I’ve recently seen a few news articles like these:
If we assume as a given that 1) we have or will find a genuine improvement on photosynthesis, and 2) we can genetically engineer that into our plants then: Would that be a catastrophe?
Implanting an improved photosynthetic reaction into our food plants would, I presume, increase yield and thereby help to feed our species.
At the same time, it would produce plants that have more power to throw around than every other plant on the surface of the planet and they should, in theory, be able to outcompete and replace them. They could become the ultimate invasive species.
Likewise, I would expect that a greater percentage rate of conversion means that there’s less light passing through the leaves of any enhanced plants. Besides being more energetic, they’d also be more opaque and allow less light through for anything living below - mosses, algae, shorter plants, etc. This could, again, have some fairly subtle but long-ranging impacts.
I’m working on the assumption that we’d use some genetic modification on crops rather than plants out in the wild. I’m not farmer, but I don’t believe you wants mosses, algae, shorter plants, etc., etc. growing on your crops.
I meant after they escape the fields and start to invade the wild.
A sidenote but there’s currently a movement in the science of farming to better understand the interplay of species and try to reduce over-fertilization and pesticide use by making better use of natural techniques - e.g. encouraging mycorrhizal fungi to help develop nutrient pathways and using predatory animals to deal with invasive plant-eaters.
My take would be that plants are basically converting energy into mass with some level of efficacy. If they’re currently achieving an efficiency of 0.1% and we could boost that to 1% (a factor of ten) then that’s taking nearly an entire percentage of all energy being bounced back into the atmosphere out and, instead, storing it as physical matter.
We would expect a cooling effect? (Not to mention the ramifications of greater carbon sequestration into plant matter.)
It converts light energy (in the form of energetic photons in a given wavelength) into chemical energy, by using the photon’s energy to trigger a reaction.
There are already 3 photosynthesis pathways (C2, C3 & C4)
It may will be that the improved photosynthetic pathway is only optimal in a narrow environmental, probably high energy band e.g. glass houses and in variable field conditions may thrive less.
Why would.we assume there will be more leaf area? If we give a plant more efficient photosynthesis, but its growth is limited by other factors such as moisture available, why wouldn’t we assume that leaf area would shrink?
Also, the danger could be that some plants are limited in growth by different factors, so improving photosynthesis could change the plant balance, causing some species to,outcompete pthers.
We are dealing with multiple complex systems here. Predicting what will happen when you make a massive change in the way energy is gathered by plants is not going to be possible. Some plants may die, others thrive. Some may grow different root systems to take advantage of the extra nutrients. And the second order and higher effects? Not remotely predictable.
But making artificial photosynthetic systems might have promise.
Y’all lack imagination. The inefficiency of photosynthesis is what keeps plants sessile. If we give them more energy, and that DNA leaks to the wild, it’s a short leap to plants learning to move about. This path leads to the March of the Ents.
Well, the talk of more light being reflected, and effects on the heating of the planet sure suggests… what? The leaves are already opaque, so improving photosynthesis doesn’t really change that. So we’re talking about changes to leaf area, aren’t we?
Whatever. I’m just pointing out that making a major change like improving the efficiency of photosynthesis would result in a lot of unintended consequences if released into nature, and they are completely unpredictable. Maybe you’d get more leaf area as plants exploit their capability. Or maybe some would, and others would shrink their leaf area as they already get all the solar energy they can use.
Predicting the outcome of a change like this, if applied to the ecosystem, is completely impossible. Don’t do it.
@Chronos may be right that higher energy absorption might mean less reflection rather than less light pass-through.
Plausibly, higher energy intake could mean that the plants grow larger leaves or more leaves, I don’t know. I suspect that it would depend on the genetics of that plant.
If plants are constrained by sun energy, then maybe. If they are constrained by something else, then I would expect more efficient photosynthesis to reduce the size of the leafy area. Or increase the leafy area of some and decrease it in others.
More importantly, it could cause some plants to outcompete others, changing the ecosystem. That could also result in changes to the insect populations, herbivores, carnovires, change rivers, destabilize shorelines or strenghten them changing erosion patterns…
Look what happened when six wolves were introduced to Yellowstone. It changed the direction of rivers. Complex systems have complex relationships and changes to them result in completely unpredictable changes elsewhere.
This is the fundamental premise behind the Precautionary Principle. Don’t screw with what you don’t and can’t understand.
Hopefully, this is not intended to be released into the wild, but instead be a controlled, isolated process.
Look, all of this talk about leaf size is besides the point. If scientists do develop some sort of super-chlorophyll, they won’t install it into anything as complex as a multicellular plant - they’ll put it in some species of single-cell microalgae, which will be much, much easier to work with. Microalgae is already responsible for about 50% of the Earth’s oxygen cycle; I wonder what happens when a super-efficient algae, which multiplies 10 times faster than other algae, is released into the ocean.
You get a lot of algae blooms, which kill a lot of fish and de-oxygenate the water?
Algae might seem safer, but unless we fully understand every interaction with algae in the ecosystem, it’s really not. And Algae can have a huge effect on the environment.
I’m even against trying to eradicate mosquitos. And I HATE mosquitos. Bane of our existence in the north.
I was thinking more of using the stuff in a closed environment. Some people have built algae-based solar collectors. Pump water containing algae into a clear tube with sun shining on it, wait for the algae to bloom, extract it and burn it as biomass. This would make that process more efficient - maybe efficient enough to be above breakeven. And it stays completely contained like other hazardous chemicals.