Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Do different star types produce plants with different properties?

+0
−0

From this chart it appears that the star types closest to our own are K-type (oranger, a little cooler, and less than half as bright) and F-type (bluer, a little warmer, and much brighter). If I want to place an "earth-like" planet around one of these star types, how should I expect plant life on my planet to develop differently compared to Earth?

By "earth-like" I mean a planet that has temperature, terrain, water, and atmosphere conducive to the development of higher life forms (eventually sentient ones). How does the star type affect the appearance, growth, types, density, etc of plants? Should one star type lead to denser (or sparser) jungles, taller (or shorter) trees, different kinds of fruits, etc?

I think this question is related. I don't know enough chemistry to say how related, though.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

Let's think about this in terms of peak emission. Wien's displacement law tells us that the peak emission wavelength of a black body, $\lambda_{\text{max}}$, is inversely proportional to its temperature, $T$: $$\lambda_{\text{max}}=\frac{b}{T}$$ where $b$ is Wien's displacement constant; $b\simeq2.9\times10^{-3}\text{ m K}$. Using this and some assumptions about temperature, we can determine the peak of a star's spectrum, given that most stars are well-approximated as black bodies. Here, we assume that $T$ is the star's effective temperature, and pick a temperature in the general range of each type. I'm going to use the Harvard spectral classification. $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \text{Star type} & \text{Color} & T (\text{K}) & \lambda_{\text{max}}(\text{nm})\\ \hline \text{O} & \text{blue} & 35,000 & 82.9\\ \hline \text{B} & \text{blue-white} & 20,000 & 145\\ \hline \text{A} & \text{white} & 8,000 & 363\\ \hline \text{F} & \text{yellow-white} & 7,000 & 414\\ \hline \text{G} & \text{yellow} & 5,500 & 527\\ \hline \text{K} & \text{orange} & 4,000 & 725\\ \hline \text{M} & \text{red} & 3,000 & 967\\ \hline \end{array}$$ Next, we have to assume that the plants are somewhat like the ones found on Earth - they use the same compounds and processes to survive. Life on Earth is all that currently exists in our dataset, and it's all we have to work with before delving into too much speculation.

One important process is photosynthesis. There are a variety of photosynthetic pigments available. I was able to find a book chapter detailing many of them along with their key property here, the wavelength(s) of maximum absorption $\lambda_{\text{abs}}$. Here's a table of the relevant ones: $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|} \hline \text{Pigment} & \lambda_{\text{abs}}(\text{nm}) & \text{Occurrence}\\ \hline \text{Chlorophyll a} & 435, 670\text{-6}80 & \text{Photosynthetic plants}\\ \hline \text{Chlorophyll b} & 480, 650 & \text{Higher plants; green algae}\\ \hline \text{Chlorophyll c} & 435, 645 & \text{Diatoms; brown algae}\\ \hline \text{Chlorophyll d} & 435, 740 & \text{Red algae}\\ \hline \text{Chlorobium chlorophyll} & 750, 760 & \text{Green bacteria}\\ \hline \text{Bacteriochlorophyll a} & 800, 850, 890 & \text{Purple bacteria; green bacteria}\\ \hline \text{Bacteriochlorophyll b} & 435, 740 & \text{Rhodopseudomonas (a purple bacterium)}\\ \hline \alpha\text{-Carotene} & 420, 440, 470 & \text{Leaves; red algae; green algae}\\ \hline \beta\text{-Carotene} & 425, 450, 480 & \text{Most other plants}\\ \hline \gamma\text{-Carotene} & 440, 460, 495 & \text{Green sulfur bacteria}\\ \hline \text{Luteol} & 425, 445, 475 & \text{Green leaves; green algae; red algae}\\ \hline \text{Violaxanthol} & 425, 450, 475 & \text{Leaves}\\ \hline \text{Fucoxanthal} & 425, 450, 475 & \text{Diatoms; brown algae}\\ \hline \text{Spirilloxanthal} & 464, 490, 524 & \text{Purple bacteria}\\ \hline \text{Phycoerythrins} & 490, 546, 576 & \text{Red algae; some blue-green algae}\\ \hline \text{Phycocyanins} & 618 & \text{Blue-green algae; some red algae}\\ \hline \text{Allophycocyanin} & 654 & \text{Blue-green algae; red algae}\\ \hline \end{array}$$ The Sun's $\lambda_{\text{max},\odot}$ is in the neighborhood of $500\text{ nm}$, landing it smack in the middle of all these pigments - as would be expected. I have some immediate observations:

  • Many pigments have favorable absorption in the $\sim420\text{-}500\text{ nm}$ range, near $\lambda_{\text{max},\odot}$.
  • There are a couple other peaks, from $618\text{-}680\text{ nm}$, $740\text{-}760\text{ nm}$, and $800\text{-}890\text{ nm}$. These are mainly due to pigments used by certain types of bacteria.

It stands to reason that if $\lambda_{\text{max},\odot}$ was somewhere else, different pigments would dominate. So let's add a couple columns to our first table: $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \text{Star type} & \lambda_{\text{max}}(\text{nm}) & \text{Possible dominant pigments} & \text{Possible dominant plants}\\ \hline \text{O} & 82.9 & \text{?} & \text{Algae}\\ \hline \text{B} & 145 & \text{?} & \text{Algae}\\ \hline \text{A} & 363 & \text{Miscellaneous algal pigments} & \text{Green and brown algae; some red algae}\\ \hline \text{F} & 414 & \text{Chlorophylls} & \text{Higher plants; green, brown and red algae}\\ \hline \text{G} & 527 & \text{Chlorophylls} & \text{Higher plants; blue-green algae}\\ \hline \text{K} & 725 & \text{Bacteriochlorophylls} & \text{Purple bacteria; green bacteria; blue-green algae}\\ \hline \text{M} & 967 & \text{Bacteriochlorophylls} & \text{Purple bacteria; green bacteria}\\ \hline \end{array}$$ I've stated that algae would be the most likely plants on planets orbiting O- and B- type stars. This has nothing to do with pigments; rather, it is because these stars are so short-lived that multicellular life would have a hard time developing there. In fact, age may impact the types of life you would see across the board. More massive stars have less time for higher life to develop and so probably won't lead to complicated, multicellular life.

I still have to agree, at least in part, with Ville Niemi's answer. It's clear that plenty of different pigments exist on Earth, and there's no reason to think we wouldn't see even others on an alien world around a different star. However, in drastic enough cases (especially with M-dwarfs and O and B stars), there likely would be major shifts in the dominant pigments. Perhaps new ones would develop, and I can't speculate on those. I can, though, tell you which ones would gain some slight advantages. So maybe view this answer as saying "Well, maybe [X, Y, Z]" rather than something definitive, especially given that I'm no expert.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »