[HN Gopher] Evolution of tree roots may have driven mass extinct...
___________________________________________________________________
Evolution of tree roots may have driven mass extinctions (2022)
Author : Archelaos
Score : 88 points
Date : 2023-03-07 11:31 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (news.iu.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.iu.edu)
| abricq wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| In what way is it not a "Don't Look Up" moment? It absolutely
| resonates with the theme of that documentary.
| abricq wrote:
| Yes 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)
| Pigalowda wrote:
| If you are ESL:
|
| "As much as this seems like a joke ... it is not one"
| user3939382 wrote:
| > (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...
|
| 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.
| abricq wrote:
| This concerns me and saddens me a lot. Major changes are
| required in the near future, and the more I look at the news
| the less it seems like any of these changes are happening. If
| at some point I actually get to the conclusion that "it's all
| bullshit" (i.e. climate change is all bullshit) to those in
| charge of making these changes, then I have to see how to
| change those in charge. But really, the options are
| limited... It's a scary problem. But yeah, it seems like
| corporations have (often) a lot more to say in this that the
| what the majority of citizens want.
| scatters wrote:
| > the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of
| these changes are happening
|
| What news are you reading? Last year the world invested
| $500bn in wind and solar, and another $500bn in energy
| efficiency. The IRA has $369bn for green tech, and Europe
| is going to spend $270bn. The invasion of Ukraine has left
| large amounts of Russian oil and gas effectively stranded.
| We're going to reach peak carbon in 5 years, and 2degC is
| looking increasingly feasible.
| aporetics wrote:
| Does it matter if by then we've fractured or cut down
| what's left of the world's forests? Deforestation the
| last decade https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
| jvm___ wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
|
| I mean, if the sidewalks outside your house were government
| controlled, the most likely people to try to take control of
| them would be people with an interest in making money from
| them (somehow). Most people don't enter government to be the
| "Minister of Forestry" without some previous industry
| experience, and a plan of what to do with the forests. The
| people with industry experience and a plan are usually ones
| frustrated by the limits of the regulations and therefore
| they have the desire to take over and change the rules to
| suit them.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > The people with industry experience
|
| This is at the heart of the problem. You get these
| revolving doors between eg big positions at the FDA and big
| pharma staffed by the same individuals at different times
| in their careers, same with eg Wall St vs SEC. This extends
| to lobby group positions. One day Fred is the head of the
| FDA the next day he's lobbying the FDA for Pfizer. This
| should be illegal.
|
| They mask the corruption this causes by saying "Hey we need
| someone with industry/regulatory experience" with no
| acknowledgement of the massive ($$) conflicts of interest
| inherent in that strategy.
| [deleted]
| CalRobert wrote:
| Ocean oxygen depletion (and atmospheric oxygen depletion as
| marine life like plankton dies with a double whammy of reduced
| oxygen and greater acidity) comes up in the scarier corners of
| climate change awareness but I've never known if it was
| something to take seriously or if it was overblown. Will we
| stop being able to breathe?
| FrojoS wrote:
| From the abstract of the paper linked in the article: "A
| full-scale OAE would take thousands of years to develop, but
| some of today's processes are reminiscent of those thought to
| have promoted OAEs in the distant past." (OAE = oceanic
| anoxic event)
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaj2321
| trpv wrote:
| Yes, we have 2 years left until everyone in the world (except
| the super rich who can afford bottled air) will suffocate and
| die
| axus wrote:
| On the bright side, our carbon emissions will go way down
| hinkley wrote:
| Decay produces a lot of carbon emissions.
| morelisp wrote:
| Only in an aerobic environment, no?
| hinkley wrote:
| CO2 requires oxygen. Methane is worse, but it's still
| carbon emissions.
| unfairly4820 wrote:
| Hmm will be for the super rich for sure. Lets say one air
| canister is 160 breaths. And this canister is premium lol,
| and cost 32 bucks. cost per breath is $.20. Avg person = 16
| breaths per minute. Cost per minute : $2.30. Cost per hour
| $192. Cost per day $4608. Cost per year: $1,618,920!
| daveslash wrote:
| _Don 't be ridiculous. As President of HN, I can assure
| both you and the other readers that there's absolutely no
| air shortage whatsoever. Yes, I've heard the same rumors
| myself! Thanks for calling, and not reversing the charges._
| hinkley wrote:
| HAIL SKROOB!
| pvaldes wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Can 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
|
| 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 wrote:
| Is 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
| bad_alloc wrote:
| Between 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 wrote:
| "Can't wait" to see what evolves to "balance us out" and "keep
| us in check".
| dd36 wrote:
| AI could see us like we see trees.
| detritus wrote:
| As in material-stock to be consumed for development, or
| aesthetically-pleasing entities we enjoy having around?
| Fatnino wrote:
| According to the documentary "The Matrix", it's the first
| one.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| Unfortunately 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 wrote:
| In 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Literally? 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.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/ti
| l_i... which links to
| 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/commen
| ts/q2xefs/batteries_no... says that this was never true
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| > and this was the first idea the writers had, they just
| decided against it because it would be too complicated
| for mainstream audiences
|
| Doesn't make immediate sense to me, if using brains as
| computers you wouldn't want to occupy them with the
| Matrix simulation and the whole story falls apart, so how
| was the complicated plot ought to be? Use the brains with
| the Matrix how we are used already for solving captchas?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| From what I recall, it was studio meddling that forced
| the "humans as batteries" idea.
| speed_spread wrote:
| We think with much more than just our brain. For example,
| there are neurons at the stomach level and your gut
| bacteria determines part of your mood. You could make a
| case that the whole body is required to capture the human
| experience.
| [deleted]
| thfuran wrote:
| Both! You can rip them apart and reassemble them into
| aesthetically pleasing structures in still-living ones.
| otikik wrote:
| For one second. Then, bacteria.
| moondistance wrote:
| We should nurture familial-like relationships with them -
| kids generally look after their parents.
| [deleted]
| donnowhy wrote:
| like 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"
| Keyframe wrote:
| That'd be us, ourselves.
| ketanmaheshwari wrote:
| The 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?
| adammarples wrote:
| Yes, but trees were not really possible until roots evolved.
| hoseja wrote:
| The roots speed up weathering of rocks.
| woopsn wrote:
| There 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.
| bleuarff wrote:
| My understanding is that a root system is much more efficient
| at extracting nutrients from the ground that whatever plants
| used before.
| hinkley wrote:
| Tree 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'.
| pkdpic wrote:
| > 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.
| soperj wrote:
| Terrestrial animal life actually evolved during the Devonian.
| hinkley wrote:
| A sudden increase in high nutrient leaf litter sure would
| make a good petri dish.
| babbledabbler wrote:
| It's crazy that our existence is in large part due to the very
| kinds of mass-extinction events the we could be triggering.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-08 23:02 UTC)