7 ms·
Evolution of tree roots may have driven mass extinctions (2022)
- bad_alloc 4y agoBetween this and cyanobacteria causing a catastrophic (for them) oxygenation event some billion of years ago, many species seem to have causes mass extinctions, with us being the last (and quickest) in this chain. Is this another potential "great filter"? Evolving lifeforms can randomly find ways to kill an ecosystem.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago"Can't wait" to see what evolves to "balance us out" and "keep us in check".
- dd36 4y agoAI could see us like we see trees.
- detritus 4y agoAs in material-stock to be consumed for development, or aesthetically-pleasing entities we enjoy having around?
- Fatnino 4y agoAccording to the documentary "The Matrix", it's the first one.
- nextaccountic 4y agoUnfortunately it doesn't make sense to use us as batteries or energy sources, thermodynamically. But they could maybe use our brains as computers (and this was the first idea the writers had, they just decided against it because it would be too complicated for mainstream audiences) But in this case it would be rather wasteful to also nourish the rest of the body. As a bonus, if all the remaining people are just brains floating in a tank, they can't really escape.
- flir 4y agoIn that film (brains in a jar), you don't escape to reality, you escape to a different level of the matrix (one where you've got superpowers). Last shot in the film will have a lot in common with the last shot in Terry Gilliam's Brazil. It won't get great results from test audiences.
- nextaccountic 4y ago> Last shot in the film What do you mean by that? (Not a native speaker and out of ideas on how to search for it)
- flir 4y agoLiterally? I'm talking about the last scene in the film, right at the end. The last thing that happens before the credits. The film's nearly 40, and I still don't want to spolier it. Suffice to say, it made me feel physically sick.
- nextaccountic 4y agoOh, thanks!
- dr_dshiv 4y ago> use our brains as computers (and this was the first idea the writers had, they just decided against it because it would be too complicated for mainstream audiences) Source please!
- nextaccountic 4y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/til_in_the_original_draft_of_the_matrix_humans/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/til_i... which links to https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/19817/was-executive-meddling-the-cause-of-humans-as-batteries-in-the-matrix https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/19817/was-executiv... which cites an interview, but doesn't link to it or otherwise show which interview that was said On the other hand, https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/q2xefs/batteries_not_processors/ https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/q2xefs/batteries_no... says that this was never true
- thfuran 4y agoBoth! You can rip them apart and reassemble them into aesthetically pleasing structures in still-living ones.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- moondistance 4y agoWe should nurture familial-like relationships with them - kids generally look after their parents.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- otikik 4y agoFor one second. Then, bacteria.
- Keyframe 4y agoThat'd be us, ourselves.
- donnowhy 4y agolike how success of a species becomes the failure of the same species. the endless cycles of success and failure. also in multi-generational wealth: poor and hard working become successful (when society allows it) then the descendants are lazy and loose the wealth, and finally further descendants are poor and may learn to work hard. that is, until societies re-organize and stop rewarding hard-work with success; what happens next is still happening, it's what we see in our actual political leadership, it's not very effective and is dragging the world into a seemingly unavoidable war. (both china and USA blaming each other for the escalating: "they (the other) should change course cuz we won't"
- ketanmaheshwari 4y agoThe article says that tree roots released massive nutrients into the oceans during the period of decay causing algae bloom depleting the Oxygen and triggering the extinction. Why just the roots and not the entire trees? Wouldn't the entire tree be decayed and end up in the ocean?
- bleuarff 4y agoMy understanding is that a root system is much more efficient at extracting nutrients from the ground that whatever plants used before.
- hoseja 4y agoThe roots speed up weathering of rocks.
- adammarples 4y agoYes, but trees were not really possible until roots evolved.
- woopsn 4y agoThere was no soil yet at this time. Plants rooted directly into rock, turning the surface into gravel/sediment, weathering and runoff carried minerals and carbon away into the water. The landscape's stability depends on the roots, and so during mass extinction events, minerals and carbon get dumped en masse from the continents into the sea, and atmospheric CO2 levels drop because of weathering. That part is relatively well established. This paper looks at the transport of phosphorus in particular, from terrestrial rock into marine ecosystems. Plants can't take up phosphorus in its mineral bound form. Modern trees have micro-organisms living on their roots that release P (and N etc) from the soil. In certain periods of the Devonian era, P would have been primarily liberated from the rock by acids let off by the plant roots as they decayed.
- abricq 4y ago> The process outlined in the study — known scientifically as eutrophication — is remarkably similar to modern, albeit smaller-scale, phenomenon currently fueling broad “dead zones” in the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, as excess nutrients from fertilizers and other agricultural runoff trigger massive algae blooms that consume all of the water’s oxygen. Meanwhile, the next COP28 (United Nations Climate Change conference) will be held by United Arab Emirates's minister for industry and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. As much as this seems like a joke, or a "Don't look up" moment, it is not one ...
