Photosynthesis: Impact of Color on Rate & CO2 Levels Explained

Thread starter alliecr
Start date Nov 24, 2007
Tags

Photosynthesis

AI Thread Summary

The rate of photosynthesis is highest in the blue and red wavelengths of light, as these colors are most effectively absorbed by chlorophyll. Conversely, photosynthesis is least efficient in green light, which is reflected rather than absorbed. This variation in light absorption directly influences CO2 levels, with higher photosynthesis rates leading to lower CO2 concentrations. Understanding the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll is crucial for grasping these dynamics. The discussion emphasizes the importance of demonstrating personal effort in exploring these concepts.

Nov 24, 2007

alliecr

In which color will the rate of photosynthesis be greatest, smallest and how will this be reflected in the CO2 levels, why?

Physics news on Phys.org

Nov 24, 2007

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

In order to receive help, you have to show your own effort first. What's your thought on the answer to this?

Nov 26, 2007

jim mcnamara

Mentor

Hint: they want you to know about the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll.

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »