Fixing the Flaw in Photosynthesis
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- Although photosynthesis is the most important process on earth, the most common form of photosynthesis can be quite inefficient in some regions.
C4 photosynthesis is a wonderful way of mitigating the negative aspects of C3 photosynthesis. But how does it work and what does it mean for a warming world?
Sources:
Synthetic glycolate metabolism pathways stimulate crop growth and productivity in the field - dx.doi.org/10.1...
The CO2/O2 specificity of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase - doi.org/10.100...
Effect of temperature on the CO2/O2 specificity of ribulose- 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/0xygenase and the rate of respiration in the light - doi.org/10.100...
Photorespiration - www.ncbi.nlm.n...
The evolution of C4 photosynthesis - doi.org/10.111...
Raven Biology of Plants (Eighth Edition)
I have less free time now as I've started a fellowship which will lead into a PhD. But I will continue to read articles and make videos. Just at a slower pace now.
I hope it goes well. I'll be anticipating your next video
@Multiversal Explorers Machine learning applications to Climate science.
CZcams will be far more income for you. Notice I didn't say *would.
Hello sir,
I think the problem with the video is in it's title.
Not everyone knows what C4 cycle is. If you could change it to some other title like *Photosynthesis is Defective!* or like *There are two Types of photosynthesis!*
I just want science channels to grow...so that they could do more effort and also because I simply love science.
This video might explain what I am trying to say:- czcams.com/video/S2xHZPH5Sng/video.html
Hope my message reach you. And amazing work by the way.
@@leukota Not everyone values income to a stringent degree.
The new report is now scientist can artificially synthesize starch by light without cell, it's reported to be about 8.5 fold more efficiency than plants' photosynthesis.
Oh cool I just found the paper! Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Y'all got a paper I can scihub?
.
.
.
c4 is basically just putting a filter into a factory conveyor so you get only, say copper plates, instead of mostly iron plates and sometimes copper
Do I smell a Factorio player
@@deneb_tm takes one to know one
@@FloofyTanker no hard evidence
but yes
The leaf must grow
hmmmm factorio much?
A note from a plant scientist.
Plants are fairly well balanced organisims, the oxygen pathway produces free radicals which are important in defence. The defence pathway I'm studying actually doesn't work without light and we have to control for light levels otherwise we get variance in our experimental data.
The oxygen pathway isn't just a waste pathway and some would argue it's a pathway that produces vital molecules. It's still an open question in plant science.
C4 plants have been a major project for many years with limited success. There are other low hanging fruit to improve water retention.
I'm of the opinion that disease which leads to loss of 30% of crops worldwide is a much better target as there are lots of little problems we can easily solve as opposed to one great white whale.
However, successful C3 to C4 would be amazing. It may just be not possible or of possible it may be ineffective.
What do you think would happen if it proved to be _too successful_ ? What kind of scenario can you envision if all of this were to be so successful that it created a huge problem?
Totally agree!
I have plans to study "ancillary" biochemical pathways myself
This cannot be disregarded.
I remember just 15 years ago they were telling everyone most of your DNA is "junk"! *Epigenetics enters the chat* ...
In my opinion its pretty arrogant to think a few decades of research could replace billions of jears of try and error.
There is a reason plants evolved like this.
Maybe there is a better way which just has not evolved jet. But it cauld also cause new problems with parasites, plant eaters, resistence to cold snaps, growing or cancer risk.
Where do people think secondary metabolites come from?
Ironically there is a ton to learn in finding better chemicals for treating disease in the rain forest plant species that are rapidly going extinct. Even with all the benefits of computers, there is no replacement for the immense natural resources that we chronically devalue and destroy. This problem isn't about making the Earth change, it's that _we_ need to change! Stubbornly, we cling to our worst habits at a time when we must be willing to try new things.
What I am worried about is how c4 trees would affect weather patterns, especially in rainforest areas. Rainforest trees contribute a huge amount of water into the atmosphere, so reducing the amount they release could cause entire regions to have drastically different climate conditions. No point to planting a billion new trees in an area if they just end up killing themselves or causing a region nearby to die out. Was it stated in the video how much the c4 lowers the release of water compared to c3?
Good point
thw thing is while rainforests are the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, most trees aren´t in rainforests, and cultivated trees are mostly planted in grasslands (which sometimes were forests that we cut in the past, or were too dry to develop a proper forest)
The first use for such mutation is not replacing existing fauna, it is agriculture. If our crops use less water, we can conserve more water. If our crops are more efficient at using CO2, agriculture can help reduce carbon a little bit more, even if their net emission is still positive.
Wouldn't the plans ingest less water in the first place? Like, they would fill up and not be able to take up much more than they would have anyways
@@KarolOfGutovo that'd mean the water would be locked up in the dirt of these forests instead of being cycled, they might even turn into swamps in the long run, though that's just conjecture.
Underrated chanel
Not for long, he's definatly gonna blow up.
I've seen it so many times. Within 2 years I expect hell have at least 50k
Than 200k
And soon 500k.
Extremely
Totally
he should have millions subscriptions, absolutely.
But why?
I just wonder what you're majoring, chemistry or physics? because both of your physics and chemistry videos are so great..
great job
I bet it's Chemistry
Won't be surprised if it's xenobiology, since it involves both astronomy and biochemistry
neither. Degrees don't mean intelligence
Chemistry is a form of physics
Apparently, he studies machine learning. See pinned comment reply.
The problem is your "flaw" is based on your POV not the plant. Your explanation even says as a result of it getting too hot this "flaw" makes the plant lose more water, but loosing water decreases the temp of the plant. C4 is more efficient running but cost the plants much more in order to make. It's all about trade offs, not flaws.
Fine points. But edit your "loose" to "lose".
And there is a crisis called desertification, with the decrease of cualitie in water as well as his availability. Then a vey interesting research area is the deficitate irrigation method and how to produce the same with less water, or with worster water. ( I am learning English)
I mean there is probably a reason why Evolution evolved plants in this way. If c4 leaves were really better then why are they not widespread in nature?
@@andrewbolten6617 Not all planta have been studied yet, and plants can have different mechanism which them do fotosíntesis while changing between them or which all of them at the same time. Any mechanism has his good and bad things, in an inveroment with less light c3 plants and are better, then if a plant can't guarantee that when it grows up will beat another's and get most of sun light, they can make use efficiently of C4 photosynthesis. The evolution is not like a student that aims for a high score in a test, evolution only aim to pass the test with the lower note possible and this note is that that the plant need to pass his genes to the next generation to then die or whatever. I am still learning English sorry about my writing skills.
@@borja556 i need more information
That was absolutely amazing. I had no idea this issue existed and the science was so far advanced. Very much appreciate you filling us in, and with such top drawer production values too.
I like to consider myself a smart person, ready to learn about such a dramatic topic as a problem in one of the most important processes on the planet
I wasn't expecting to be this far out of my depth in less than a minute
This is brilliant
Brilliant, but misleading! This video conflates trade-offs with inefficiency. For instance, plants lose water to cool off, just like humans. We also can’t see photosynthesis from the plant’s perspective, so we won’t know if the plants really consider photosynthesis to be inefficient (though assuming that plants have the capacity to “consider” anything is a stretch!)
From BBC Future:
C3 plants lose 97% of the water they take up through their roots to transpiration. So the C4 pathway is ideal for the hotter drought conditions that are increasingly prevalent owing to climate change.
C4 plants are so successful, especially in tropical savannahs, that they are responsible for as much as 30% of all terrestrial carbon fixing, even though they make up a tiny percentage of plants (just 5%) . Some of the crops that we cultivate use the C4 pathway, including corn (maize), sugarcane, sorghum and millet. But many of the most popular crops, including wheat and rice, are C3 plants. Their yields suffer in hotter drier conditions - just where and when we need to increase them.
A C4 tree might actually cause a slight paradox.
The anatomy of tree would have the leaves and xylem layer benefit from the better metabolism, but remember that the woody tissue in "trees" is composed of cells that have had their central vacuole build up so much waste the cell becomes non-viable and is then left behind as the xylem layer moves outward. The key is that the majority of the waste in the central vacuole is bound RuBP.
So in a way you'd create a... fern? Less wood, more green and leaves... carbon capture via composted leaves?
I think composting it would release a lot od the carbon dioxide again.
You'd need a way to store it non-composted. Thats how we ended up with coal, trees were like "oh look what we discovered, WOOD!" and all the microbes were like "so what are we supposed to do with it?"
