CO2 uptake from roots or the water column?

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
94
48
85
Sacramento, CA
How does CO2 introduced under the substrate fit into those research results? It appears that the research papers are not in good agreement on this subject, but I'm not used to evaluating that type of report, so maybe I'm just confused by it.
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
I'm not sure I see the contradiction based on the evidence provided. the V. americana is the only common species. One article maxes out at 1.5%, the other neglects to mention any number at all. Working from abstracts isn't exactly the best way.

I'd spend the money, but I'd rather have some P. gertrudae that I found in a LFS.

-Philosophos
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
745
113
VaughnH;37846 said:
How does CO2 introduced under the substrate fit into those research results? It appears that the research papers are not in good agreement on this subject, but I'm not used to evaluating that type of report, so maybe I'm just confused by it.

That's part of the point, both used C14 also.
Some have suggested it plays a larger role with soil based seidments, but with heavily oxidized (mineralized) ssediments, there's little CO2, the aerobic bacteria have already had at it.

So while one topic is debated, and then speculated within the hobby, the other is rather conclusive. For some species, like the L dormata etc, Isoetes etc, sure, but those things grow slow and in cooler waters, and one is a CAM plant anyway.

Hardly something I'd try and argue for.
Still, it's interesting when groups disagree.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
I think disagreeing at this point is premature. If they're disagreeing on whether carbon is taken up through the roots, then they don't even know what the mechanism of the action is. Unless the methods are the same, then you've got a slew of uncontrolled variables.

I agree that the conflicting evidence is interesting. I think the next rational step would be seeing one attempting to offer refutation for the other directly. Watching biases compete tends to expose blind spots, or worse yet, ulterior motives.

-Philosophos