Underground condition preventing plant growth on a planet
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
I've considered considered removing all water from the planet, both underground and above the surface, but that doesn't feel right.
Is there any other way to completely prevent any kind of flora from growing even with abundance of water sources?
planets worldbuilding-process landscaping
New contributor
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
I've considered considered removing all water from the planet, both underground and above the surface, but that doesn't feel right.
Is there any other way to completely prevent any kind of flora from growing even with abundance of water sources?
planets worldbuilding-process landscaping
New contributor
Either an absence of nutrients or trace elements or the presence of plant toxins.
– a4android
Nov 30 at 1:19
1
Ecologists ran amok and scrubbed all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? A future Elon Musk switched to lithium iron phosphate batteries and used up all the phosphorus? Global cooling froze all water? A careless alien janitor spilled a large amount of herbicide? A stupid industrial accident released a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
– AlexP
Nov 30 at 2:06
Not sure it's possible. Unless you have multiple conditions. I first thought of high levels of salt in the soil, but some plants thrive in the ocean or on its edges.
– Cyn
Nov 30 at 4:24
Nothing! Life always finds a way, that is the whole point of evolution. Your best bet would be to not have life evolve in the first place.
– nzaman
Nov 30 at 6:15
"No plant growth at all" means that the only possible life is simple chemosynthesizing microbes.
– RonJohn
Nov 30 at 6:16
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
I've considered considered removing all water from the planet, both underground and above the surface, but that doesn't feel right.
Is there any other way to completely prevent any kind of flora from growing even with abundance of water sources?
planets worldbuilding-process landscaping
New contributor
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
I've considered considered removing all water from the planet, both underground and above the surface, but that doesn't feel right.
Is there any other way to completely prevent any kind of flora from growing even with abundance of water sources?
planets worldbuilding-process landscaping
planets worldbuilding-process landscaping
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked Nov 30 at 0:24
user57841
233
233
New contributor
New contributor
Either an absence of nutrients or trace elements or the presence of plant toxins.
– a4android
Nov 30 at 1:19
1
Ecologists ran amok and scrubbed all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? A future Elon Musk switched to lithium iron phosphate batteries and used up all the phosphorus? Global cooling froze all water? A careless alien janitor spilled a large amount of herbicide? A stupid industrial accident released a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
– AlexP
Nov 30 at 2:06
Not sure it's possible. Unless you have multiple conditions. I first thought of high levels of salt in the soil, but some plants thrive in the ocean or on its edges.
– Cyn
Nov 30 at 4:24
Nothing! Life always finds a way, that is the whole point of evolution. Your best bet would be to not have life evolve in the first place.
– nzaman
Nov 30 at 6:15
"No plant growth at all" means that the only possible life is simple chemosynthesizing microbes.
– RonJohn
Nov 30 at 6:16
|
show 6 more comments
Either an absence of nutrients or trace elements or the presence of plant toxins.
– a4android
Nov 30 at 1:19
1
Ecologists ran amok and scrubbed all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? A future Elon Musk switched to lithium iron phosphate batteries and used up all the phosphorus? Global cooling froze all water? A careless alien janitor spilled a large amount of herbicide? A stupid industrial accident released a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
– AlexP
Nov 30 at 2:06
Not sure it's possible. Unless you have multiple conditions. I first thought of high levels of salt in the soil, but some plants thrive in the ocean or on its edges.
– Cyn
Nov 30 at 4:24
Nothing! Life always finds a way, that is the whole point of evolution. Your best bet would be to not have life evolve in the first place.
– nzaman
Nov 30 at 6:15
"No plant growth at all" means that the only possible life is simple chemosynthesizing microbes.
– RonJohn
Nov 30 at 6:16
Either an absence of nutrients or trace elements or the presence of plant toxins.
– a4android
Nov 30 at 1:19
Either an absence of nutrients or trace elements or the presence of plant toxins.