@@chemieju6305 I postulate that burning deadfall in a highly efficient woodstove has less impact on climate change than the natural composting of deadfall in a forest. And studies are available to statistically analyze this.
Anyway, it just seemed more logical to collect deadfall for our wood burning stoves instead of chopping down a healthy tree to burn it. We live in the Mark Twain National Forest area. There is natural deadfall everywhere.
@@GeckoHiker you are totally right, because in a stove you get a lot of the energy out of it that would otherwise be used by the microbes. It can even get to the point where you are carbon neutral, because you burn dead wood at the same speed it grows. The one thing you cant achive that way is carbon capture, where you actively remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it long term instead of turning it into new fuel.
I'm a software engineer and have limited plant biology knowledge, therefore thank you for your video. It was complicated but informative. The future sounds exciting.
What could go wrong? It's what plants crave! (Corn Genes)
As a software engineer working with computer simulation I hope this potentially disastrous plant engineering hypothesis is studied under simulation before ever letting it escape into a wild ecosystem.
These C4 plants would be more useful on future human colonies/ space habitats where their ability to more efficiently capture CO2 from the atmosphere as it is a much cheaper alternative to scrubbers.
Worth mentioning the carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems doesn’t put that carbon in the soil. Planting trees is fine but over emphasized. We also have to restore native grasslands
Most of the o2 comes from plankton and other microscopic plants/animals anyway.
Doesn't capture co2 in the soil, but it significantly improves the climate locally
Why is "carbon sequestration" important in the first place?
@@pehenry assuming this question was asked in good faith and that you recognize carbon dioxide is a green house gas, you can think of our attempts at improving the carbon sinks of the world as a way of balancing the so called “carbon budget.”
As we inevitably continue to burn fossil fuels, we’re taking ancient carbon that had no atmospheric impact and creating an atmospheric problem. One of the ways you can balance this is improving the carbon sinks of the world, that is, the natural systems responsible for removing *and storing* carbon from the atmosphere.
@@krinklesofmadness how much CO2 is in our air right now?
This is why I support GMOs. When used correctly, it can save us tons of resources in water and energy.
Or, it could bring about a situation where plants grow completely out of control and end up suffocating all other life on the planet and completely changing the chemistry of the ocean.
@@Astromyxin no, that does not happen accidentally.
@@nekomimicatears What doesn't?
@@pootzeketzi1233 So you're saying that hypothetical situations don't happen accidentally, or just that one?
@@Astromyxin lol it’s pretty easy to kill plants
If currently known, a video explaining the evolution of cells and organisms from the molecular level would be deeply fascinating. In the same spirit of quantum fields to molecules. Sounds like a possible incomplete area of study, though. No idea!
Great videos. My favorite channel on all of CZcams. The only one I have notifications on for because I can’t wait to see more.
Your channel is incomprehensibly better than most of the CZcams.
what if we create c4 trees that are so efficient they cause a rapid ice age...
Watching this, I saw that I needed to refresh my memory on the details of photosynthesis.
And fortunately "But Why" has a video on photosynthesis.
this video sorely needs a different title/thumbnail. you deserve way more views on it
I live in Minnesota, land of 10k lakes. We finally had an end to a summer long drought. A drought, in a place where you usually don't even need to walk a mile to find a water source.
and that drought ended likely because of all the fires up in Canada north of us sending down all that smoke that induced precipitation.
dude, your stuff in this channel is absolute gold.
what an awesome channel, I thoroughly hope you see 1m subs within a year as this is some of the best content on youtube!
This is a top tier channel, i like it when I find things I didn’t know I wanted.
*repeats what everyone else has said about how cool this channel is*
As someone equally interested in biology, physics, and chemistry, this channel is the holy grail of science channels
I have no clue what's going in in the video but your presentation of it is great so I just kept watching
3:20 that inhale lmao
And 5:56 haha
And 6:23, finding these is fun 🤣
Veeery underrated channel
Will probably binge everything u have
This is the best channel I have ever found
I can't claim to know much about plant physiology, but I would think long and hard, and think a little bit more, before I started mucking about with "improving" something like this. Systems tend to moderate themselves, and all systems tend towards equilibrium. Do we really know enough about the planetary ecosystem to make changes like this?
