Stories tagged photosynthesis


C-MORE Group Blog Post

On October 2, 2012, the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education (C-MORE) hosted the Virtual Workshop on Science Writing as part of the Science Communication module for the Professional Development Training Program for graduate students and post-doctoral researchers. One of the activities for the workshop was to write a 350(+/-)-word blurb about their own research for a broader audience. We are excited to share some of these blog posts. Thanks for reading!

Life is tough: we live in a dog-eat-dog world, where it is every man for himself and those that prosper seem to be the smartest and the sneakiest. Life in the deep blue sea is similarly challenging: food is scarce, hiding places are few, and predators are always lurking in dark waters in search of a quick meal. However, all marine organisms are connected to one another through a network of feeding interactions called a food web. Marine food webs are whale-eat-plankton, squid-eat-shrimp, shark-eat-tuna kinds of places. All of these diverse organisms are engaged in an on-going arms race for survival.

So how do scientists know the structure of the marine food web? Who eats whom? Which organisms are the most important players in the web? What happens if human activity like large-scale fishing or trawling interrupts some of the links in the web? Anela Choy, a Ph.D. student studying Oceanography at the University of Hawaii, is trying to answer some of these very questions in Hawaiian waters. Traditional techniques like looking in the stomachs of marine organisms can be time-consuming, sample-intensive, and downright smelly. However, new biochemical tracers (e.g., stable isotopes, fatty acids and trace metals) are being used by Anela to elucidate food web connectivity. Ultimately, Anela hopes to shed new light in the dark ocean on understudied predator-prey relationships between deeper ocean animals and large marine fishes, many of which are commercially harvested at unsustainable levels.

Predator-prey interactions make up the backbone of a food web. While complex and confusing at times, the transfer of energy through these interactions allows for life to persist in the ocean. For example, without microscopic plankton there would be no large sharks – not because sharks dine regularly at the plankton salad bar but because plankton is food for small crustaceans called zooplankton, which are in turn food for small fishes, which then feed larger fishes that sharks eventually eat themselves. A change or break in any link of the food web ultimately means changes in the other links. A better understanding of marine food webs will provide a basis for ensuring that in an ever-changing ocean, people will still have access to fresh and delicious Hawaiian-caught fish for dinner!

Anela Choy is a Ph.D. graduate student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. You can read more about her research here.

On a November morning in Hawai’i, the ocean stretches out like a rippling sheet of glass before me – the surfers are surely disappointed, but it’s a perfect day for SCUBA diving. One hundred feet beneath the boat, colonies of “cauliflower” coral are clearly visible. As the name implies, they bear a striking resemblance to a certain hated vegetable. Once at depth, I’m amazed by the diversity of animals hiding in the reef – a startled octopus that immediately releases a cloud of ink, a moray eel defending his crevice, and even a pair of whitetip reef sharks resting in a shallow cave. But what about the corals themselves? They are as animated as rocks or trees. So, are corals animal, vegetable, or mineral?

The answer is that although corals are technically animals (so props to you if you guessed correctly!), they also have aspects that are “vegetable,” “mineral,” and perhaps most surprisingly, “microbial”. It has long been recognized that the coral harbors symbiotic algae (the “vegetable” part) that perform photosynthesis and pass most of the sugar products to the coral. Likewise, anyone who’s ever cut herself on a reef realizes that corals produce a hard skeleton (the “mineral” part). The “microbial” part of coral, invisible to the naked eye, has only received serious attention within the last decade.

But what a decade it’s been! Microbes on corals, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and a domain of life known as the Archaea, have been found to play essential roles in both coral health and disease. For instance, certain bacteria are now known to provide nutrients to the coral host. However, other microbial species cause the deadly White Band Disease, which has decimated the elkhorn and staghorn coral populations in the Caribbean. These are only a couple of examples of microbial activities on coral reefs – the fact is, there are hundreds of millions of microbes on each square centimeter of coral and we know next to nothing about them. Scientists have their work cut out for them – so stay tuned for updates from the world of corals and microbes!

Dr. Christine Shulse is a postdoctoral scholar with C-MORE at the University of Hawaii where she studies coral symbioses with marine bacteria. Read more about her research here.