– a4android
Nov 30 at 1:19
1
1
Ecologists ran amok and scrubbed all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? A future Elon Musk switched to lithium iron phosphate batteries and used up all the phosphorus? Global cooling froze all water? A careless alien janitor spilled a large amount of herbicide? A stupid industrial accident released a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
– AlexP
Nov 30 at 2:06
Ecologists ran amok and scrubbed all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? A future Elon Musk switched to lithium iron phosphate batteries and used up all the phosphorus? Global cooling froze all water? A careless alien janitor spilled a large amount of herbicide? A stupid industrial accident released a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
– AlexP
Nov 30 at 2:06
Not sure it's possible. Unless you have multiple conditions. I first thought of high levels of salt in the soil, but some plants thrive in the ocean or on its edges.
– Cyn
Nov 30 at 4:24
Not sure it's possible. Unless you have multiple conditions. I first thought of high levels of salt in the soil, but some plants thrive in the ocean or on its edges.
– Cyn
Nov 30 at 4:24
Nothing! Life always finds a way, that is the whole point of evolution. Your best bet would be to not have life evolve in the first place.
– nzaman
Nov 30 at 6:15
Nothing! Life always finds a way, that is the whole point of evolution. Your best bet would be to not have life evolve in the first place.
– nzaman
Nov 30 at 6:15
"No plant growth at all" means that the only possible life is simple chemosynthesizing microbes.
– RonJohn
Nov 30 at 6:16
"No plant growth at all" means that the only possible life is simple chemosynthesizing microbes.
– RonJohn
Nov 30 at 6:16
|
show 6 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Given long enough timescales some lifeforms will exploit your limitations and thrive right on those constraints.
Not a solution, but a very efficient species of snails, which eat anything not snail-like, could prevent plans from growing for a long time. They would adapt to eat any naturally evolving plants, and could overcome protective mechanisms that the plants would develop. However, such a system is not perfect, and it would allow for some plans to exist at any given time. Thus the only downside is that the equilibrium is somewhere in the region of "few plants" and "many many snails".
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
3
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
1
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Thoughts:
Magma, lots of Magma. In essence the "surface" is very thin, perhaps 2-3 metres. There isn't soil, just basalt's and other igneous rocks. The rocks are warm to hot all the time.
The planet is solid, no liquid iron belt protecting the planet from radiation. Sure as anything this will kill a planet. Just look at mars.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
Classically plants thrive on a process known as photosynthesis - they use energy from the sun's light in order to convert carbon and water into carbohydrates, and from there they get their energy.
Also classically the underground is a dark place that gets no sunlight[citation needed]. That should be enough to keep plants from growin in there.
2
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
A simple solution would be to make the soil uninhabitable to organics due to some chemical. If this was intentional, by some advanced species, they could simply place a strong acid or poison in the ground. If this was part of the planet's nature, it could happen by the soil being incredibly acidic, dissolving most organisms before they can develop.
New contributor
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
3
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Perhaps there isn't enough topsoil to support the growth of new plant life. This was an issue on our own planet after the end of the ice age, as moving glaciers scoured large areas as they melted in areas such as northern Canada, removing the topsoil that had existed there previously. Other examples of topsoil-removing events include high winds, abnormally heavy rainfall, and exposure to intense heat and/or radiation. So long as an event such as this occurs at a regular interval, substantial plant life should be unable to grow.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If the soil contains (for whatever reason) no magnesium, then any life that existed couldn't make chlorophyll as we know it, which means no plants.
You could also try some kind of other organism that out-competes the plants, like a soil microbe that uses up resources instead of making them available.
An occasional catastrophic rad-blast would also do the trick.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
A combination of a couple of other answers: A toxin that actually binds the nutrients required, preventing any plant from taking them up and using them. (This is how some herbicides work today.)
This would likely affect certain non-plants, as well (microbes, fungus, etc.).
Or, perhaps a microbe secretes the toxin so it can monopolize the nutrients. You could develop a nasty "invasive species" story from that.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Soil Depletion1
Soil fertility depends on several factors. Changing one or more of these can inhibit that fertility:
- Sufficient soil depth for root growth and water retention.
- Good drainage
- Topsoil with proper organic matter
- Soil pH between 5.5 and 7.0
- Adequate concentrations of essential plant nutrients
- Presence of a range of microorganisms.
Disrupt any one or more variables in the above balance and your soil won't support life. For example, if some event (chemical warfare, etc.) destroys all the microbial life, then your soil won't support plants. Or make the soil acidic or basic and plants cannot grow.
