As others have said, the size of roots is pretty directly tied to the size of foliage. Roots store energy(calories) in case something happens to the foliage or sunlight is low. The more energy they can take in, the more storage they need, as well as the stability that larger plants need from larger roots.
But how do you keep feeding the larger roots if the photosynthetic engines have giving them energy have been damn near removed?
Hm, this doesn’t fit. You are saying the roots store energy in case the foliage is lost, then saying the roots can’t exist without the foliage. Which is it?
I get that they are energy storage. So the foliage in all plants must generate an excess of energy to fill the storage. That should mean that once the storage is full, extra energy can be spent to extend the roots, then fill with energy, rinse repeat.
It makes perfect sense. When the foliage is cut, it takes energy to regrow it. If there’s not enough greens or sunlight for photosynthesis to account for the plant’s total needs, it will draw those nutrients from the roots into the rest of the plant.
And there’s a whole lot of other things going on in the soil around roots as well. For example the interrelationships between plants and microbes has a tendency to start with the roots exuding sugars into the soil in order to attract those microbes. And that’s just a start. I think it’s really interesting stuff. If you wanna learn more, Regenerative Soil by Matt Powers is a fantastic book on the subject.
It is really interesting stuff. But it doesn’t explain why the roots can’t be bigger. You can take a small power source and charge a big battery or a small battery. It just takes longer for the big battery.
Well, to some degree it might be possible to selectively breed plants to prioritize root production a little more. I’m not sure to what extent that’s feasible though. You also have to understand, plants have evolved to actively want to be as big as possible. If you’re a small plant, your neighbor is more likely to grow larger than you, which blocks the sun from getting to you, which will cause you to die. So trying to make plants smaller in and of itself has ecological risks. Or at the very least, such naturally short lawns would be a lot more susceptible to weed encroachment.
I see that as a good thing. It’s like a check against uncontrolled spread. They would lose in natural competition. But a lawn of today already would. Yet the deeper roots would be good for the soil, flood control, drought management. Probably just not enough profit in the idea though.
Context is important. I grew up on 5 acres of pretty wild land so the lawn around the house was anything but fucking stupid.
Gave kids a place to play in view of the big windows in the house, was a very very small part of the overall land. A small maintained area is a very good thing to have access to. But so was the wildness behind it
In more suburban or urban environments is a completely different discussion I will grant you
Because releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild can have absolutely disastrous consequences on an ecosystem. I think there are cases where the benefits are worth the risks, but pretty lawn is not one of them. Might be nice in the future when we have a better grasp on what we’re doing.
Thats a great talking point, but it is BS. Humans have been genetically modifying organsims through selective breeding for millenia. Any animal or plant you eat is nothing like it natural origin.
Yes, the point I was replying to was basically referring to unintended runaway modifications that could be disastrous like horror movie level. Chickens that can’t walk is not runaway because… well they can’t run, lol, so they also can’t breed. If humans died tomorrow, thoses chickens wouldn’t be far off.
That said, I support lab grown meat research. So we can stop with the chickens that can’t walk. But that won’t save the dogs that can barely breath due to selective breeding.
When you said “modify the DNA”, I thought you were referring to genetic modification in a laboratory, which is capable of enacting dramatic change in a single generation, including unintentional changes. Selective breeding enacts mild iterative changes over a long period of time, and is therefore much less risky.
Why is it someone hasn’t modified the dna of grass to give us one that has both deep roots and works like lawn grass on top.
As others have said, the size of roots is pretty directly tied to the size of foliage. Roots store energy(calories) in case something happens to the foliage or sunlight is low. The more energy they can take in, the more storage they need, as well as the stability that larger plants need from larger roots.
But how do you keep feeding the larger roots if the photosynthetic engines have giving them energy have been damn near removed?
Hm, this doesn’t fit. You are saying the roots store energy in case the foliage is lost, then saying the roots can’t exist without the foliage. Which is it? I get that they are energy storage. So the foliage in all plants must generate an excess of energy to fill the storage. That should mean that once the storage is full, extra energy can be spent to extend the roots, then fill with energy, rinse repeat.
It makes perfect sense. When the foliage is cut, it takes energy to regrow it. If there’s not enough greens or sunlight for photosynthesis to account for the plant’s total needs, it will draw those nutrients from the roots into the rest of the plant.
And there’s a whole lot of other things going on in the soil around roots as well. For example the interrelationships between plants and microbes has a tendency to start with the roots exuding sugars into the soil in order to attract those microbes. And that’s just a start. I think it’s really interesting stuff. If you wanna learn more, Regenerative Soil by Matt Powers is a fantastic book on the subject.
It is really interesting stuff. But it doesn’t explain why the roots can’t be bigger. You can take a small power source and charge a big battery or a small battery. It just takes longer for the big battery.
Well, to some degree it might be possible to selectively breed plants to prioritize root production a little more. I’m not sure to what extent that’s feasible though. You also have to understand, plants have evolved to actively want to be as big as possible. If you’re a small plant, your neighbor is more likely to grow larger than you, which blocks the sun from getting to you, which will cause you to die. So trying to make plants smaller in and of itself has ecological risks. Or at the very least, such naturally short lawns would be a lot more susceptible to weed encroachment.
I see that as a good thing. It’s like a check against uncontrolled spread. They would lose in natural competition. But a lawn of today already would. Yet the deeper roots would be good for the soil, flood control, drought management. Probably just not enough profit in the idea though.
deleted by creator
I doubt think it’s a DNA problem, the amount of roots depends on the amount of leaves.
So keeping the grass short keeps the roots sorry as well
But why? Roots act as energy storage, so once full, grow more. Not full stop. That should lead to pretty decent roots.
There are prairie grass stains that have very deep roots. Not sure how they act as a replacement for typical lawns but they exist already
Because lawns are fucking stupid.
Context is important. I grew up on 5 acres of pretty wild land so the lawn around the house was anything but fucking stupid.
Gave kids a place to play in view of the big windows in the house, was a very very small part of the overall land. A small maintained area is a very good thing to have access to. But so was the wildness behind it
In more suburban or urban environments is a completely different discussion I will grant you
That, and I can’t help that my brain is wired to enjoy looking at a well kept lawn. It just is. Though I also like forest. Wish I could have both.
Because releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild can have absolutely disastrous consequences on an ecosystem. I think there are cases where the benefits are worth the risks, but pretty lawn is not one of them. Might be nice in the future when we have a better grasp on what we’re doing.
Thats a great talking point, but it is BS. Humans have been genetically modifying organsims through selective breeding for millenia. Any animal or plant you eat is nothing like it natural origin.
And they also have plenty of issues.
And yet, not disastrous.
Sure. The chickens that we get from Costco that can’t walk on their own isn’t disastrous to me. Especially since I don’t eat them.
But I get your point.
The chickens that we’ve modified to not walk on their own have not yet blown up our world so we accept their mutation.
Yes, the point I was replying to was basically referring to unintended runaway modifications that could be disastrous like horror movie level. Chickens that can’t walk is not runaway because… well they can’t run, lol, so they also can’t breed. If humans died tomorrow, thoses chickens wouldn’t be far off.
That said, I support lab grown meat research. So we can stop with the chickens that can’t walk. But that won’t save the dogs that can barely breath due to selective breeding.
When you said “modify the DNA”, I thought you were referring to genetic modification in a laboratory, which is capable of enacting dramatic change in a single generation, including unintentional changes. Selective breeding enacts mild iterative changes over a long period of time, and is therefore much less risky.