How did life start on Earth? One idea is that organic molecules, the basic building blocks of life, were delivered to Earth by comet impacts. However, recent research at the University of Hawai’i suggests that organic molecules could be produced much closer to home, in craters at the Moon’s poles, as a natural result of exposing simple ices like water and CO2 to radiation from space.

The craters at the Moon’s poles are never exposed to sunlight, so temperatures in these craters can reach as low as 25 Kelvin (about -248 degrees Celsius), as measured by the Diviner instrument on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft. These permanently shadowed regions are cold enough to trap volatile compounds like water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and more from comets, asteroids, and the solar wind. These simple ices can combine to form complex organic molecules when they’re exposed to radiation—in fact, this is one process used to explain the presence of organic molecules on comets.

The Moon is constantly exposed to radiation from galactic cosmic rays, or energetic charged particles from outside the solar system. The only question is whether the trapped ices at the Moon’s poles are present long enough to acquire the high radiation doses that stimulate organic synthesis on comets, since the Moon’s tilt changes with time and today’s permanently shadowed regions probably weren’t cold enough to trap ices two billion years ago.

Researchers at the University of Hawaii used particle physics modeling to calculate the radiation dose received by ices at the lunar poles. In results submitted to the scientific journal Icarus, they discovered that the Moon’s cold traps could accumulate 36 eV per molecule of radiation over their two billion history—compared to only 10 eV per molecule required by chemists to stimulate organic synthesis in experiments.

These results suggest that organic molecules are not a rare resource in the inner solar system, delivered only by wayward comets. Instead, they could be continuously produced in craters on the Moon, Mercury, and asteroids, providing a wealth of ingredients from which life could have formed billions of years ago. If organics really are being produced at the Moon’s poles, it means that, as the closest place to Earth where we can study this process, the Moon would be a great natural laboratory for future robotic and human astrobiology missions to visit!

Sarah T. Crites is a Ph. D. student at the Hawaii Institute for Geophysics and Planetology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Similar to the way that a meteorologist predicts the weather, I predict the activity of phytoplankton (plant-like micro-organisms, or algae) in the ocean; I like to figure out where, when and how these cell-sized plants grow. I do this using numerical models. Some of these models are statistical (e.g., regression, correlation) or more mechanistic (e.g., fitting data to a specially shaped curve), while others are complex and deterministic (i.e., using fancy partial differential equations calculated over 3-dimensional domains).

Most recently, I have been able to investigate how phytoplankton interact and complement one another using a complex “trait-based model”. With this type of model, I first prescribe simple rules (or parameters) to each phytoplankton type: some types prefer lots of nutrients; some prefer low light conditions, etc. I put all of these different phytoplankton types into a model that simulates the tides and sloshing around of the ocean’s waters, watch the different phytoplankton types interact and compete for resources, and see where they end up (or “emerge”).

It turns out that the types that prefer nutrient-poor waters offshore may ultimately depend on those types that prefer growing in high nutrient coastal waters! All of these phytoplankton types together are called a community. Even though they are single-celled plant-like organisms, they grow and interact with one another in ways that parallel that of human communities. And like people, phytoplankton are complicated, their behaviors vary quite a bit, they come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes they can be very unpredictable! Despite the challenges of measuring and predicting phytoplankton populations in the ocean, our ecosystem model of the California Coastal System does a great job at capturing seasonal changes in the low productive offshore waters and high productive coastal waters, as shown in this video:

See video

Dr. Nicole Goebel is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Food webs are all around us: ant caravans carrying food, deer nibbling leaves, bats snapping insects, and squirrels crunching nuts. Open ocean food webs are harder to spot, because in the oceans, all the action is microscopic! Whales, sharks, tuna, and anchovy alike are all ultimately fed by phytoplankton, plants that are too small to see.

