21–29 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No evolution needs to happen in a controlled environment.
Plants have evolved to adapt to a certain environment, and if we change those parameters to promote a certain behaviour (e.g. higher yield) then most likely it comes at a cost (e.g. is the produce less nutritious?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No evolution needs to happen in a controlled environment.
Plants have evolved to adapt to a certain environment, and if we change those parameters to promote a certain behaviour (e.g. higher yield) then most likely it comes at a cost (e.g. is the produce less nutritious?)
Would this make up the difference for the dimmer light on Mars?
The white paper shows an increase of 20%, but solar irradiance on Mars is about 60% of what you can get on Earth (below the atmosphere). So it would be equivalent to 60% * 120% = 72%.
This isn't too surprising. It's the same improvements people have been expecting from using solar panels and LEDs to grow plants. Since numbers and mechanisms aren't really explained I'll drop some numbers here: ~50% of incoming sunlight energy is lost to plants just by falling outside of the range that chlorophyll can absorb (400-700nm). ~25% of the light energy that is absorbed, is lost by dropping the higher energ…
This isn't too surprising. It's the same improvements people have been expecting from using solar panels and LEDs to grow plants. Since numbers and mechanisms aren't really explained I'll drop some numbers here: ~50% of incoming sunlight energy is lost to plants just by falling outside of the range that chlorophyll can absorb (400-700nm). ~25% of the light energy that is absorbed, is lost by dropping the higher energ…
now I am wondering, why more efficient plants have not evolved by natural selection ?
Would this make up the difference for the dimmer light on Mars?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plants have evolved to adapt to a certain environment, and if we change those parameters to promote a certain behaviour (e.g. higher yield) then most likely it comes at a cost (e.g. is the produce less nutritious?)
Evolution does not optimize to global maxima, it prefers local maximas. The path it has taken so far is also pretty convoluted.
This isn't too surprising. It's the same improvements people have been expecting from using solar panels and LEDs to grow plants. Since numbers and mechanisms aren't really explained I'll drop some numbers here: ~50% of incoming sunlight energy is lost to plants just by falling outside of the range that chlorophyll can absorb (400-700nm). ~25% of the light energy that is absorbed, is lost by dropping the higher energ…
now I am wondering, why more efficient plants have not evolved by natural selection ?