Subscription Center
On other worlds, plants could be red, blue, even black
April 7, 2008 | 12
If it isn't easy being green on Earth, where chlorophyll is well tuned to absorb most of the energy in our sun's yellow light, imagine the difficulties elsewhere in the galaxy....[More]
Light-harvesting pigments in photosynthetic organisms preferentially absorb photons of particular colors, scattering the rest. Plants on Earth get most of their energy from blue and red photons and scatter or reflect green photons....[More]
Our sun is a type G star. Although the energy spectrum of sunlight at Earth's surface peaks in the blue-green, the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll preferentially absorbs red and blue light and carotenoid pigments (which produce the vibrant reds and yellows of fall foliage)....[More]
The equivalent of plants on other worlds may still possess something like stems and leaves as efficient structures for collecting solar energy, but whatever they use as a photosynthetic pigment may be a far cry form chlorophyll....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
News Bytes of the Week—Headless Snake Bites Hapless Man
How Science Stopped BP's Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
5 Essential Things To Do In Space
The Top 10 Science Stories of 2011
The Top 10 Science Stories of 2012
How Humans Will Evolve on Multigenerational Space Exploration Missions
'Super-Earths': Could They Harbor Life?
Wet Down: Warm, Wet Conditions on Ancient Mars May Have Been Confined to Subsurface
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
12 Comments
Add CommentThanks for a very fascinating article. If plant colors are different, animals and aliens must have a very different aesthetics. Finally I understood why the alien globe that landed near Arkham, MS, had such a strange, undescribable, uneartly color. (See H.P.Lovecraft, "The Colour out of space")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a great article, and quite timely. I just recently had a discussion on the typical sci-fi alien's blood color and how it could come to be. The short story is that the iron in hemoglobin would be replaced by copper. Oxygenated blood is red due to the iron being oxidized (rust), whereas copper turns green when oxidized. Fun stuff to contemplate!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs anyone here thats hip to Larry Nivens "Slaver Sunflowers" A plant that grows a concave mirror, It`s primary purpose to focus dim light on a photosynthetic node an it`s secondary purpose is as a weapon. They grow in vast fields and when 10-20 thousand of them all focus on an enemy it tends to get a bit warm (literaly up in smoke!) First appears in His classic novel, "Ringworld"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSide pocket Bob
--
Edited by Side Pocket at 04/08/2008 1:29 AM
Biosignatures and conditions for life on other planets is also being studied by the top scientists as Harvard in the Origins of Life Initiative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author is posting this correction: brown algae do not have phycobilin pigments, unlike red algae. Brown algae have some carotenoid pigments that make them brown, and which enable them to live in deeper, dimmer water than green algae, but not so deep as red algae.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the article may give readers the misimpression that plants do not absorb green light at all, so, just to clarify:. Plants do absorb and utilize a considerable fraction of green photons, and "photosynthetically active radiation" for plants is generally considered to be the entire visible range (400-700 nm). The text on p. 50 states that "plants have adapted to absorb fewer of [green photons]," and on p. 51 it states that "The array of pigments can also convert cyan, green or yellow to red." Plants accessory light harvesting pigments -- chlorophyll b, carotenoids have some absorbance in the green, although that is not their color of peak absorbance. The overall effect for a whole leaf is a good fraction of green photons being absorbed, but a slightly greater reflectance of green light compared to blue or red, giving plants their green color, and plants have not invested in extra pigments like phycobilins to absorb that extra amount of green light. The article's main purpose was to point out why chlorophyll a has its spectral bias and why the mix of pigments in a photosynthetic organism is a result of adaptation (and even acclimation) to the spectral light environment. For more details and spectra of whole plant leaves (and moss, lichens, algae), one can read more information here and download the original journal article that reviews Earth organisms:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kiang_01/
@Side Pocket: That was my first thought when I saw the "shiny" plants under F-type suns. Always have thought that was a clever invention of Nivens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by subterrene at 05/02/2008 12:06 PM
This is a longwinded blog consisting of four points: two critical of the notion of chemical biosignatures; one critical of story-telling in natural history; and a final one of admiring wide-eyed wonder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Is there such a thing as a chemical biosignature?: There is an intrinsic problem with the use of simple molecules as biosignatures this is because we can never say (with only starlight to go by) that a given molecule must be the product of a biological process. What is abundant locally as biological waste product may be produced elsewhere by non-biological processes favoured by local conditions. Methane was once considered a biosignature, but since its detection in the atmospheres of our cold outer worlds is no longer considered such a certain sign of extra-terrestrial flatus. This same form of ambiguity was the issue with the contentious tests for life in earlier Mars lander programs every chemical event in the tests had possible biological and non-biological explanations. These simple molecules are not signatures, their presence in the atmosphere of other worlds is at best an ambiguous sign whose interpretation will be vigorously debated.
