time immediately following the event, later giving way to more specialized organisms (
Benton 2003).
Recovery can also be viewed as a return to pre-extinction conditions, for example the numerical recovery of taxa. Globally, this type of recovery happened quickly after the end-Permian event by the Olenekian (250–245

Myr ago), but then the diversity fell again (), either as a result of displaced disaster taxa that had filled empty guilds or the devastation caused by another extinction pulse at the end of the Olenekian. In contrast, the ecological recovery of tetrapods and plants was slow, and lost guilds and trophic levels were not readily refilled (
Retallack et al. 1996;
Benton et al. 2004;
Grauvogel-Stamm & Ash 2005).
The third interpretation defines recovery as the point when an ecological equilibrium is reached, even if this balance is unlike that of the pre-extinction fauna. Though faunal turnovers occurred continually before and after the end-Permian event, it is difficult to say when the ecosystem reached stability, i.e. a time of high biodiversity, low turnover, resistance to invaders and a complex trophic structure (
Sole et al. 2002). Immediately after the end-Permian event, amphibians made a relatively quick recovery, specifically the families Capitosauridae and Trematosauridae, which filled the role of semi-aquatic predators. Among reptiles, therapsids filled disaster taxa roles but their dominance gave way to archosauromorphs.
In this paper, we present the first community-scale analysis of tetrapod recovery from the end-Permian extinction and the preceding Guadalupian extinction events.