I think the answer to that question is unequivocally, "No.". Personally, I think that this kind of thinking comprises some sort of higher order observation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect; as if to say that they don't possess the capacity to understand how much they don't know about complex systems such as these. I mean, scientists still don't know what makes a riderless bicycle self stable when you "ghostride" a bike. Comparatively, the system of phenomena that culminate in a bike being ghost ridden without a rider is far smaller and less complex in scope, and yet nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain why this occurs, and I think that while this is a not a perfect example, it does a decent enough job of encapsulating the concept of "how much we know" vs. "how much _we think we know_ ".
life doesn't care about perfection, life is fine with "good enough".
that's right, not survival of the fittest but it's "survival of the fit enough"!
@@mastershooter64 it's survival period. i mean, pandas...
This is probably the best channel that goes in-depth science without it just being a lecture-form. He's made a balance between the entertainment of animations and information. However, I think for someone just getting into science or have a basic knowledge, this would be a bit too higher level and would be more appealed with the more popular channels like Veritasium or Vsauce which often dumb-downs information. I would still say this is a much higher quality channel than any other popular channel.
It won't help a forest (not a single tree) sequester more Carbon on a longer timescale because what is limiting a mature forest is its crowding (it becomes light and nutrient-limited as it crowds), increasing the growth rate would just help young forests to reach this state faster.
The quality of your videos is insane
I'm just beginning the video but off the top of my head it seems like a great idea to do this. You don't want to start glycolysis while photosynthesis is Super Active the plant is making and using nadh and ATP which is available for other cellular processes so you don't need glycolysis to be going on while you're running the Calvin cycle.
Thorough explanations along with comprehensive animations. Very nice 👌
It is not a BUG it is a FEATURE. Plants are not for just growing a vegetable. They are responsible for CLEANING the AIR and the WATER. More water usage also means clean water with the RAIN. Overclocking plants means clearer ATHMOSPHERE. The most MERCIFUL and most GRACEFUL ALLAH has the best design that we could not appreciate how beautiful is😇 Amazon has a cloud that stores water way bigger than the Amazon river. 🙂
lol good larp
Question: If you found a way to allow for s plant to not die via heat, could you make a plant more efficient by changing the pigment to a higher wavelength then green, allowing for more high energy light to be absorbed?
(I know this wasn’t in the video, but I am just wondering.)
[I love you physics videos by the way, and this one was just as interesting, I love the animation style and intuitive explanation!]
Arren Bar-Even had some very impressive papers surrounding synthetic biology approaches to carbon fixation. One of his papers from 2010 explored the possibility of a carbon fixation cycle which completely bypasses RuBisCO and instead uses the faster, more specific PEP carboxylase for all carbon fixation, and which shuffles OAA back to PEP with net carbon addition. Essentially it's a really nifty replacement of the entire Calvin cycle
[Edit: P.S. you earned yourself a new sub with this one! Fantastic discussion!] 0:50 - "But why?" Because it still works. =) This, among a dozen other things in nature, are fantastic evidence that evolution is indeed random in nature. No competent designer would design something this deliberately inefficient and broken, right? And yet, our universe is such that, despite the inefficiency, it's still good enough to get generation after generation to reproduce and pass on that broken jalopy of a gene. Our primate ancestors used to be able to make vitamin C (we can't). Our primate ancestors used to be able to break down uric acid, which causes gout (we can't). Even our anatomy contains a strange nerve in our necks that takes the longest, most circuitous route to the tissue it innervates, the recurrent laryngeal. Ever get a stuffy nose? Chimps have holes in their skulls at the base of the sinuses that let that stuff drain. Our sinuses have holes too, but they're at the top of the sinuses. Brilliant! Evolution is a really fascinating topic!
I read the title and immediately asked "but why tho?" and then looked at the channel. Best first impression of a channel I've ever gotten lmao
Edit: Second best first impression, nothing will ever top High Boi
Never forget that life is about finding a way that works until it doesn’t anymore, not optimization. 75% efficiency is better than none at all, and as long as the plants reach the age to reproduce then the rest doesn’t matter.