Robert Heinlein touches on this briefly in "Farmer in the Sky". As part of their efforts to terraform Ganymede involves bringing microbial life to the moon to support plant growth (it's a minor point and not one of the major plot points at all, but the narrator talks to one of the older colonists who mentions that he has the best microbes).
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Given long enough timescales some lifeforms will exploit your limitations and thrive right on those constraints.
Not a solution, but a very efficient species of snails, which eat anything not snail-like, could prevent plans from growing for a long time. They would adapt to eat any naturally evolving plants, and could overcome protective mechanisms that the plants would develop. However, such a system is not perfect, and it would allow for some plans to exist at any given time. Thus the only downside is that the equilibrium is somewhere in the region of "few plants" and "many many snails".
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
3
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
1
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Given long enough timescales some lifeforms will exploit your limitations and thrive right on those constraints.
Not a solution, but a very efficient species of snails, which eat anything not snail-like, could prevent plans from growing for a long time. They would adapt to eat any naturally evolving plants, and could overcome protective mechanisms that the plants would develop. However, such a system is not perfect, and it would allow for some plans to exist at any given time. Thus the only downside is that the equilibrium is somewhere in the region of "few plants" and "many many snails".
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
3
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
1
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Given long enough timescales some lifeforms will exploit your limitations and thrive right on those constraints.
Not a solution, but a very efficient species of snails, which eat anything not snail-like, could prevent plans from growing for a long time. They would adapt to eat any naturally evolving plants, and could overcome protective mechanisms that the plants would develop. However, such a system is not perfect, and it would allow for some plans to exist at any given time. Thus the only downside is that the equilibrium is somewhere in the region of "few plants" and "many many snails".
Given long enough timescales some lifeforms will exploit your limitations and thrive right on those constraints.
Not a solution, but a very efficient species of snails, which eat anything not snail-like, could prevent plans from growing for a long time. They would adapt to eat any naturally evolving plants, and could overcome protective mechanisms that the plants would develop. However, such a system is not perfect, and it would allow for some plans to exist at any given time. Thus the only downside is that the equilibrium is somewhere in the region of "few plants" and "many many snails".
edited Nov 30 at 7:24
answered Nov 30 at 0:39
NofP
2,538420
2,538420
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
3
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
1
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
add a comment |
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
3
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
1
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
That's something I hadn't considered, thanks!
– user57841
Nov 30 at 7:29
3
3
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
What stops the snails starving to death once they eat all the planets...allowing the plants to recover?
– Tim B♦
Nov 30 at 14:27
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
Plants that mimic snails are also a very real option. Or plants toxic to those snails. Or - you know - good old thorns. Snails are surprisingly resilient to impalement, but they can't eat what they can't reach. Thorns with toxic tips in case of snails that decide whatever's being protected is worth the effort of just chewing through the defenses.
– John Dvorak
Nov 30 at 15:08
1
1
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
Make them worms made of silicon with a bizzare lifecycle to keep things interesting. Perhaps have them secrete something toxic in high concentrations that’s immensely valuable because of it’s mystical properties??
– Joe Bloggs
Nov 30 at 17:32
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Thoughts:
Magma, lots of Magma. In essence the "surface" is very thin, perhaps 2-3 metres. There isn't soil, just basalt's and other igneous rocks. The rocks are warm to hot all the time.
The planet is solid, no liquid iron belt protecting the planet from radiation. Sure as anything this will kill a planet. Just look at mars.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Thoughts:
Magma, lots of Magma. In essence the "surface" is very thin, perhaps 2-3 metres. There isn't soil, just basalt's and other igneous rocks. The rocks are warm to hot all the time.
The planet is solid, no liquid iron belt protecting the planet from radiation. Sure as anything this will kill a planet. Just look at mars.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Thoughts:
Magma, lots of Magma. In essence the "surface" is very thin, perhaps 2-3 metres. There isn't soil, just basalt's and other igneous rocks. The rocks are warm to hot all the time.
The planet is solid, no liquid iron belt protecting the planet from radiation. Sure as anything this will kill a planet. Just look at mars.
