Energy is needed to drive an ecosystem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahmad786
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drive Energy
AI Thread Summary
Energy is essential for driving ecosystems, with sunlight often identified as the primary source due to its role in photosynthesis and heating organisms. While sunlight (D) is a key energy source, the discussion acknowledges that some ecosystems, like those near hydrothermal vents, do not rely on it. Chemical bonds are highlighted as a fundamental element in all ecosystems, as they store energy that organisms utilize. Organic fuel, derived from the remains of living organisms, also connects back to solar energy through the process of fossilization. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity of energy sources in ecosystems, with a particular focus on the significance of chemical bonds.
Ahmad786
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Energy is needed to "drive" an ecosystem

Energy is needed to "drive" an ecosystem. What is the fundamental source of that energy?
A. Chemical Bonds
B. Heat
C. Organic Fuel
D. Sunlight

I am not sure about this question but I think the answer is D. Sunlight is this correct? And if so why ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


This question requires a context. Or else if general, it requires a general knowledge of science. My thougt is solar energy is fundamental- it heats plants and animals, enables photosynthesis. When animals eat the plants, their enzymes break apart the chemical bonds obtaining heat or energy storage for themselves. Organic fuel is also general- if they mean fossil fuel, it is thought that living things die, are buried and treated with high temperature and pressure, becoming hydrocarbons. But all these trace back to solar heat.
 


Well, since there are some ecosystems that don't require sunlight, such as those around hydro-thermal vents, it seems to me that the common element in all ecosystems is chemical bonds.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top