Low Wavelength and Photosynthesis

AI Thread Summary
Plants can utilize low wavelength ultraviolet light for photosynthesis, and some observations suggest that x-rays and gamma rays may enhance this process. The discussion raises questions about whether this phenomenon could relate to historical atmospheric conditions or potential mutagenic effects. It highlights the impracticality of using high-frequency radiation for photosynthesis when more effective wavelengths are available. Additionally, proper citation practices in scientific discussions are emphasized, particularly regarding the use of graphs and data. The conversation concludes with a clarification that the referenced graph pertains only to visible light wavelengths.
quicksilver123
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
I realize this is not a biology forum.

Check out the attachment.

As expected, plants can use some low wavelength ultraviolet light for photosynthesis.

However, the photosynthetic process seems to go nuts when x-rays are used. This is the first time I've ever heard of this. Even gamma rays seem to produce good results.

Is this some sort of survival mechanism for a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland? :p

Or more likely, a throwback to a time when the Earth had a thinner atmosphere? (might be way off here). Would the lower wavelengths cause mutagenic effects?

Seeing as how wavelengths around 650nm seem to contribute to a rate of photosynthesis comparable to 350nm-450nm range, producing these high frequency waves would obviously be impractical and wasteful when there's plenty of good radio and microwave spectrum radiation lying around. :p

Has anyone read any studies about this?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 463
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Please note that it is standard practice in science (and many other places as well) that when you take something like this, you must attribute the source! It is "bad manners" in science to take a figure, especially when it has experimental data, and not cite the source.

Zz.
 
I don't really have a source, sorry. This graph came included in the course materials for a physics course.
 
Then you should make sure you clarify that THAT is where you got it, and that you cannot attribute the source (it is a very bad form for your course material to not cite where they got something like this). Or else, if the owner of this graph happened to see it and there's no mention of any attempt at crediting the work, that does not make for a very good image of this forum.

Zz.
 
BTW, you are reading the figure all wrong! The top part of the figure is simply a scale of the different wavelengths. The bottom graph is not related to the top. Look at the horizontal scale of the graph. The wavelengths are in the hundreds of nm. x-ray has wavelength LESS than 1 nm!

Zz.
 
D'oh. That's embarrassing. The graph is only for visible light.

Topic delete please.
 
quicksilver123 said:
Topic delete please.

Sorry, we don't delete threads on request. Threads are meant to be permanent.
 
even useless and misleading threads?
 
Back
Top