Skip to main content

What would happen if the carbon cycle stopped?

Organic compounds like carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids all contain the element carbon. Carbon must cycle between the abiotic (non-living) and biotic (living) components within an ecosystem or that ecosystem would cease to function.


Consider carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Plants and algae take in carbon dioxide, along with sunlight and water and carry out photosynthesis. The carbon from the carbon dioxide is incorporated into a molecule known as glucose--(C6H12O6) which is produced by autotrophs like green plants.


Once glucose is produced in plant leaves, consumers can eat the plant to obtain energy. Meat-eaters can eat the plant-eater all the while transferring carbon from one consumer to the next in a food chain. However, through the processes of animal and plant respiration, carbon dioxide is released once again to the atmosphere as a waste product. 


As organisms die and decompose, carbon dioxide is produced and returns to the environment. Ancient partly decomposed plants that were buried under water became coal, and marine plankton remains that were buried became natural gas and oil over a long period of time. Coal, oil and gas are fossil fuels that contain carbon because they were derived from living organisms whose bodies contained carbon compounds. When combustion occurs, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.


Some carbon dioxide is absorbed into the oceans and after the processes of burial and compaction, it becomes a component of limestone which is calcium carbonate and may become incorporated into coral reefs.


To summarize- the carbon cycle is vital because carbon is present in important organic compounds found in living organisms. It must be able to cycle between the living and non-living portions of the ecosystem. Without adequate carbon the ecosystem would be unable to function.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.