Land plants grow by adding leaves or thickening trunks. Phytoplankton have less storage space and can’t just keep growing bigger, so they behave differently. Consider a teabag in water; inside the bag are particles like phytoplankton cells. The tea itself is water and various dissolved compounds, like sugars, proteins, caffeine, and amino acids. During phytoplankton photosynthesis, some of the new organic carbon material they produce from carbon dioxide, using sunlight energy, stays within their cells (growth of particulate stuff, basically making more stuff in the teabag); some of the new material becomes dissolved compounds like sugars, proteins, fats, and amino acids. Just like terrestrial plants, phytoplankton are eaten by other organisms called zooplankton. These zooplankton don’t eat neatly and so some of each cell they try to eat is spilled and adds to the amount of dissolved compounds; we call this “sloppy feeding”. Think of a baby first learning to eat, sometimes as much gets on baby and parent as goes into the child!

We can certainly drink tea and use the dissolved compounds it contains (caffeine!), but many ocean organisms can’t use dissolved material, because they swim in water. If they drank the water to get the compounds dissolved in it, they would be trying to drink the ocean. So, the dissolved stuff from phytoplankton is available only to bacteria, because bacteria are small enough to get the dissolved amino acids, and proteins, and so on without taking in the water as well. The bacteria then turn some of those dissolved compounds back into carbon dioxide as they respire, and some of it they use to build new cell material. That cell material now in the bacteria is then big enough to attract the attention of the zooplankton, and so that dissolved stuff can be recycled back into the food web.

How much new organic material is usually produced? Is it mostly inside cells or outside the cells? As part of my work with the Hawaii Ocean Time-series program, I try to measure how much dissolved material is produced by phytoplankton photosynthesis, what percent of the total photosynthetic production that is, and also how fast the bacteria are growing. I want to know if these production rates change with seasons, or the amount of light, or the amount of nutrients present. I am also interested in how ocean acidification affects the amount of dissolved material produced. As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere and it finds its way into the oceans, does increased CO2 make the phytoplankton produce more organic matter, and if so, will that new material be in the tea or in the teabag?

Donn Viviani is a Ph.D. graduate student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. You can read more about his research here.

Leaning over the railing of our 40’ research vessel, I notice a tug on the thick blue rope serving as our fishing line. “I think we’ve got one!” I yell to the crew, "Get the tagging gear ready!” From over 1000 feet below the surface of the ocean, we haul a live, 10-foot sixgill shark onto the boat.

Sixgill sharks live on deep slopes of islands and continents, where divers cannot venture and light hardly penetrates. So, how can we find out anything about them? Well, Kevin Weng and his team at the University of Hawaii tag them with small sensors, which collect data such as depth, temperature, and light. The tags pop off at a preset date, so we don’t have to catch the shark twice to find out where it's been.

Using these tags, we’ve discovered that sixgill sharks cover a lot of "ground"! They are amazing divers, diving over 1000' each day. Horizontally, they can cross hundreds of miles of open ocean. Sixgills could be moving all around the Pacific, or even beyond! This could mean that distant populations of sixgills may be connected by movements and breeding, which might make them less susceptible to local fishing impacts. But even with large-scale geographic movements, sixgill sharks could still be in trouble. Some studies indicate rapid declines in sixgill shark populations over short time scales, potentially associated with fishing pressure. Deep sharks often grow and mature quite slowly, so it might take a long time to replenish a population. Learning where sharks go and how they use their habitat can help us locate important nursery areas, which need to be protected to ensure continued survival of the species.

Returning to the deck of our research vessel, it’s time to tag a shark. On the count of three, we insert the sensor under the tough layer of skin and set the shark free. She points her snout downwards and with two tail beats, is diving back to her dark, cold home far beneath the surface.

Christina Comfort recently completed her M.S. degree in Biological Oceanography this semester at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Each summer in the dark bottom waters off Louisiana, fish and crabs scatter to avoid suffocating in a 20,000 square kilometer dead zone. The Dead Zone is neither adjacent to the Twilight Zone nor crawling with zombies, but it does sit 70 miles southeast of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico. Hundreds of kilotons of nitrogen and phosphorous rich fertilizer runoff from the breadbasket of America drain in to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River, stimulating the growth of tiny aquatic plants (phytoplankton). These plants die and sink to the sea floor where bacteria devour the remains using oxygen in the process. It is this hypoxic (oxygen lacking) area that mobile animals flee from, searching for healthier waters.

