[HN Gopher] 'Glowing' plants could help scientists predict flash...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       'Glowing' plants could help scientists predict flash drought
        
       Author : sharpshadow
       Score  : 28 points
       Date   : 2024-06-18 17:00 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.jpl.nasa.gov)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.jpl.nasa.gov)
        
       | datameta wrote:
       | TL;DR: "While the glow is invisible to the naked eye, it can be
       | detected by instruments aboard satellites such as NASA's Orbiting
       | Carbon Obsevatory-2 (OCO-2). Launched in 2014, OCO-2 has observed
       | the U.S. Midwest aglow during the growing season.
       | 
       | The researchers compared years of fluorescence data to an
       | inventory of flash droughts that struck the U.S. between May and
       | July from 2015 to 2020. They found a domino effect: In the weeks
       | and months leading up to a flash drought, vegetation initially
       | thrived as conditions turned warm and dry. The flourishing plants
       | emitted an unusually strong fluorescence signal for the time of
       | year."
        
       | ambicapter wrote:
       | That's interesting. Could the farmers reduce the impact of the
       | oncoming drought by shading the plants, slowing down their
       | photosynthesis cycle, and reducing the moisture uptake from the
       | soil? Evening out the usage of available water, in a way.
        
         | alice-i-cecile wrote:
         | Generally speaking this will work, yes! Plants use more water
         | during active photosynthesis, and unsurprisingly, water
         | evaporates faster in the open sun.
         | 
         | But logistically, on-demand shading of whole fields is quite
         | challenging. And not all crops will be robust to being grown in
         | the shade (for varying levels of shade).
        
       | hatthew wrote:
       | This topic is mostly new to me so I'm sure this is a dumb
       | question, but what is the benefit here? I would have thought
       | farmers could just manually sample soil moisture levels to get
       | pretty much the same data. The article also mentions the SMAP
       | satellite that can already read soil moisture from space. Is this
       | fluorescence a more reliable early predictor? Is it an easier way
       | to get the data we need?
        
         | bryant wrote:
         | Speculating:
         | 
         | Heat (within reason) encourages plant growth provided the other
         | ingredients are there. Plant growth shows up through this
         | luminescence. If a lack of rain can be projected, then the
         | drawdown of ground water can now also be more accurately
         | projected by understanding how much plant growth is taking
         | place.
         | 
         | I imagine this can impact emergency prep or other measures e.g
         | around irrigation to get ahead of groundwater depletion
         | resulting in flash crop loss. But that's my take on the value.
        
         | xhkkffbf wrote:
         | Well, if you make satellites like the Orbiting Carbon
         | Observatory, this is a good reason to make another, more
         | sophisticated version.
         | 
         | But you're right that cheaper, more local telemetry may be more
         | than adequate.
         | 
         | Heck, you can probably think, "I don't remember the last time
         | it rained..."
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | If you're the government wanting to see the status of the whole
         | country very quickly vs waiting for every single local farmer
         | to report their results to be compiled into a larger view, the
         | satellite view is much more efficient. Food production has
         | somewhat of a strategic value that a government wants to know
         | about.
        
       | dylan604 wrote:
       | from the embedded video, what kind of orbit is that satellite
       | using? it seems strange that it's not a straight down view. the
       | skewed angle gives me the impression it is not geosync, but it's
       | clearly not a polar orbit either. what is the purpose of this
       | skewed view rather than a straight down geosync orbit?
        
         | bagels wrote:
         | https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=40059
         | 
         | Looks like a pretty standard inclination for a sun synchronous
         | roughly circular orbit to me.
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | now that you say that, that does make absolute sense. why
           | have a satellite waste time looking at the earth when it's
           | dark? kind of one of those face palm "doh!" moments after the
           | fact. I know polar because that's what ISS uses. I know
           | geosync because that's what communication birds use and was
           | directly beneficial in a former job to know. after that, I am
           | much less familiar with the various other types of orbits.
           | one day, i will take time to learn all of the various orbits
           | and their benefits.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-18 23:00 UTC)