大规模物种灭绝是选择性:不是所有的生物将受到同样的影响程度。意义也不同群体会恢复它在不同速度:一组的一半的物种灭绝的事件将最有可能需要更长的时间来恢复(即达到事前多样性)的一组只有10%的物种都消失了。这95%的多样性和一群走了可能永远不会完全恢复最初的多样性。如果你观察整个生态/生物群落的恢复,那么最有可能发生的情况是已经灭绝的物种让整个生态位空着,这意味着这个真空可能会迅速由新物种(无论是种群都已经存在,并已经占领这个ecospace但由现已灭绝的物种或品牌新物种组)。这个话题,人也意识到营养水平的一个生态系统的恢复依赖于其他人的复苏(即和简化,复苏的顶端食肉动物取决于经济复苏的食草动物,取决于经济复苏的初级生产者等等),因此灭绝影响主要初级生产者可能需要更长的时间来恢复比主要影响顶端食肉动物。所以是10最高产量研究很短的时间内恢复大规模灭绝?我说一个期望生态复苏速度比(见例如milieux被冰河时期恢复的速度在间冰期,或新岛屿被殖民的速度)。但完全恢复的全球多样性(尤其是事件据说清除90%的生命多样性)我期望它超过10最高产量研究。(在第二篇文章链接)(http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/275/1636/759.full.pdf),作者估计,陆地生态系统正在迅速的复苏相比用了多长时间首先殖民土地(即100最高产量研究)。但在陆地上所需的所有进化适应性函数不需要再演化,所以看起来理性预期花费更短的时间比100年最高产量研究…… Otherwise the probable reason the news article you linked considered it to be a long recovery time was to emphasise the fact that the [article](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1475) show that it took longer because of ripple effects of the Permo-Triassic event during the early Triassic that slowed down the recovery. In a review of mass extinction recovery predating those two articles, [Erwin (1998)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01436-0) estimated the duration of the recovery from the End Ordovician, Frasian-Fammenian, end-Permian, end-Triassic and K/T extinction events (I mention here only the so-called "Big Five" extinctions) to, respectively, 7, 3, "3 to 9?", 3 and 2 millions years. With those number in mind, then indeed 10 Myrs is a long recovery. The same article aslo had this to say the definition of mass extinction recovery: > How does one define a recovery? Mass extinctions create new ecological opportunities, and the common-sense definition of a recovery interval encompasses the rapid diversification by surviving lineages following the end of the extinction and ending with either the waning of the rapid, postextinction diversification or the return of normally functioning communities. Normal is hard to quantify, however, even without the extensive disruptions associated with some mass extinctions. Moreover, different clades recover at different rates and the same clade can recover at different rates in different regions. If we accept the recovery as beginning with an increase in evolutionary rates, this usefully distinguishes an immediate, postextinction survival interval, dominated by surviving lineages, from the often exuberant diversifications of the subsequent recovery phase. An alternative definition relies on the 're-establishment of pre-extinction isotopic values and ecosystems that are essentially equivalent to those that existed before the extinction'. Here the emphasis lies equally on the physical environment and the ecosystem recovery. Douglas H. Erwing, 1998. [The end and the beginning: recoveries from mass extinctions](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01436-0), *Trends in Evolution and Ecology*. Finally, evolution is non-repeatable: so to answer your question "Let's say some catastrophe strikes and wipes out everything but bacteria - are we likely to see complex life ever again", the answer is that if all eukaryotes are wiped out then no eukaryotes is likely to reappear, but another "complex" group can appear anew (though bacteria are already very complex if you ask me). Similarly if life is completely wiped out I don't think it is reasonable to think it will reappear (in particular because the Hadean/Archean conditions that saw its appearance do not exist anymore).