What happens when there is no escape? What makes this low-oxygen layer a long-term threat? Don’t all those tiny plants make more than enough oxygen?

The answer to that is stratification: the sun-warmed, freshwater from the river sits on top of the salty, cold ocean water, due to density differences. The physical differences between the two water bodies prohibit movement of gases by creating a physical barrier called a pycnocline that prohibits oxygen from passing from the surface to the bottom. Beneath the pycnocline any oxygen produced is devoured rapidly with every microbial bite.

Yet, something in the dark survives, because the Dead Zone isn’t really “dead.” The Mississippi River’s persistent plunge to the sea has gone on for a thousand years and a hardy community of invertebrates has learned to thrive under these harsh conditions. In 2005, the passage of Hurricane Katrina threw the entire ecosystem for a loop. The physical havoc wreaked on the seafloor opened the door for a whole new set of invertebrates to move in and take over, but they could not adapt to the low oxygen levels ensuring a summer massacre on the sea floor. They just didn’t have the decades of adaptations to sit calmly in the dark and wait out the long rain of dead plants and wait for fall storms to mix oxygen back into the bottom layer.

Climate change is going to impact coastal ecosystems in many unexpected ways. Systems that function admirably under environmental stress can be devastated by the unexpected. The Dead Zone might soon resemble the horrifying corpse-ridden wasteland that its name suggests.

Dr. Clifton Nunnally is a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Hawaii.

The wind blowing over the ocean does not only produce surface waves that are enjoyed by surfers, but it also generates waves that propagate from the surface towards the deep ocean. For that reason, this type of wave is called “internal wave” or “internal swell” in an analogy to the surface waves people see on the beach.

The ocean can be thought of as composed of an infinite amount of thin layers of same density or temperature (“stratified”). Internal waves displace these layers up and down as they move from the surface to the deep. Because of this, researchers have long recognized breaking internal waves as key factors in controlling the amount of mixing between warmer near-surface waters and colder deeper waters.

The amount of mixing occurring in the interior of the ocean, which depends strongly on the energy of the internal waves, has important implications to Earth’s climate and its understanding remains as one of the biggest conundrums in climate science. For instance, it is still unclear how much of the wind energy is converted to internal waves, let alone how much of the wave’s energy is used for mixing in the deep ocean. Therefore it is important to map and quantify the sources of internal swells.

Similar to surf waves, most of the internal swell energy in the ocean has been known to originate from winter storms near the Westerlies region. However, researchers at the University of Hawaii suggest that powerful internal swells may be regularly generated in the tropics, more specifically off the coast of Central America.

In this region, an atmospheric phenomenon called the Easterly Wave is responsible for blowing strong winds over the ocean, repeating itself every 3 to 7 days with such perfect timing as to generate energetic, near-inertial (because their frequency is close to that of the Earth’s rotation) internal waves. Because of the particularly strong stratification of this part of the ocean, most of this energy inputted by the wind is carried away downward as big internal swells. Thus, the Easterly Wave can be a viable source of energy for mixing in the deep ocean, or for surfers to find the biggest waves yet, if only they could catch internal waves!

Saulo Soares is a Ph.D. graduate student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

With our bodies bent at the waist, leaning dangerously over the rail, we watch in anticipation as the Secchi disk twirls in the purplish blue waters near Easter Island. The round, black-and-white plastic disk has been providing measurements of water clarity since its invention in 1865. The white sections of the disk flicker as sunlight penetrates to an astounding depth of 236 ft. Who lives down below, and how do they live?

Since phytoplankton use sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water to make their cells, one might think that the phytoplankton in this region would be happy campers. But phytoplankton, much like land plants, also need nutrients to make proteins, nucleic acids, and other cell parts for reproduction. Even though the South Pacific Gyre is full of light, it is one of the most “oligotrophic” (low nutrient) waters in the world. My goal during this expedition was to investigate the identities of a group of really small phytoplankton that have adapted to low-nutrient conditions, and to determine whether some species prefer to live in specific light levels at different depths in the ocean.