2. Life without chemical biosignatures?: It is debatable whether light harvesting organisms must produce any biochemical waste-product for detection. Living organisms store much of their energy in the form of electrochemical gradients across membranes (ions of sodium, potassium, hydrogen, calcium) or within recyclable chemical systems that dont have any wastes (e.g. ATP, NADPH). It is therefore not inconceivable that light harvesting organisms elsewhere could use the energy they collect to drive non-polluting systems equivalent to terrestrial ion pumps or ATP-synthases. Life elsewhere may not be as high-emission as life here on earth, where 21% of our atmosphere consists of a noxious pollutant from a very messy form of photosynthesis invented by the cyanobacteria. [Is it any wonder we dont get any visitors?]
3. Just so stories in natural history: The aspect of the article that is troubling is that it has a strongly teleological bent - i.e. that evolution elsewhere will, in important respects, parallel the course of events here in particular: (a) the discovery of oxygen producing photosynthesis; and (b) that an oxygen rich atmosphere is a necessary precursor to colonization of the land. As the article makes clear, oxygen producing photosyntheses arose more than half a billion years after photosynthesis was first undertaken. Many contemporary light harvesting systems used by archaobacteria and bacteria (other than cyanobacteria) do not produce oxygen as a waste product, and the central process of carbon fixation in vascular plants (the Calvin cycle) uses carbon dioxide but does not produce or require oxygen. It is therefore not so certain that oxygen-producing photosynthesis was a fated inevitable in the development in our ecosystem, and therefore should not be assumed to be so for other worldly ecosystems. It is also often told that without ozone (from an oxygen rich atmosphere) life could not have extended from the seas to the land. This is a nice story, but history is not the same as necessity. It is not impossible that life here, or elsewhere, could colonize the land using a variety of means to reduce UV exposure such as by making use of a UV-blocking cover of earth or by bringing along its own built-in sun-block (mineral rich biomaterial like bone, or pigments like melanin, etc.) a imaginary light-harvesting organism could use these means to shield its reproductive parts (or stem cells) and only expose UV tolerant, or replaceable, light harvesting structures to full light. Even more likely, light-harvesting life elsewhere could bask in full light by making use of selective UV-filters (such as silicates). We know from life here on earth that extremes of single physical parameters (pH, temperature, salinity, aridity, etc.) are not insurmountable barriers to evolution.
4. Uncanny absorption lines: The strongest argument in the article, and the one that made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, is the idea that in an evolving biosphere the light harvesting organisms will always fine tune their absorption maxima to the available spectrum given the output from their home star and the absorption characteristics of the worldly atmosphere. Dr. Kiang shows us in her article how this is the case for chlorophyll. As noted above, chemical biosignatures are highly ambiguous - in contrast, it would be a coincidence beggaring a non-biological explanation if (when?) it is found that there are significant absorption at two regions in the spectrum of another world that correspond to both the most numerous and the most energetic photons that can penetrate deep into the atmosphere. This is a biosignature writ in starlight for all to see.
Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMOthaaaaaaaaaaa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComment 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only imagine what the future holds. Because all of it is only a matter of "Time". Humans have only been a blip of existence on our home planet, compared to the dinosaurs, which had a run of about 300 million years or so. If we last that long, or even half that amount of time, who knows what will be in store for us. Think of how far we have advanced in only the past 100 years. It boggles the mind if you really think about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been questioning since my own college Biology almost two decades ago why it seems everyone assumes photosynthetic organisms on other plants would have to be green (in addition to the assumption that the star being used would show up as yellow in the alien sky). Not that I've been following specific research discussions or anything, but it's almost annoying to me with all the Scifi that's out now in movies, books, and videogames, not once have I seen anyone randomly try something like this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAvatar, with a forest moon full of blue- and purple-skinned creatures and glow-in-the-dark plants is still a standard-looking Earth-like rainforest during the day. Bah!