471
GTFO
(mander.xyz)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
The air is full of nitrogen with trace amounts of carbon. The soil is rich in carbon but nitrogen poor. Plants draw carbon from the air and nitrogen from the soil.
Is there a reason for this? Like, just a fluke of evolution, or is it just not as bioavailable from the opposite source?
Calling it a fluke is kind of missing the point. Plants that where/are better at making use of the atmosphere as it is, will be the ones that thrive. If the atmosphere was different, different plants would exist.
I responded in more detail above, but you've actually got it backwards.
Our atmosphere is the result of plant evolution; not plant evolution a response. There were (and to an extent are) plants that evolved in a different atmosphere. And they almost all got wiped the fuck out once oxygen photosynthesis evolved. Many plants and bacteria still keep the hardware and software around for doing this work, but its way fucking trickier than it used to be, because oxygen.