To obtain a census of the photosynthetic inhabitants of this region, I collect and filter about half a gallon of seawater from different depths onto a small filter membrane. Each filter is barely an inch wide, but contains ~3 million cells of my study organisms. When I'm back on land, the cells on the filter are extracted for DNA, molecules comprising genetic instructions for cell development. A specific gene (18S ribosomal RNA) in this extracted DNA is isolated using coding markers, and is compared to genes from other cells collected around the world. If I find matches, I will know that either the same, or related, phytoplankton species are living in certain regions of the world ocean. I can then piece together a larger picture, linking the types of phytoplankton to their environmental characteristics such as light intensity and nutrient concentrations.

With every expedition, one gene at a time, I am able to zoom into the life of the phytoplankton that make their home in the clearest ocean water on Earth.

Shimi Rii is a Ph.D. graduate student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She hosted the C-MORE Virtual Workshop on Science Writing.


Aren’t budgets all about money? Don’t they track how many $$$ come in and how many $$$ go out?

That’s right; so what’s a carbon budget? A carbon budget tracks how much carbon, C, goes in and out of a natural area.

Right now, we’re worried about too much C going into our planet’s atmosphere. This excess C is causing global warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification and other environmental problems. These are BIG problems! We can begin to fix these problems if we do a carbon budget and really know how much carbon is where.

Carbon Budget Study Area: How much carbon is in the shallow, coastal seawater?
Carbon Budget Study Area: How much carbon is in the shallow, coastal seawater?Courtesy Sergio Signorini, North American Carbon Program
Along with others, scientists at the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research & Education (C-MORE), based at the University of Hawai`i, have begun to track C in the ocean off the eastern United States. The study area includes a LOT of water! -- all the seawater from high tide out to 500 meters deep, shown by the black line in the map, in the Gulf of Maine (GoM), the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB), and the South Atlantic Bight (SAB.)

Imagine your money budget. Let’s say we track your $$$ in and out of 4 categories. Money comes into your pocket from 2 categories, mowing the neighbor’s lawn and babysitting. Money goes out when you pay for movies and snacks.

In the same way, scientists want to track C as it moves between the coastal water “pocket” and 4 nearby areas: the coastal land, the atmosphere above, seafloor below, and the deeper ocean offshore. Where is C leaving the coastal water? Where is it entering?

But wait! Coastal zones are only small slivers of water, compared to the open ocean around the world. Why bother to track carbon in coastal waters?

Ah ha! Coastal waters are very important in C budgeting. Notice the red color in the map above. Red means there's a lot of chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is the green pigment important in photosynthesis, the process that plants use to take in C and fix it as sugar. The red in the map shows that coastal waters are richer in carbon than the open ocean.

Understanding the C budget of coastal waters is one small but important step in solving global warming and other environmental problems.

Reference: Ocean Carbon & Biogeochemistry Winter 2010 OCB Newsletter; Vol. 3, No. 1.


Elysia chlorotica: You think you're so special, don't you?
Elysia chlorotica: You think you're so special, don't you?Courtesy lauredhel
Some of you may already know my feelings on mollusks. In short, I’m against them.

It’s not that I necessarily want them all exterminated, or anything. It’s just that mollusks, with their tentacles and beaks and pseudopodia and large brains, freak my Schmidt out. And I tend to live under a “you’re either with us or against us” credo, and mollusks obviously aren’t “with us.” (They aren’t with me, anyway. Frankly, most things aren’t.)

But I get by. I know that there are mollusks out there, doing… I don’t know what. Probably something utterly horrible. But we leave each other alone, and more or less leave it at that. It’s a workable arrangement.

Now and again, however, a mollusk stretches its squishy neck out and, by its very existence, makes cracks in the already fragile JGordon/Mollusca peace. It’s like the cold war, really—if one side does something strange, or develops a fantastic new piece of technology, the other side gets a little nervous. So, naturally, I’m a little cagey about this news:

There’s a marine slug (a mollusk, of course, that feeds itself through photosynthesis.

Are you kidding me? I’m all, “I think I’ve got chronic anxiety!” and this lousy slug is like, “That’s too bad. Also, I feed myself with sunlight.” I can’t even get groceries because my car battery died (there’s a very scary tree near my bus stop, so that’s out), and this little jerk is a phototroph. If I had laser eyes, or something, the situation would be a little more balanced, but last time I checked I didn’t have laser eyes.

I have to give it to the slug, though—it’s a pretty neat trick. Early in its approximately one-year-long lifecycle, the slug eats some photosynthetic algae. From that point on, the slug is photosynthetic; it feeds itself by using sunlight to convert CO2 and water into sugar, just like plants do. What’s more, the photosynthesis isn’t being performed by algae inside the slug (some organisms, like lichen contain algae, which feeds them). The slug itself has genes for photosynthesis, and the photosynthesizing genes from the algae are just required to kick-start the slug’s own abilities. And then, BAM, a photosynthetic animal.

The leaf-shaped slug, which lives in salty swamps in Eastern Canada and grows to be about an inch long, is remarkable not only for its photosynthetic abilities, but also for something unique in the process written above. Getting those kick-starting genes from the algae requires gene transfer. Passing genes from one species to another is a rare and complicated thing, but some microscopic, single-celled organisms have been known to do it. This is the first time gene transfer has been observed between two multi-cellular organisms (the slug and the algae, of course).

Aside from being, well, just sort of weird, the slug’s gene transferring abilities might turn out to be useful in the future of gene therapy, where new genes are inserted into cells to combat diseases. A practical application whatever transferring mechanism the slug and algae use is a long way off, though. And, anyway, I’ll be damned if I ever use anything that came from a mollusk.


An environmentalist's dream: The rat-filled cans are too small to see in this picture.
An environmentalist's dream: The rat-filled cans are too small to see in this picture.Courtesy steven.buss
Here at Science Buzz, we sometimes have what might seem like a Through the Looking Glass attitude towards Earth Day and environmentalism. I, for one, litter filthy old cans all over my yard, comfortable in the knowledge that these cans will provide wonderful little shelters for the population of rats in my neighborhood. Sort of counter-intuitive, huh? Well check this out: after I get rats living in those cans, I’m going to use highly toxic chemicals to poison the little suckers in their homes. I will then plant sunflower seeds in my dead rat filled cans. So litter + poison + patience = a beautiful garden + delicious sunflower seeds.

Sophisticated environmentalism can be complicated like that.

It feels good though, doesn’t it? A little weird, but good.

Here’s another one (and this one comes from scientists who published in the journal Nature, not just from, you know, me):
Air pollution is fighting global warming!

Say what? We thought global warming was caused by air pollution.

Yes, but… think back to flowers growing from cans of dead rats. It’s like that, kind of.

See, yes, air pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (and other gases, but we’re dealing with CO2 here) is warming the planet. But CO2 isn’t the only junk we’re burping up into the atmosphere. Think about the grey brown haze you see over some big cities. Co2 is invisible, so what’s that stuff? Some of the chemicals we put into the atmosphere have the effect of absorbing sunlight, or reflecting it back into space. Some particles form the nucleus of water droplets in clouds, and cause the same amount of water in a cloud to be spread out among a much larger number of droplets, and more droplets cause light to be reflected and scattered more. It’s all part a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “global dimming”.

Some scientists believe that “global dimming” has had the effect of partially masking global warming; we aren’t as warm as we might otherwise be for the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because a significant amount of solar energy has been prevented from reaching the Earth by other pollutants. So there’s that.

The Nature article, however, focuses on something else entirely. While many people might assume that plants have a harder time growing in our pollution-dimmed world, it turns out that they actually seem to grow better under a hazy blanket of pollution. The light-scattering effect of many air pollutants actually causes light to reach more plant leaves. So more photosynthesis is taking place under this diffused light than under direct sunlight. That means that plants are growing more, and growing plants suck up more carbon dioxide.

The scientists behind the study estimate that global dimming could be responsible for as much as a one quarter increase in plant productivity from 1960 to 1999, causing a 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land.

This also means that as we have stricter air pollution controls, the rate of global warming probably won’t decrease as much as we’d have thought—there’d be less CO2 in the air, but because other pollutants would be reduced as well plants would be less productive, and suck up less of the CO2 that is released.

Well, shucks.


