The quest for inhabited habitable planets

Jun 03, 2014
The quest for inhabited habitable planets

Which came first: life or habitability? Although this question seems at first sight contradictory, a new paper by Colombian researchers is bringing to the attention of astrobiologists a classical conundrum: Is life also required for habitability? On Earth it is almost a matter of fact that in the same way as habitable conditions on our planet are mandatory for life, the existence of life could also be determinant at making our world permanently habitable. And, if this is the case for Earth, it should be also for other inhabited habitable planets elsewhere. Consequently, if our goal is to find life in the Universe, we should not exclude life itself when predicting on which planets it could thrive.

"We should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler". This is the famous Einstein quote that opens a new paper written by a group of Colombian scientists and accepted for publication in the journal Biogeosciences Discussion. The paper entitled "The Habitable Zone of Inhabited Planets," authored by Jorge I. Zuluaga, FACom researchers and others, cites the quote to highlight the fact that most of the models used today to predict the conditions under which a planet will be are probably simpler than they should be. According to the authors, has been systematically excluded when calculating the plausible environmental conditions in habitable . The situation is paradoxical, since life is the ultimate goal of our search for habitable worlds in the Galaxy.

"It is like trying to design the air conditioning system of a vehicle excluding from the heat and mass balance the effect of passengers inside the cabin; what is the purpose of the air conditioning system if, for designing it, we need to assume that the vehicle is empty?" asks Prof. Jorge I. Zuluaga, leading author of the paper. Although the determinant role of life in the present and past state of Earth's environment has not been definitively probed, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the idea that our Planet will not be the same if we remove every single form of life from its surface.

"The Earth's environment, and in general, the environment of any planet inhabited by a widespread biota, comprises very complex systems; powerful, though sometimes subtle interactions between their components continuously maintains the system in a regulated equilibrium state", explains Prof. Juan F. Salazar, co-author of the paper and first author of a previous work that inspired this new development. "In such complex systems, excluding any key component could produce very different final conditions; thus, evaluating the habitability of Earth or any other hypothetical planet assuming that they are devoid of life (abiotic habitability) could produce a very different result than assuming that the planet is inhabited".

Temperature in the surface of a hypothetical planet as a function of the amount of incoming stellar radiation (S).  We Compare the cases of a dry and dead planet (red line), a wet but uninhabited planet (blue line) and a wet and inhabited planet (green line).  When inhabited the outer edge of the Habitable Zone (right) is extended further away than in the case of an uninhabited planet.

But the idea that life is important for habitability is not new, as the authors recognize in their paper. It dates back to the original works by the Russian physicist Vladimir Vernadsky circa 1920, who introduced by the first time the concept of "biosphere".

In the second half of the 20th century, the English environmental scientist James Lovelock went further at proposing the "Gaia Hypothesis". According to this hypothesis, the complex system formed by life and its environment, behaves almost as a single organism. This "global organism" is able to self-regulate the environment maintaining the habitable conditions of the planet. More recently, other authors have developed alternative theories leading to similar conclusions. This is the case of the so-called "biotic regulation of the environment" (BRE), a theoretical framework developed by the Russian physicists Victor Gorshkov and Anastasia Makarieva. BRE states that life and its unique properties produce a dominant effect on the environment that regulates it over geological timescales. But if the idea that life affects habitability is actually a recognized idea, what's new in the recent paper?

Several decades of observations of the Earth system, together with the aforementioned theoretical developments studying the interaction between life and its environment, seem not to have had a large impact on exoplanets habitability studies. The current models used to calculate the conditions under which a planet is habitable (i.e. the Habitable Zone) do not include life among the potential effects determining the final state of the planet. Although several authors have developed in the past "biotic" models of habitability, these models have been the exception instead of the rule. What Zuluaga and his collaborators are attempting to do in their paper is first to demonstrate that excluding life from the "habitability equation" is unnatural and probably misleads the search for actually inhabited planets. In the second place, the authors present a general conceptual basis supporting the development of habitability models that include life.

Zuluaga, et al. offer an ingenious example of how a hypothetical complex environment could be habitable under conditions that would otherwise be deadly. What would happen if a planet was half covered by clouds in such a way that the sunlit hemisphere was always cloudy while the dark hemisphere was always clear? The planet could withstand high levels of stellar insolation and probably be "fresh" even at distances well inside the inner edge of the Habitable Zone. But how will a planet maintain such a strange state? How will clouds be "obligated" to synchronously rotate with the planet just to guarantee habitable conditions?

"Life is probably the answer," states Prof. Zuluaga enthusiastically. "Contrary to abiotic processes, living systems contain and maintain impressive amounts of information that give them unparalleled regulatory capabilities."

The Habitable Zone of Inhabited planets according to different Daisyworld models.  In all cases the inner and/or outer edges are extended with respect to the "neutral" (uninhabited) case.

Zuluaga cites several examples of this condition in our habitable planet. On Earth, for instance, life essentially drives the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and impacts in powerful ways the formation of clouds. "You just need to include the effect of life in the environment of a planet and unexpected and probably surprising properties and behaviors could arise", he concludes.

Finally, the paper presents the results of a simple numerical model, supporting the researchers' intuitions on the capacity for life to modify the Habitable Zone restrictions. Based on a very popular "toy model" called the "Daisyworld", the model of Zuluaga et al. simulates the dynamics of a planet populated by two species of dark and clear vegetation (black and white daisies). The planet is also covered by dynamic cloud cover, a novel feature among Daisyworld models and even among planetary habitability models. Daisies and clouds interact via evaporation and transpiration, and their mutual dynamics finally determine the surface temperature of the planet. The model, also dubbed "hydrological Daisyworld", was first devised and explored by Salazar and Poveda, also co-authors of this work, who found very interesting and previously unseen emergent properties coming from the interaction between life and the hydrological cycle.

The hydrological Daisyworld behaves exactly how Zuluaga et al. expect: Even with a simple biosphere, an inhabited planet could be habitable (could have warm surface temperatures) even when the stellar insolation was higher or lower than the maximum and minimum levels expected in the most traditional habitability models.

Zuluaga et al. went further and compiled results from more than a dozen Daisyworld models that also exhibited the same behavior. Although far from definitive (and even credible, according to a fraction of the astrobiology community), the results of the Daisyworld models clearly illustrate the central point of the work written by the Colombian researchers: A habitable planet with life and a habitable planet without life are not the same planets.

Whether or not planetary scientists developing habitability models will follow the recommendations of the Colombian authors, it will be probably a matter of scientific or philosophical debate inside the community. A final decision would be even an issue of "numerical convenience," since simulating life is much more complex and uncertain than simulating air, water or rocks. Ultimately, the truth is that finding inhabited, rather than merely habitable, worlds is the actual goal of our ultimate scientific search for life beyond our pale blue dot.

Explore further: What steps are needed to find more earths?

More information: "The Habitable Zone of Inhabited Planets."  J.I. Zuluaga, J.F. Salazar, P.A. Cuartas and G. Poveda, Accepted for publication in Biogeosciences Discussion (18 May 2014). arXiv:1405.4576. arxiv.org/abs/1405.4576

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What steps are needed to find more earths?

Apr 29, 2014

It wasn't so long ago that we found out there is an Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone of a star. But how many others are out there, and do we know if planets like this are truly habitable?

Looking for life in all the wrong places

Feb 03, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists have long focused their search for extraterrestrial life on Earth-like planets – but that may be a mistake, according to a McMaster researcher.

Finding a new Earth: Holy grail of astronomy

Apr 27, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Determining the habitability of rocky, Earth-like planets in the universe will be crucial for us as a species, according to scientists from The Australian National University.

Can life emerge on planets around cooling stars?

Nov 20, 2012

(Phys.org)—Astronomers find planets in strange places and wonder if they might support life. One such place would be in orbit around a white or brown dwarf. While neither is a star like the sun, both glow and so could be ...

Astronomers: 'Tilt-a-worlds' could harbor life

Apr 15, 2014

A fluctuating tilt in a planet's orbit does not preclude the possibility of life, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington, Utah's Weber State University and NASA. In fact, ...

Recommended for you

Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance

Jul 28, 2014

What an awesome photo! Italian amateur astronomer Rolando Ligustri nailed it earlier today using a remote telescope in New Mexico and wide-field 4-inch (106 mm) refractor. Currently the brightest comet in ...

Image: Our flocculent neighbour, the spiral galaxy M33

Jul 28, 2014

The spiral galaxy M33, also known as the Triangulum Galaxy, is one of our closest cosmic neighbours, just three million light-years away. Home to some forty billion stars, it is the third largest in the ...

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Jul 25, 2014

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
not rated yet Jun 03, 2014
The problem of the gaia hypothesis is that the "planet-organism" must have had evolved to the state where it can self-sustain livable conditions, by essentially trial and error.

But there is only one try per planet. Complex life could never evolve, because the first lifeforms that spring up would inevitably drive the place off equilibrium (e.g. oxygen catastrophe, the early triassic extinctions...) and make it uninhabitable - unless they happen to evolve on such a fortunate planet that the prevailing conditions remain habitable no matter what the life does.

So the Gaia hypothesis can't explain why a planet remains habitable because it requires robust habitability to start with. It may stabilize the planet to be nicer to live in, but that's subjective to the particular kind of life and not to "habitability" in general.

Unless the life in question gets extremely lucky and evolves into the exact kind that can maintain an otherwise unstable planet habitable on the very first try.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
"Is life also required for habitability?" Not for autotrophs obviously. But for high energy heterotrophs as animals, certainly - the continued high productivity biosphere relies on the substance recycling that plate tectonics, erosion and life has put up. Nothing new there.

But it's a good idea when you go from rough models of habitability, which is used to zero in on inhabited worlds, and instead try to understand habitation. Then you need to understand these productivity matters. Notably here the "wet neutral" and "wet inhabited" has the same range of liquid water, habitability, but not the same temperature, biosphere productivity.

This idea is very similar to the Biological Complexity Index just released by Irwin, Mendez, et al. "This constitutes the first quantitative estimate of the number of worlds in our galaxy that could harbor life above the microbial level, based on objective data,". [ http://phl.upr.ed...plexlife ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
@Eikka: That's very interesting. Similar to how Zuluaga et al checks their intuition with Daisyworld simulations, I think your idea is hard to settle.

I'm reminded of how some, still tentative and conflicting, oxygen models for the atmosphere seems to show how the conditions for complex life were nearly wiped out. The initially higher oxygen from cyanobacteria oxygenation was slowly dwindling as the anoxic Hadfield ocean with its thriving sulfur bacteria won out. But eventually some cyanobacteria evolved nitrogen fixation, and the resulting metabolism (and nitrogen cycle) was more efficient than the sulfur cycle.

If that is so (and here we need both better observations and model work), it doesn't bode well for complex life. The sulfur bacteria may remain kings on many worlds.

Re Gaia on the other hand, no one has found any support for Gaia, and a lot of contradicting evidence such as the one I just related, so that particular idea is fairly settled (not viable).