The issue of plantlife has been discussed at:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11541

However, since I find the idea of possible current biology fascinating, esp. with the recent discovery of methane, I try to see if new published images offer any clues to possible biology.

The ESA released a new image of 'Louros Valles'.
The area of interest is viewable at:
http://www.geocities.com/cuboctahedr...urosvalles.htm


On mars, soil properties in general usually tend to have recognizable 'wasteland' features depicting hilltops, rocks,shadows, peaks,crators,canyons,cracks,trenches,pits, etc, leaving clear markings on surface images. The magnified area looks as if 'algea' grows on top of such markings, thus covering it, and 'hiding' these 'wasteland' contours.

I am interested in any opinion or thought on this matter.

greetings
Patrick

Before I post anything I'd just like to wave my Mr. Ignorant flag :P, but the lack of water or water vapour would seem to rule out plant life - a more plausible explanation is the oxidisation of some surface material? Besides, the ESA pictures I've seen from Mars Express seem to have an overly green tint to them as well.

[edit]as for the blur, at the distance these objects are being viewed I doubt the clarity is good enough to determine whether a thin layer of something would be covering large features. Face on Mars anyone?[/edit]

__________________
"Bessie Braddock to Churchill "Winston, your drunk!"
Churchill: "Bessie, you're ugly, and tomorrow morning I shall be sober""
the solar system

If there was a lot of green plantlife at the surface, then we would expect to see O2 in the atmosphere. Where is it?

Also, the issue of color calibration has been raised in other threads for these images.

On the other hand, the methane could be due to bacteria living beneath the surface.

I think some kind of rock eating bacteria is more likely than chorophyll producing plants.

- Water does appear on mars (see many topics related to streaks). Another potential clue for water (lake) could be:
http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20040422a.html

- Presence of methane, the big riddle at the moment, could be accounted for due to current biology, esp with absence of any vulcanic activity. This puts the role of potential biology in a different daylight.
- other images (see link mentioned earlier) show characteristics of possible vegetation, though not proven.
(e.g. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1109.pdf)

About the image color: again that's another topic, but not central in this thread anyhow; many discussions on that already; although it has to be noted that anything that's appears to be green apparently had been mis-calibrated somehow, yet a color even my cheap cell-phone-imager seems to visualize properly anytime.

- It wasn't mentioned that there was 'A LOT' of green plantlife; in addition preferably vegetation as opposed to plantlife.
- O2 gets produced, amongst other things, in oceans, which mars hasn't got any of.

At a particular zoom-level: If terrain objects still appear sharp with regard to the magnification of the image, on the surface-image, uncovered with these potential vegetation, and on the other part surface image features covered with (possible) vegetation make the surface look furby, thus removing/covering the surface contours, photographical 'blur' doesn't account for these differences you mention. Moreover there is no blur.

I was hoping this thread would appeal to more, esp. since it involved possible vegetation.

Isn't there any opinion about the ESA image that either strenghtens or debunks the topic about possible algea/vegetation?

No, it's the same subject. And your cheap cell-phone imagers dosen't visualize properly anytime.

I recently bought a mid-range digital camera, a lot better camera then any camera on a cell phone.

Here are two images i took SECONDS and mere feet from each other....





Now tell me what color the wall is behind the flowers....

(And yes, it's the same wall with uniform color, the two bunches of flowers are about 3 feet apart. If I managed a shot with both types of flowers in it, I imagine the wall would appear a third color. Unfortunately the flowers aren't blooming anymore)

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

It is not the same subject. Color is not the issue.
Please skip the color, as part of this topic. I am more interested in the appearance of the 'bad-calibrated-green-colored' features of the image. (let it in reality be grey or purple...)

For what it's worth, I find the pictures interesting (did anyone else even bother to look at them?). Not enough information to come to any conclusions, mind you, but I sure would like a closer look.

It is hard to dismiss the color aspect from your argument, because the surface morphology you've picked out is hardly unique to Louros Valles. Would you truly have flagged it if the pseudocolor had been grey or red instead of green?

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

Any color (green,grey,red etc.) that 'shows out' with regards to the main soil color of the images gets noted. If the color was approx. the same color as the soil it would than indeed be harder to notice, and there probably wouldnt be a topic about it, at least not one I would have initiated. Yet the coloring is different.

Since I than looked at the image, I became interested in the 'furby'-like features, which appear in the zoomed section and NOT in the actual coloring.

That's why I find the subject of colors distracting the main topic.

What is the distinction between "plantlife" and "vegetation"?

I'm sorry I can't offer anything more substantial to the topic. Very curious with the linked abstract.

I suppose it is actual the same, but with plants one might expect to see leaves, while vegetation is a broader term.

We know there is no oxygen releasing photosynthesis on Mars - no O2 in the atmosphere. We also know that the surface is extremely hostile - low pressure, low moisture, high radiation, high UV.

Microbiotic crusts are a remote possibility, endolithic organisms somewhat more likely. The thing to note is that these would not be visible in imagery from orbit.

Also there is no reason to suspect that photosynthetic pigenments, if present, in putative Martian organisms would be green. There are non-O2-releasing photosynthetic microorganisms on earth that are anything but green. Even on earth, the green of chlorophyll is often masked by other pigments.

Jon

Mars has 0.13% oxygen

I have the impressions it's more the other way around. Plants are the whole kingdom, including (last time I checked) outliers like algae and moss, which I wouldn't so much consider vegetation. That led me to find it particularly odd when you preferred the term "vegetation", for the reasons you'd previously implied.
Mind me, I'm certainly not saying I'm right and you're wrong, and the whole thing is a minor OT point anyway. [-(

__________________
GhiaPet Home Page

I'm guessing that can be accounted for by sunlight breaking down molecules? I'd imagine a paper has been published in a journal somewhere on whether that 0.13% is sustainable over long periods of time in the Mars atmosphere via non-biologic processes.

Primary refs for CO2 photolysis to CO and O2 on Mars are:
E. S. Barker, 1972, Nature 238, 447-448
N. P. Carleton & W.A. Traub, 1972, Science 177, 988-992
J.T. Trauger & J. I. Lunine, 1983, Icarus 55, 272-281

All three of the above ref'ed in "The Planetary Scientist's Companion," K. Lodders & B. Fegley Jr., 1998, Oxford Univ. Press - a fantastic refrence in and of itself, by the way.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan