Asklemmy

55214 readers

131 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

[–] pebbles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago

I thought the California redwoods proved it was a different thing limiting height. They get water from the air because of how humid it is and therefore grow taller because their main limitation was the ability to move water from their roots to the rest of the tree.