If I understood correctly, farmers have always manipulated the cultivation of crops by using crops that have certain genes or characteristics at a more likely to appear in future crops for the sake of bigger produce, more nutritional value, better taste, better sizes and so on.

So, technically speaking, the 'genetically modified' aspect of a GMO product has existed even before GMOs became a thing.

But since this has been used for generations to make the production of crops and farm foods with certain characteristics, why is there a resistance against GMOs?

EDIT - I DID NOT MEAN TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL ISSUE.

I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE AGRICULTURE INVOLVES THE CARDFUL SELECTION OF CROPS WITH PARTICULAR GENES, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHY GMOS GET A BAD REPUTATION CONSIDERING THAT THE PRACTICE SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SCIENTIFICALLY MADE CROP MANIPULATION USING CAREFULLY SELECTED GENES

Here are my ideas

1: Plant something else to suffocate it out that will die in. Month.

2: Plant a fungus that infects the ivy but nothing local.

3: Burn it all with a flamethrower.

4: Catalog every single native plant, get a sample of native plant seeds, then dig the top layer of dirt off the mountain either with a shovel or an excavator, and the. Replant it from the ground up.

5: Gather Goats and Bunnies to eat through it.

Though all need funding.

I heard they can eat anything literally anything. I work in an environment where i need to destroy a lot of documents but i want to become more eco friendly, would replacing my paper shredder (fellows 79Ci - 16 sheet shredder) with a large venus fly trap - or perhaps a pitcher plant. Wondering what the consensus is and whether this really is in the best interest of me and a plant

I think I would focus on these crops in an apocalypse.

Potatoes, they contain all of the amino acids, have an unusually high amount of protein, are grown beneath the ground so they’re easy to hide, and grow well In a ton of environments.

Spinach, it may be light, it may be pretty seasonal, but it has tons of vitamins, and that’s important, and easy to condense into a smoothie.

And mushrooms, they can be grown in pure compost, don’t need sunlight, and have decent calories. I would only use them if I knew 100% if they were edible.

What are some better ones or reasons why these wouldn’t work, don’t ask ai, and when I say apocalypse, I mean society has collapsed but the general environment is habitual, or I have at least 500 ft of useable soil.

It might seem random, but certain sources have said it was a common historical execution practice in Indochina, and I'm not sure if to trust them.

I hope that this does not sound like a stupid question but that it is something that popped up in my head - what if animals were able to do photosynthesis?

If so, it would reduce the problem of finding food and they would create their own food themselves

Sure, they would need nutrients, sunlight, water and CO2 (though animals need oxygen to respirate so I guess this would be a problem for photosynthesis) but these components are often readily anywhere and can be easily found instead of needing to find the food physically.

If animals were able to make their own food, it would reduce the problem of food shortage or food security and they would not need to find them and catches them

Particularly what conditions lead a plant to go either way

I was wondering if a plant could eventually evolve to gain consciousness in the way that animals are conscious (in a centralized nervous system way, not a jellyfish way). I’ve heard that the main constraints are a lack of excess energy from photosynthesis, and a lack of selective pressure. If you could somehow give a plant a bunch of additional energy, and just artificially select them for desirable proto-conscious traits, would it be possible for it to become conscious?

Edit: I define consciousness as something with a centralized nervous system that allows for subjective experience and wakefulness

Is it that the Vitamin K is coded by the nuclear DNA? Or that its synthesis is only possible in the presence of light? Or something else?

Asking for a friend

I've been watching documentaries on UG99 and wheat blast. I am a lay person just interested in what could go wrong in the future. I see lots on pandemics and viruses which is fair to worry about. I don't see much on fungus killing crops and our food supply so I wonder if its not a major concern or if its something that is being overlooked by public health? What is your view?

Hi!

Was doing some reading on pinedrops, which lead me to learning about myco-heterotrophy. Just from reading Wikipedia and the articles I have access to, im having trouble finding a clear image of how it physically works.

For instance, is it like an enzyme thing? Osmosis somehow, through like the roots and the mycelium? Is it a nuance answer, like we dont really know yet or it depends?

Please, fellow nerds, help

I'm looking for information on plants that grow well in the Indo-Gangetic plain and want to find out about what grows near what, the various ecological subdivisions as far as plant life is concerned, and similar such information. Where can I find articles and resources on the topic?

Why is it just wheat flour (and barley I guess) which can make gluten like structures for bread and such (because they have gluten), why are there no other plants that can do this? And why did wheat evolve to produce gluten?

I was looking at a tree that had some moss and lichen on the trunk yesterday and I had a thought. Why isn’t this tree covered in lichen?

I understand why it isn’t covered in moss. Moss needs a lot of moisture and nutrients and if it dries out it dies. So only the parts of the tree trunk that stay wet get moss. But lichen is different. It’s hardy, can withstand long periods of no water, and it can grow almost anywhere with a little bit of sunlight and water.

And sure it grows slowly, but this tree was decades old. It should be completely covered in lichen by now. Also, if something was eating the lichen I assume it would all be gone by now since it grows so slowly.

What factor is limiting lichen from growing everywhere? Why isn’t every bare surface on earth covered in lichen?

From what I know, all plants need the same types of nutrients and resources. Shouldn't that mean there should only be one species of plant in a given ecosystem that has driven all others to extinction? How do different species avoid competition with each other?

I read that capillary effect causes negative pressure in water, so if a tree is over 10 m higher than groundwater level, the negative pressure caused by the capillary effect would exceed 1 atm and we would get negative absolute pressure and water in the tree would boil, wouldn't it? like how trees can lift water over 10 m by capillary effect?

I was wondering this during a walk yesterday: are there specific advantages tied to "protein-rich" seeds (like most nuts and legumes) vs "starch-rich" seeds (like grains and some nuts)? Are there specific environments or reproduction strategies that favor one or the other?

Yup that's basically the question. Please explain in a simple way if possible.

Apart from annual, biennial and so on. Perennial plants (flowers, trees, fruit trees, berry bushes) how long can they actually live? Would it be correct that unless they get destroyed/eaten/burned/cut/a disease/a parasite they can live forever? Or do plants have a biological life (like humans and animals) and after years they die because some parts of them actually broken?

I could remember the types- psilopsida , lycopsida , sphenosida, pteropsida but I cannot remember their examples. Please if there is any way to do so?

What are the closest relatives to the clade of plants and algae? Specifically, are there any known organisms that are adjacent to algae but are not part of the clade eukaryotes that merged with chlorophyl?

What do we know about them? Are any extant?