There could be - or have been - some benefit to what we now consider a defect. I’m not an expert on these things, just find them fun and interesting. Still, it seems like a few (not all, a few) experts begin to think they know more than what they’ve learned and studied, like they’ve gained an intuition on how things - should - be and that such things must be that way. We might know the ingredients, we might know the process, but we don’t know the subtleties and unique changes made that create the product we see before us. We see a finished product in a vacuum and, through a small amount of outside information, determine that things have worked out a certain way. We could very well be right.
Just don’t forget we could also very well be wrong.
I will finish watching this video. I have a horrible habit of trying to answer the title before I watch the video in its entirety.
Thank you. You actually pointed out how the C3 design made sense throughout most of the past but is becoming less efficient now thanks to the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the change in temperature/humidity. C4 type plants and trees would be somewhat better suited to the expected future. Bringing forth larger produce yields or more nutritious tree crops would definitely get more funding into this research. If trees could grow faster or more sturdy for their collection in lumber mills or as furniture, then the research could find financing there as well. Tell someone with money that you have a way to multiply their investment into your research - and really sell it - and you can get your research funded. It would be wonderful to see places like Africa covered in a blanket of green across the equator. Nothing happens until money can be gained for that research and development, however. Good luck.
Don't overlook the importance of the pigments in plants. These absorb light of a specific wavelength to switch between the covalent states of carbon atoms.
For example, when a plant absorbs more infrared later into the evening from atmospheric scattering. This signals to plant to switch from producing oxygen to carbon-dioxide to make up for the difference in energy required due to the lack of blue spectrum light at night. Essentially putting the plant to "sleep".
Have you ever considered that this inhibitor is actually necessary to regulating the amount of energy the plants produce because of some evolutionary event in the past? Like perhaps some of the previous ice ages that were caused by too many plants reducing the amount of C02 in the atmosphere?
Insane Video. The quality is amazing! Great work.
Man out here correcting biology
This is fascinating! how common are c3 to c4 plants? any examples... and what about CAM plants?
This is better than how some professors explain things.
Changing the efficiency of plants would effect which species grow where and in what quantities, this could potentially totally change every environment on earth for good or bad.
I barely understand any of this and have no use for this knowledge. I was captivated the entire time though.
Beautiful work!
Thank you so much for making this. It's beautiful.
from an ecological perspective. If the temperature is rising and plants helps cool down the environment by giving up some of its water into the air then it makes better balance wise. So curious by replacing c3 with c4 photosynthesis how will it impact the environment. If c4 plants are more efficient, why are there not more plants using it except in deserts
"why are there not more plants using it except in deserts"
Whenever I am working on a system that I did not design or build and I come across that question, the answer is usually, "Because there is either a cost to doing it the "better" way that I am not aware of. Or the "wrong" way comes with a benefit that I am not aware of.
@@Crosshair84 let's see how things go when they deploy this en masse
commenting for the algorithm, underrated channel bro
Chemist here, love your channel !
My main concern regarding produce isn't how much carbon the plant can take in, but quantity/quality of nutrients the plant stores in the fruit.
Other studies are supposedly showing that our current produce is lacking in nutritional value compared to several decades ago due to poor soil. The plant's ability to respirate isn't going to increase nutrient content of the soil it's drawing from.
But why... haven't C4 plants outcompeted C3 plants if they are so much more effecient in today and yester-year's climate?
Good question! My thought is that it has something to do with water availability in different biomes. In deserts, you need more than just the C3 adaption, you need things like thick fleshy leaves and reduced light absorption. In wet biomes, the plants can just open their stomata and let as much CO2 in as they want. It is the warm, dry biomes that still have reasonable rainfall where I expect C3 to out-compete C4.
The CO2 concentration is even lower then in the ice age. It's a new era, I guess
The graph has been shown, but I don't recall where in the video
There's such a large difference between these systems that it feels like asking "Why didn't animals without a blind spot in their eyes (like in octopi) outperform the ones with one?" The issue in my example is that eyes have already evolved how they are and they fell into a local minimum. Evolving octopus eyes in mammals would require moving from one local minimum to another (if better) one. This is not easy. I assume the reason is something rather similar for plants, combined with the fact that on longer timescales there wasn't much evolutionary pressure that gave C4 plants an advantage.
Because for plants in wetter climates it makes sense to optimize for spring and not summer. The C3 pathway works better between 0C and 20C with low to medium amounts of sun. A seed will sprout in spring, a tuber will shoot or a tree will get leafs again in spring. Now it has the time to put shadow over the plants it's competing with. The faster it can grow now the more resources in the form of soil that contains water and surface area that has full sunlight it can claim. Because C3 plants can grow fast in spring they put shadow over C4 plants who are evolved to growing better in summer. The C4 plant now can only use 20% of the leftover light shining through the leaves of the C3 plant and can't outgrow the C3 plants. The C3 plant now only has to survive the summer well enough to produce seeds when the weather turns colder and wetter in spring or produce seeds in early summer and either die or drop leaves as seen in some species of african trees.
C4 plants can be more productive in a year but nature doesn't select on maximum photosynthesis. It selects on who can produce offspring the best and then have the offspring reproduce. Being quick in spring provides more fitness than being more efficient in summer.
How am I barely discovering this channel now!?!?
How does one "barely discover" something? 🤔
Desert C4 plants have more sunlight, negating the need to save carbohydrates like more common plants who may need that “mistake” rubisco makes in order to survive long periods of cloudiness or low sunlight
Rubisco was earlier known as the Russian Biscuit Company. They shortened their name around the time they copied the Hydrox chocolate sandwich cookie. The Oleg keeps ice cream from getting lonely.
Awesome animation and well explained
Love from india :)
Amazing channel, can't believe I just found it.
Very good short review of the topic!
If evapotranspiration is reduced will that have any net effect on the hydrologic cycle?
Yes! After communities planted acres of trees in the middle east, they started seeing more clouds and rainfall!
Rainforests generally generate their own thunderstorms as well.
so, what you're saying is, so that plants could live more efficiently, we need to increase co2 emissions? works for me!
I feel like this has super cool potential but the trick is you would need to intervene in many species and varieties simultaneously to avoid giving any specific ones competitive advantage and destroying the existing genetic diversity which makes these species more resistant to diseases. So that seems at least to me to be the biggest potential pitfall - that if you intervene, you risk not intervening enough.
Are trees the best way to reduce CO2? I've heard that algae might be more efficient at this, but it's not something I know a lot about.
This is correct. Trees are not very efficient at all, and they release all the CO2 they capture over their lifetime back into the environment when they die, and that's only for conifers. If they're deciduous trees, then they release all the CO2 they capture over a year every winter when they lose their leaves. Trees are only a temporary solution and won't net decrease CO2 in the atmosphere, they just buy us a bit more time.
biggest gem on CZcams
Apparently the Paulownia tree does use the C4 pathway.
You mentioned CO2 being low right now. Does that mean that consequences from global warming used to be the norm? Like, more storms, floods and draughts, higher water level/less habitable land?
Was surprised at the co2 graph. What has prevented catastrophic climate issues in the past?
"Life always finds a way."
Nothing, really, it happened.
@@crackedemerald4930 wait, what happened? And how did the amount reduce?
@@angledcoathangerscyshow video by hank green czcams.com/video/dC_2WXyORGA/video.html
Careful. Asking that reasonable question gets you labeled as a "denier" and burned at the stake.
All the computers models that predict Armageddon assume positive feedback loops in climate. Why? Because they HAVE to assume positive feedback loops to get Armageddon. Doubling CO2 by itself, which humans MIGHT be able to do, only causes about 0.5 to 1.0C of warming by itself. Not a problem and perhaps even an overall benefit.
The "Crisis" is entirely the result of computer models.
The problem, as you have noticed, is that Earth has been habitable for life for hundreds of millions of years with nobody at the helm. Hit with comets and asteroids, Earth always eventually returns to a habitable state. Clearly the climate is full of NEGATIVE feedback loops that keep things from going too far out of whack. Not positive ones. Which is why the models continue to fail to match observation 20 years later.
Fantastic! Incredible! Amazing! Astounding! Astonishing! Mighty! Marvelous! Better than Marvel's superheroes movies!
Very cool video. Super informative, well researched and nice visuals.
At 4:40
Going from 4.6% efficiency to 6.0% efficiency is seen as 30% increase in efficiency because 1.4 is roughly 30% of 4.6
But it could also be portrayed as only 1.4% increase in efficiency
A trick today’s media uses a lot, so pay attention to what you hear
this video wasn't made by "today's media"
I more preferred to create the carboxysome into the chloroplast where it serves as a shield from oxygen, therefore carrying out a much efficient way of helping carbon fixation. They multiple gene factors for this phytoengineering & it would also be great if plants could decompose the major pollutant such as carbon monoxide as it energy source also.