Thoughts:
Magma, lots of Magma. In essence the "surface" is very thin, perhaps 2-3 metres. There isn't soil, just basalt's and other igneous rocks. The rocks are warm to hot all the time.
The planet is solid, no liquid iron belt protecting the planet from radiation. Sure as anything this will kill a planet. Just look at mars.
answered Nov 30 at 5:53
Kain0_0
6424
6424
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
Classically plants thrive on a process known as photosynthesis - they use energy from the sun's light in order to convert carbon and water into carbohydrates, and from there they get their energy.
Also classically the underground is a dark place that gets no sunlight[citation needed]. That should be enough to keep plants from growin in there.
2
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
Classically plants thrive on a process known as photosynthesis - they use energy from the sun's light in order to convert carbon and water into carbohydrates, and from there they get their energy.
Also classically the underground is a dark place that gets no sunlight[citation needed]. That should be enough to keep plants from growin in there.
2
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
Classically plants thrive on a process known as photosynthesis - they use energy from the sun's light in order to convert carbon and water into carbohydrates, and from there they get their energy.
Also classically the underground is a dark place that gets no sunlight[citation needed]. That should be enough to keep plants from growin in there.
As title, what condition could prevent plant growth from below a planet surface?
Classically plants thrive on a process known as photosynthesis - they use energy from the sun's light in order to convert carbon and water into carbohydrates, and from there they get their energy.
Also classically the underground is a dark place that gets no sunlight[citation needed]. That should be enough to keep plants from growin in there.
answered Nov 30 at 1:40
Renan
40.7k1194206
40.7k1194206
2
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
add a comment |
2
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
2
2
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
I think the question is "what (that is below the surface) could prevent plant growth" and not "what is it that could prevent plants from growing while beneath the surface".
– QWriter
Nov 30 at 2:14
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
A simple solution would be to make the soil uninhabitable to organics due to some chemical. If this was intentional, by some advanced species, they could simply place a strong acid or poison in the ground. If this was part of the planet's nature, it could happen by the soil being incredibly acidic, dissolving most organisms before they can develop.
New contributor
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
3
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
A simple solution would be to make the soil uninhabitable to organics due to some chemical. If this was intentional, by some advanced species, they could simply place a strong acid or poison in the ground. If this was part of the planet's nature, it could happen by the soil being incredibly acidic, dissolving most organisms before they can develop.
New contributor
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
3
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A simple solution would be to make the soil uninhabitable to organics due to some chemical. If this was intentional, by some advanced species, they could simply place a strong acid or poison in the ground. If this was part of the planet's nature, it could happen by the soil being incredibly acidic, dissolving most organisms before they can develop.
New contributor
A simple solution would be to make the soil uninhabitable to organics due to some chemical. If this was intentional, by some advanced species, they could simply place a strong acid or poison in the ground. If this was part of the planet's nature, it could happen by the soil being incredibly acidic, dissolving most organisms before they can develop.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 30 at 0:29
snuggles08
213
213
New contributor
New contributor
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
3
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
add a comment |
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
3
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
Chemical can come from the rocks underneath, or from acid rain. Perhaps volcanic activity could add enough chemicals to atmosphere to make rain deadly.
– Bald Bear
Nov 30 at 1:02
3
3
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
The problem is that Oxygen is a chemical that threatened life. Now just look at the thing. Similarly nitrite, and nitrates are poisonous and life started devouring them. Even indirect chemical poisoning like lignin (basically wood) was becoming a problem by locking up too much carbon, essentially starving all photosynthesis and you now see life happily eating that too. My point is that poisonous is purely about perspective, and easily overcome. The poison would need to be distributed everywhere, very quickly.