- taneq 4y agoIn what way is it not a "Don't Look Up" moment? It absolutely resonates with the theme of that documentary.
- abricq 4y agoYes that's what I meant, it could be taken from it. But it's not taken from the movie, it's actually happening (that's what I meant)
- taneq 4y agoAhh right, I read it as “a moment in the style of Don’t Look Up” (which it totally is) rather than “literally a thing in the movie” (which… yeah I agree.)
- Pigalowda 4y agoIf you are ESL: “As much as this seems like a joke … it is not one”
- user3939382 4y ago> (United Nations Climate Change conference) will be held by United Arab Emirates's minister for industry and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil https://unwatch.org/u-n-elects-saudi-arabia-to-womens-rights-commission/ https://unwatch.org/u-n-elects-saudi-arabia-to-womens-rights... A lot of regulatory bodies, commissions, councils, are for optics and captured by the governments or corporations they should be regulating in some way. Put another way we have the fox watching the hen house. Put another way it's all bullshit. It's just as true with our domestic regulation.
- pkdpic 4y ago> the evolution of tree roots may have triggered a series of mass extinctions [...] during the Devonian Period over 300 million years ago > the evolution of tree roots likely flooded past oceans with excess nutrients, causing massive algae growth > these rapid and destructive algae blooms would have depleted most of the oceans’ oxygen, triggering catastrophic mass extinction events > these past events were likely fueled by tree roots, which pulled nutrients from the land during times of growth, then abruptly dumped them into the Earth’s water during times of decay Just a tldr since it took me a minute to find. Super interesting, always fun / horrifying to think about the earth before terrestrial animal life.
- babbledabbler 4y agoIt's crazy that our existence is in large part due to the very kinds of mass-extinction events the we could be triggering.
- pvaldes 4y ago> others have made the argument that pollution from fertilizers, manure and other organic wastes, such as sewage, have placed the Earth’s oceans on the “edge of anoxia,” or a complete lack of oxygen. This is nonsense, obviously. Would apply only for shallow bottom or fresh waters
- FrojoS 4y agoCan you explain further, please? I don't doubt what you are saying, but don't know why it is "obvious". Is it, because the amount of sea water is so large, relative to the amount of 'pollution'? The abstract of the paper linked in the article seems to support your statement, though. "For the past several hundred million years, oxygen concentrations in Earth's atmosphere have been comparatively high[..]. Yet, the oceans seem never to have been far from anoxia (oxygen depletion)[..] OAEs seem to be promoted by warm climates[...] ocean oxygen concentrations are declining in the modern ocean [...] A full-scale OAE would take thousands of years to develop[...]" (OAE = oceanic anoxic event) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaj2321 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaj2321 So my layman summary of that particular study, would be, that the oceans have always been one the “edge of anoxia”, and although human activity could push it closer to that, there is no reason to believe that it could happen in our lifetime or that of our grand-grand children.
- pvaldes 4y agoIs a complex theme To start anoxia is a relative term. It depends on how much oxygen do you spent respect to how fast you replace it. Is also a buffered event, and the problem corrects itself automatically [1]. Therefore, things like "the edge of anoxia" have moving boundaries and are difficult to define [1] When some area is lacking oxygen, marine life response migrating or is simply killed. The result is that more oxygen is available for the rest until reaching a new equilibrium. The article provided is paywalled, so I can't really evaluate it here
- pvaldes 4y agoLets continue. If you put fertilizers into a flower, it will (try to use it to) grow. In the ocean is exactly the same. Marine life, evolved to feast or famine, will wake up and multiply like if the entire population of humpback whales is coming for they. The event is called "bloom" and is of major importance for humans. Water will be filled with high concentrations of things that love to release oxygen. Bazillions of oxygen. Thus throwing fertilizer in the ocean equals to oxygen increase, not decrease... in principle. Of course, biology is never so simple. You can have most life killed by lack of oxygen even while being submerged in a soup of oxygen producers because anoxia is a relative term. Life also breathes. And, unlike photosynthesis, breathing is done also at night. At the end of the night life can experience troubles to survive. And there is the chemistry also. Stuff reacts chemically with the salts or organic matter suspended in the sea. This can release oxygen as by-product, remove oxygen and store it in some molecule, or remain neutral about it. Chemistry can also affect oxygen producers. Too much fertilizer and your plant will die by thirst. In the sea the problem is reduced because your flower pot can decide to swim away or sink away.
- hinkley 4y agoTree roots, or fungal symbiosis? They don't have any fossil record of tree roots they're looking at in this paper, they're looking at sedimentary rock from lakebeds, right? So they see smoke and think 'gun'.