What about facultative anaerobes in nash equilibrium? will they just stay at the bottom of the test tube anyway? A0032041 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we count plants as anaerobes? AxelBoldt 19:52 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Well, like us, plants use both aerobic and anaerobic respiration. They do use oxygen. They need the CO2 and water for photosynthesis, which produces O2 (molecular oxygen, the kind we breath), some water and sugars. Some of this O2 goes back out into the atmosphere, but some stays in the plant, and is used in its own aerobic respiration. I believe that some oxygen also enters through pores in the leaves during nighttime. RK 20:00 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
When light is present, plants are essentially photosynthetic organisms. As such, they are neither aerobic nor anaerobic, because these terms apply on how oxigen is used (i.e. metabolized, or consumed). Plants do not use oxygen during photosyntesis, they produce oxygen. That's why we use the term oxygenic photosynthesis instead. Other organisms (some bacteria) carry out a different type of photosynthesis that does not release oxygen, called anoxygenic photosynthesis.
At night, or whenever light is not present, plants switch to a respiratory metabolism. Now they do consume oxygen to produce energy, and so we can say that they are aerobes, the same as all animals. The difference is that animals are allways aerobes, while plants are only at night. --Xavi 21:19, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--And finally my version. Photosynthesys does NOT, in itself, provide energy for plants. They metabolise glucose and oxygen, just like we do. That is how they get their energy. However,where we get callories from eating them, plants synthesize glucose from CO2 and water, and then use that glucose to fuel their bodies. Essentially, photosynthesizing for plants is the same as digestion is to animals. That is the only difference - the actual metabolism of glucose is the same in both.Thunderflame (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
--- This seems contradictory: " Nanaerobes are organisms that cannot grow in the presence of micromolar concentrations of oxygen, but can grow with and benefit from nanomolar concentrations of oxygen." Could an expert correct? --h
--I believe you have made a mistake I fell for myself. in the presence of micromolar concentrations of oxygen, but can grow with and benefit from nanomolar concentrations of oxygen." By the time you have read this, I should have corrected the problem. Thunderflame (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Micromole is not a unit of concentration. What does mean "micromolar concentration of oxygen" or "nanomolar" or "200 micromoles"? Remember, that at 25 centigrade the concentration of oxygen in air is ca. 8000 micromol/dm3, not 200. 126.96.36.199 09:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC), a casual visitor, Poland.
For the picture on the front, listing the 5 test tubes, you would have to grow the bacteria without shaking or else the mixture would stir and aerate the entire culture, thereby defeating the demonstration. Therefore, wouldn't your static liquid culture allow the bacteria to settle to the bottom of the tube? Would this demonstration be more correctly explained using an agar filled tube for a "stab"? That's how I remember it from my microbiology class. Thanks, N
--My guess, the bacteria would be able to migrate to whichever location they wanted and stay there. I don't know for a fact that these bacteria do have that capacity, maybe they don't, but I'm throwing the two cents in anyway.Thunderflame (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)