Why are plants green? To reduce the noise in photosynthesis
worldsensorium.com
worldsensorium.com
Cells produce anti-oxidant defenses to regulate free radicals such as the delightfully named "Superoxide Dismutase" enzyme:
Maintaining the right balance between free radicals and anti-oxidants is the sort of thing biology is pretty good at on its own. Trying to put a finger on the scales in one direction or another is probably pointless at best.
Now consider you are a cell. A lot of things you consider important are individual molecules. Free radicals are oxygen ions. So get a few of those ions inside of you and your important molecules are getting oxidized. They’re getting ripped apart. The same as a grenade in a trench. But at the indivisible scale.
If this is the case then seems a lot more likely and evolutionarily sound than the efficiency interpretation; unless there is some second order effect of the rate of photosynthesis on its efficiency/completion that couple with some sort of initial energy barrier I struggle to see how smoothing fluctuations by using non-proximal wavelenghts would be more efficient than allowing fluctuations with greater absorption across the spectrum (and so greater net energy absorption). Some more basic survival mechanism like the free radical one you propose just seems to be more intuitive. With green colouration a circumstantial bedfellow of the other chemical properties rather than the master. Still speculative of course.
Keen to hear your thoughts.
> Non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) is a mechanism employed by plants and algae to protect themselves from the adverse effects of high light intensity. It involves the quenching of singlet excited state chlorophylls (Chl) via enhanced internal conversion to the ground state (non-radiative decay), thus harmlessly dissipating excess excitation energy as heat through molecular vibrations. NPQ occurs in almost all photosynthetic eukaryotes (algae and plants), and helps to regulate and protect photosynthesis in environments where light energy absorption exceeds the capacity for light utilization in photosynthesis.[1]
What about (ultra-)violet light?
[1] https://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light-and-radiometry/l...
> Commenter A: [cool fact]
> Reader: Oh! Interesting!
> Commenter B: Actually no
> Reader: Oh...
Blue is a slightly higher frequency than both red and green but green has a dramatically higher luminosity. Simple arithmetic applied against that less simple luminosity formula allows for contrast comparisons.
This of course still assumes that their model of generalised networks is analogous to the real biological cascades - otherwise could just be another coinciding superficiality rather than evolutionary reality (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33050912). Quick skim through the source paper on SciHub leaves me sceptical.
First a brief outline of the actual experiment. Rather than directly measure all of the processes that occur within a plant to effect photosynthesis (from photons hitting a leaf and water being drawn from the ground to the creation of some sort of molecule used for transporting energy in plant cells e.g. ATP) the researchers cited in the article created a mathematical model of part of the process that directly concerns chlorophyll: absorbing photons and transferring the energy to the next stage. They don't specify what the next stage would be, they simply modelled a network of nodes from input (representing the initial photon hitting), via nodes representing different stages of chlorophyll, to a generic output.
The models assumed two things indicated by prior research: 1) there is an upper threshold of energy production beyond which deleterious back reactions occur i.e. chlorophyll make too much power do nasty thing to plant 2) there is a lower threshold of energy production beyond which eventual power output is inefficient (nonlinear decrease in output) because the rate of energy transfer out of the network [from the chlorophyll stages to the next part of photosynthesis] is fixed by electrochemical processes i.e. chlorophyll make too little power makes actual photosynthesis even worse
Given those assumptions an ideal chlorophyll stage would operate between the thresholds. In a static environment, that is one in which the rate and state of photons entering remains constant, this could be easily achieved. In a noisy environment, when the light source fluctuates as a result of shadows etc., then a system that relies on one absorption rate will see a direct corresponding fluctuation in power output - fewer/more photons in means less/more energy out and importantly the rates of power in to power out would be directly linked. This noisy environment could cause a drop below / rise above the 2 thresholds above and therefore bad/inefficient operation. Given this noisy environment is inevitable an ideal chlorophyll stage would smooth out the fluctuations in input energy so the output doesn't spike in direct relation to input spikes. Think here of adding capacitors to smooth current fluctuations. This smoothing can be achieved by having two (or more - this is limited by biological/chemical realities here) different concurrent input sources that flow energy through the system at different rates given they both produce the same output. Krackers has more clearly explained this bit than I did initially - although I must add the differing energy production rates is my interpretation of what's implied by the authors because they don't explicitly explain.
I have ignored here the internal noise of the system which the paper attributes to protein dynamics driving fluctuations of intermediate excitation energy transfer events for simplification and because it doesn't effect the main thrust.
The Sun appears yellow and orange because green, blue and red light is scattered by the atmosphere; in space, the Sun appears white like other stars. The questions are, if green is the most intense frequencies output by white stars, why are there no green stars? And why aren't plants yellow and/or orange?
Also, I find that gathering, preparing and eating food is expensive, inefficient and time consuming. How do I get chloroplasts? Why is no one working on this?!
"why are plants green?" -> because chlorophyl
"why is chlorophyl green?" -> because it reflects green and absorbs everything else
okay, you have to search:
"why did plants/chlorophyl evolve to be green"
[0] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo164656...
I think some indoor gardens do add low UV but I don't know exactly
Well there is one disadvantage even: overheating.
As a diver that sounds weird. Red is the color that disappears quickly with depth. Blue is preserved the most.
Additionally, land based plants have had some serious time to change color if more energy was beneficial, which clearly must be the case?
After filtering by the atmosphere, at the Earth's surface, blue and green energies are comparable. See e.g. the figure shown at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Spectral_composition_...
Otherwise there is plenty of space under the sun, even in water.
Seems like a fairly casual dismissal of data points that aren’t fitting the hypothesis.
>> There are plants that don’t appear green, like the copper beech, because they contain pigments like carotenoids. But those pigments are not photosynthetic: They typically protect the plants like sunscreen, buffering against slow changes in their light exposure
The reason for non-green is not related to photosynthesis but some other process
The two problem spaces are similar in that they use light, but exceptionally different in almost every other respect.
"Vitamin D is made when UV (more precisely, UVB rays) react with a compound (7-dehydrocholesterol) in the skin. The best rays for UV synthesis have wavelengths between 270–300 nm." [1]
[1] https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1313-vitamin-d-and...
Ultraviolet B UV‑B 280–315
Ultraviolet C UV‑C 100–280
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
My read is "UVB" is the popular medicine way of saying UV is needed for the body to synthesize vitamin D. It was not considered necessary to point out part of the useful spectrum is in "UVC" territory.
We, in fact, use this to our advantage. View screens transmit exactly brightness in narrow red, green, and blue such to fool our eyes into believing we see colors there that are not in fact there, such as red and green light to simulate yellow light.
The paper I linked shows nonzero absorption for greenish wavelengths approaching 10% towards yellow - which would marry with my interpretation of the article's typo.
What color was it when plants evolved?