– Kain0_0
Nov 30 at 6:00
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Perhaps there isn't enough topsoil to support the growth of new plant life. This was an issue on our own planet after the end of the ice age, as moving glaciers scoured large areas as they melted in areas such as northern Canada, removing the topsoil that had existed there previously. Other examples of topsoil-removing events include high winds, abnormally heavy rainfall, and exposure to intense heat and/or radiation. So long as an event such as this occurs at a regular interval, substantial plant life should be unable to grow.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Perhaps there isn't enough topsoil to support the growth of new plant life. This was an issue on our own planet after the end of the ice age, as moving glaciers scoured large areas as they melted in areas such as northern Canada, removing the topsoil that had existed there previously. Other examples of topsoil-removing events include high winds, abnormally heavy rainfall, and exposure to intense heat and/or radiation. So long as an event such as this occurs at a regular interval, substantial plant life should be unable to grow.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Perhaps there isn't enough topsoil to support the growth of new plant life. This was an issue on our own planet after the end of the ice age, as moving glaciers scoured large areas as they melted in areas such as northern Canada, removing the topsoil that had existed there previously. Other examples of topsoil-removing events include high winds, abnormally heavy rainfall, and exposure to intense heat and/or radiation. So long as an event such as this occurs at a regular interval, substantial plant life should be unable to grow.
Perhaps there isn't enough topsoil to support the growth of new plant life. This was an issue on our own planet after the end of the ice age, as moving glaciers scoured large areas as they melted in areas such as northern Canada, removing the topsoil that had existed there previously. Other examples of topsoil-removing events include high winds, abnormally heavy rainfall, and exposure to intense heat and/or radiation. So long as an event such as this occurs at a regular interval, substantial plant life should be unable to grow.
answered Nov 30 at 0:37
Bewilderer
4789
4789
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If the soil contains (for whatever reason) no magnesium, then any life that existed couldn't make chlorophyll as we know it, which means no plants.
You could also try some kind of other organism that out-competes the plants, like a soil microbe that uses up resources instead of making them available.
An occasional catastrophic rad-blast would also do the trick.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If the soil contains (for whatever reason) no magnesium, then any life that existed couldn't make chlorophyll as we know it, which means no plants.
You could also try some kind of other organism that out-competes the plants, like a soil microbe that uses up resources instead of making them available.
An occasional catastrophic rad-blast would also do the trick.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If the soil contains (for whatever reason) no magnesium, then any life that existed couldn't make chlorophyll as we know it, which means no plants.
You could also try some kind of other organism that out-competes the plants, like a soil microbe that uses up resources instead of making them available.
An occasional catastrophic rad-blast would also do the trick.
New contributor
If the soil contains (for whatever reason) no magnesium, then any life that existed couldn't make chlorophyll as we know it, which means no plants.
You could also try some kind of other organism that out-competes the plants, like a soil microbe that uses up resources instead of making them available.
An occasional catastrophic rad-blast would also do the trick.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 30 at 6:00
G. B. Robinson
1137
1137
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
A combination of a couple of other answers: A toxin that actually binds the nutrients required, preventing any plant from taking them up and using them. (This is how some herbicides work today.)
This would likely affect certain non-plants, as well (microbes, fungus, etc.).
Or, perhaps a microbe secretes the toxin so it can monopolize the nutrients. You could develop a nasty "invasive species" story from that.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
A combination of a couple of other answers: A toxin that actually binds the nutrients required, preventing any plant from taking them up and using them. (This is how some herbicides work today.)
This would likely affect certain non-plants, as well (microbes, fungus, etc.).
Or, perhaps a microbe secretes the toxin so it can monopolize the nutrients. You could develop a nasty "invasive species" story from that.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
A combination of a couple of other answers: A toxin that actually binds the nutrients required, preventing any plant from taking them up and using them. (This is how some herbicides work today.)
This would likely affect certain non-plants, as well (microbes, fungus, etc.).
Or, perhaps a microbe secretes the toxin so it can monopolize the nutrients. You could develop a nasty "invasive species" story from that.
New contributor
A combination of a couple of other answers: A toxin that actually binds the nutrients required, preventing any plant from taking them up and using them. (This is how some herbicides work today.)
This would likely affect certain non-plants, as well (microbes, fungus, etc.).
Or, perhaps a microbe secretes the toxin so it can monopolize the nutrients. You could develop a nasty "invasive species" story from that.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 30 at 13:51
GWB
411
411
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Soil Depletion1
Soil fertility depends on several factors. Changing one or more of these can inhibit that fertility:
- Sufficient soil depth for root growth and water retention.
- Good drainage
- Topsoil with proper organic matter
- Soil pH between 5.5 and 7.0
- Adequate concentrations of essential plant nutrients
- Presence of a range of microorganisms.