An early Hawaii-area triviashipman: Hopefully this triviashipman will come to a better end. I've tried to be courteous to the locals, at least.
An early Hawaii-area triviashipman: Hopefully this triviashipman will come to a better end. I've tried to be courteous to the locals, at least.Courtesy Artmechanic
The Puddleduck has crossed the Pacific! They said it couldn’t be done. But they also said that double-stuff Oreos would fail, and they said that Wham! would never play in China, and they said that Dances With Wolves could never win an Academy Award.

So here we are, on the northern tip of Polynesia, getting ready to answer some random questions.

How did I get random questions? Pff. Duh. I took them with me, of course. I never go anywhere without a few extra randoms, even if it means leaving my anti-psychotics out of my backpack for the extra space.

Man the guns, Buzzketeers! Random questions to port! Let us rake them to Swiss cheese, and send them to Davey Jones. (As answers.)

Elise asks: Are polar bears really bears?

Heck yeahs, Elise, polar bears is bears alright. The polar bear belongs to the family ursidae, just like all other bears. It is a pretty unique bear, though, so I can see how the confusion might arise. Polar bears, along with Kodiak bears (they’re big brown bears), are the largest meat-eating land animals. They’re also sometimes considered to be “marine mammals.” When you think about other marine mammals, like whales, seals, and dolphins, that might sound pretty weird, because bears seem pretty different from all of them. Polar bears, however, are excellent swimmers, and they spend months every year living on sea-ice, far away from land.

But, yeah. Polar bears are indeed bears.

Anonymous asks: Do they still say, “Ontology recapitulates phylogeny”?

Swab! Load! Ram! Spark the touchhole!
Um, no, they don’t. Sometimes they say, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” but for the most part nobody says stuff like that. I mean… are you serious? You could have asked about naked mole rats, and this is what you came up with? Shhh… I think I hear your old professor calling. She says that class has been really quiet since you left. Better go fix that.

Anonymous 2 asks: Why does poop smell?

Blam! Direct hit! I think we decapitated someone with that!
See? This is what I’m talking about! Sure, this is a joke question… but so was the last one, and at least this is an answer we can take to the bank. Why, when we eat delicious smelling foods, does poop smell so… bad?

It’s because after we eat food, as we digest it, bacteria inside our bodies help break that food down into other materials we can use for energy, or to build our bodies. But when bacteria do this, they also produce chemicals that don’t smell great. Some of them smell really bad! A lot of the worst smelling chemicals—the ones that make farts so gross too—contain the element sulfur, like the gas hydrogen sulfide, or the chemicals indole and skatole. Skatole smells so bad that its name comes from the Greek word for poop: “skato.” The food we eat can also change the smell of out poop. Undigested spices can show up in the odor, and sometimes eating lots of meat can make it smell worse too.

Lots of animals don’t really mind the smell of poop, but people probably think its bad because having too much contact with poop can make us sick (it can have some pretty bad germs). When we smell that smell, we know it’s something we should probably avoid for our own health.

Annika (with the help of a parent) asks: Why do blue leaves not grow?

Good question, Annika. We have blue flowers sometimes, but leaves are usually green. Why? We have to go a couple steps back to get a good answer, I think.

Plants grow with the help of sunlight. They absorb air (or carbon dioxide from the air) and use the energy in sunlight to turn that air into more plant material. “Photosynthesis” is the fancy word for this. Plants use a green chemical called Chlorophyll, and that gives plants their green color. When white sunlight (remember, white light is made up of all colors of light) hits those leaves, the leaves reflect green light back to our eyes, but they absorb all the other colors of light, especially red and blue light. The energy in that light can then be used to help the plant grow.

Oh, man, those questions have been mutilated! I’ve got a thirst for blood now. Let’s sail on, and see which questions are foolish enough to fall into the range of our science cannons. So, until next time…

PS—It’s still Easter in Hawaii right now, by the way, so Happy Easter. (If that’s your thing.) I’m afraid JGordon is alone this Easter, but don’t get too concerned. I’ve got plans. I’m going to spin around until I almost throw up, and then I’m going to take a basket of eggs and scatter them wherever I happen to stagger. When I get my equilibrium back, I’ll go try to find the eggs. It shouldn’t be so hard—the eggs will certainly be uncooked, and the whole thing will take place in an empty parking lot.