Asklemmy

55214 readers

126 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

Why isn't the ocean full off massive plants? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 day ago by Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Only just realized this when watching a diving video.

But why isn't the ocean full of massive plants? The surface of the earth is covered is giant trees working to fight against gravity, wind, and fire.

But in the ocean you have little things like coral beds and sponges and maybe a kelp forest.

Seeing as weight is massively reduced, and the closer you get to the surface means more light, and water and nutrients are probably plentiful... Why isn't the plant life more massive? What is the limiting factor to things evolving to be bigger?

Only thing I can think of is CO2 perhaps?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Plankton can be plants or animals, there are a lot of those

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yes but they are tiny.

I'm talking about blue whale type equivalent to aquatic plants. The biggest mammal on the planet lives in the ocean why not the biggest plant or fungus?

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 points 1 day ago

I'd imagine that plants need to grow big on land in order to be taller than the other plants to avoid competition for sunlight. In the water you can only go as high as the surface, and you didn't need to grow any bigger to get there, so microscopic plants won out. Why grow big and complicated if you can get all the sun you need by just being small and finding a little spot at the surface?

[–] Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Kelp plants can get pretty massive

[–] RandomHugs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That was my thought as well. But apparently they are known for their fast growth —the genera can grow as fast as half a metre a day (that is, about 20 inches a day), ultimately reaching 30 to 80 metres (100 to 260 ft.

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah great point sunlight only penetrates so far into water, and plant life I think is classified as using photosynthesis

[–] Slatlun@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are plants that don't photosynthesize, though most do. Check out ghost pipes if you want to see one of the exceptions. They're pretty cool

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Neat!

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

They'd tip over, or be uprooted by the high wave swells.