That same water retention is actually a bit of an issue. After all, transpiration is how a lot of water gets into the air, which leads to higher rainfall amounts, which leads to more readily-available water, which means an easier time for plants to grow, which means more plants, which means more evaporation through transpiration... you get how the cycle sustains itself.
Awesome content you got here in this channel!
Could the lack of C4 trees be down to the need for transpiration to keep water/nutrients flowing to the canopy?
I.e. stomata need to open to get nutrients up there, so there’s less benefit to reducing stomata opening?
Cactuses can get pretty tall, sort of.
Wait I'm noy very well versed in this stuff so I'm not sure. But you just said that co2 levels on earth are the lowest theyve ever been historically. if thats true then why is everyone always saying our co2 levels are dangerously high and stuff?
can't they find the gene that encodes rubisco and change it around so it can't make glycolate
I think an ideal test-vehicle for this would be cultivated bamboo for wood production in moderate/arid grassland areas. They don't reproduce easily (via pollination), and produce usable wood quickly.
Okay, i looked it up. Seems bamboo is not c4, but giant reed is. And it's considered an invasive species almost everywhere exactly because it grows so vigorously, can survive in droughts and promotes fires (and then grows back quicker than anything else that burned). However 'biomass producer' is listes as one of its main uses... Plus there seem to be some studies on the use of reed stems as particle board filler...
Very good content - keep it at this level!
So helpful in my biology studies, but I still need you to pause so that my brain can comprehend the terms and processes 😅
Smart kid: I have a C3 leaf.
Quiet kid: I have a C4 leaf.
everyone in the class: Hold up, wait a minute.
😅While we were busy getting educated this is what was going on in the head of back benchers
what you say is a flaw may not be, but could be a feedback mechanism to prevent plants from creating an imbalance of co2 and o2,
It's so refreshing to see non-biased videos on real science, instead of popscience shit articles published for feel-good effect, political gain or quack remedies to complex issues.
Know 'Legal Eagle' and 'Practical Engineering'?
?
C3 plants put more water in the atmosphere. Correct. But as an example in rainforest where it rains constantly, partly because the atmosphere is seeded with water from plants. Ground water isn't a issue. Infact its not a issue really anywhere. Just so people know.
I wonder if it's possible to combine C4 plants with the modified C3 chloroplasts.
.... quantum mechanics has a very interesting set of effects that you are not considering here.
To be clear, you are speaking on the chemical level, and nothing you say is incorrect, to the chemical level.
The quantum effect I am mainly speaking of is how the spread out C3; communally collect energy, all are charged up evenly (superposition) until, the energy is used exactly where it is needed most. That is how the C3 is still more efficient design.
I would love to see a video on how blood works and maybe how to improve it
This whole concept as well as the science being done to try new things, is wildly fascinating and truly awesome
It’s not necessarily related to this video, but I’ve been wondering why photosynthetic organisms generally reflect green light rather than absorb it. Is that another way that photosynthesis could be made more efficient, by absorbing green light?
Isn't it something to do with heat? Like a black leaf would also take in more energy but would bring with that a lot of heat. I don't know what I am talking about though lol.
If i remember correctly ,plant actually uses best wavelenght of light which green is not since infrared carries most heat energy along with red color so green is reflected since its lower energy or something basically
@@justjako9145 I would assume that blue-to-UV light is also good for plants to absorb, since they would appear cyan or teal rather than green if they reflected blue and violet as well as green light.
@@paulchapman8023 hm dunno but atm they are using hotter side of spectrum
Good luck, we sure need something like C4 forests I say
Awesome video
Just a small thing in the video, but while there's nothing wrong with being able to produce more food, it's not as if the food we already have globally is being distributed efficiently. More food won't stop the problem of hunger because scarcity isn't the cause in the first place.
If we stop or decrease the amount of water that leaves the plants leaves, wont that affect the climate over that given landmass? As in less water vapers form clouds over c4 rich landmasses and thus cloud production will slow in those areas, decreasing waterfall in the downwind areas? This might be a bit extreme but still...
I think the answer to that question is, "Probably.".
Very good video!
crazy that i learned about this in freshman science class