Disrupt any one or more variables in the above balance and your soil won't support life. For example, if some event (chemical warfare, etc.) destroys all the microbial life, then your soil won't support plants. Or make the soil acidic or basic and plants cannot grow.
Robert Heinlein touches on this briefly in "Farmer in the Sky". As part of their efforts to terraform Ganymede involves bringing microbial life to the moon to support plant growth (it's a minor point and not one of the major plot points at all, but the narrator talks to one of the older colonists who mentions that he has the best microbes).
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Soil Depletion1
Soil fertility depends on several factors. Changing one or more of these can inhibit that fertility:
- Sufficient soil depth for root growth and water retention.
- Good drainage
- Topsoil with proper organic matter
- Soil pH between 5.5 and 7.0
- Adequate concentrations of essential plant nutrients
- Presence of a range of microorganisms.
Disrupt any one or more variables in the above balance and your soil won't support life. For example, if some event (chemical warfare, etc.) destroys all the microbial life, then your soil won't support plants. Or make the soil acidic or basic and plants cannot grow.
Robert Heinlein touches on this briefly in "Farmer in the Sky". As part of their efforts to terraform Ganymede involves bringing microbial life to the moon to support plant growth (it's a minor point and not one of the major plot points at all, but the narrator talks to one of the older colonists who mentions that he has the best microbes).
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Soil Depletion1
Soil fertility depends on several factors. Changing one or more of these can inhibit that fertility:
- Sufficient soil depth for root growth and water retention.
- Good drainage
- Topsoil with proper organic matter
- Soil pH between 5.5 and 7.0
- Adequate concentrations of essential plant nutrients
- Presence of a range of microorganisms.
Disrupt any one or more variables in the above balance and your soil won't support life. For example, if some event (chemical warfare, etc.) destroys all the microbial life, then your soil won't support plants. Or make the soil acidic or basic and plants cannot grow.
Robert Heinlein touches on this briefly in "Farmer in the Sky". As part of their efforts to terraform Ganymede involves bringing microbial life to the moon to support plant growth (it's a minor point and not one of the major plot points at all, but the narrator talks to one of the older colonists who mentions that he has the best microbes).
Soil Depletion1
Soil fertility depends on several factors. Changing one or more of these can inhibit that fertility:
- Sufficient soil depth for root growth and water retention.
- Good drainage
- Topsoil with proper organic matter
- Soil pH between 5.5 and 7.0
- Adequate concentrations of essential plant nutrients
- Presence of a range of microorganisms.
Disrupt any one or more variables in the above balance and your soil won't support life. For example, if some event (chemical warfare, etc.) destroys all the microbial life, then your soil won't support plants. Or make the soil acidic or basic and plants cannot grow.
Robert Heinlein touches on this briefly in "Farmer in the Sky". As part of their efforts to terraform Ganymede involves bringing microbial life to the moon to support plant growth (it's a minor point and not one of the major plot points at all, but the narrator talks to one of the older colonists who mentions that he has the best microbes).
answered Nov 30 at 15:45
CaM
11.7k2761
11.7k2761
add a comment |
add a comment |
user57841 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user57841 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user57841 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user57841 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131606%2funderground-condition-preventing-plant-growth-on-a-planet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Either an absence of nutrients or trace elements or the presence of plant toxins.
– a4android
Nov 30 at 1:19
1
Ecologists ran amok and scrubbed all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? A future Elon Musk switched to lithium iron phosphate batteries and used up all the phosphorus? Global cooling froze all water? A careless alien janitor spilled a large amount of herbicide? A stupid industrial accident released a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere?
– AlexP
Nov 30 at 2:06
Not sure it's possible. Unless you have multiple conditions. I first thought of high levels of salt in the soil, but some plants thrive in the ocean or on its edges.
– Cyn
Nov 30 at 4:24
Nothing! Life always finds a way, that is the whole point of evolution. Your best bet would be to not have life evolve in the first place.
– nzaman
Nov 30 at 6:15
"No plant growth at all" means that the only possible life is simple chemosynthesizing microbes.
– RonJohn
Nov 30 at 6:16