why is green photosynthesis so dominant?
Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam
why is green photosynthesis so dominant?
Red algae use phycoerythrin. Some other plants like red maples use what pigments?
Why are plants that use red and yellow light mostly so dominant (cholrophyll a and b and carotenoids)? Why haven't a number of photosynthetic pigments developed over Earth's history? So why aren't there many leaf colors --or are there? Purple Earth was so long ago. Why haven't many photosynthetic pigments been chanced upon, since then.
Why are plants that use red and yellow light mostly so dominant (cholrophyll a and b and carotenoids)? Why haven't a number of photosynthetic pigments developed over Earth's history? So why aren't there many leaf colors --or are there? Purple Earth was so long ago. Why haven't many photosynthetic pigments been chanced upon, since then.
There's a very good chance that of all the photosynthetic pigments that have evolved, the chlorophylls best use the range of frequencies available at and above the surface of the oceans. The other pigments work better at depth, where only some frequencies penetrate, or they get used as supplements to chlorophyll.
Might there be some black pigment that absorbs all frequencies? Maybe, but it doesn't appear to have evolved on Earth.
Might there be some black pigment that absorbs all frequencies? Maybe, but it doesn't appear to have evolved on Earth.
The problem with a black pigment would be that the high extinction co-efficient it present to irradiance would be such that the delicate pigments would be, simply, damaged (basically - it soaks up all the light).
Light on land is relatively predictable compared to the oceans. A cell in the oceans may go from 1600+ PFD (photon flux density) to <10PFD in a matter of minutes.
The delicate little pigments necessary to make use of low level, attenuated, light at depth simply cannot 'put up with' high irradiance at the surface.
My former teacher once referred to this as the 'Goldilocks analogy': not too bright, not too dark, but just right...
(sorry - I've just had an exam on precisely this...)
Light on land is relatively predictable compared to the oceans. A cell in the oceans may go from 1600+ PFD (photon flux density) to <10PFD in a matter of minutes.
The delicate little pigments necessary to make use of low level, attenuated, light at depth simply cannot 'put up with' high irradiance at the surface.
My former teacher once referred to this as the 'Goldilocks analogy': not too bright, not too dark, but just right...
(sorry - I've just had an exam on precisely this...)
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."
^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
Darby wrote: As it is, chlorophyll absorbs a pretty wide range of frequencies, at a heavy peak of intensity.
Precisely. Although there are likely to be specialists, it is far more practical to use morphology or structure to moderate the available light.
Low-light conditions producing large leaves (usually widely spaced).
Intense light producing masses of leaves (to create a dapple effect) of small size.
-
Ultrashogun
- Coral
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:48 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests