8

I'm going to presume that there is still bacteria. You need something to break down dead plants and release carbon. Otherwise all the carbon gets locked into the forest floor and plant growth dies for lack of carbon. Pollinating Plants There could still be pollinating plants. They would just depend on wind instead of animals to transport their pollen. Many ...


3

General traits are difficult to define - plants that use the wind to pollinate and/or disperse their seeds vary in form from grasses to very large trees. And it is wrong to assume that all plants would stop flowering - some flowering plants - including members of the orchid, pea family (legumes), sunflower and some daisy-type plants tend to self-pollinate. ...


1

There was an era during which trees would mostly not decompose. It was the Carboniferous. The wikipedia article for it says: The large coal deposits of the Carboniferous may owe their existence primarily to two factors. The first of these is the appearance of wood tissue and bark-bearing trees. The evolution of the wood fiber lignin and the bark-sealing, ...


1

I'm going to make a frame challenge here: What exactly separates a decomposer from a micro-organism that simply needs to eat something? Without decomposers on land, you would not need a fridge since food would not decay. But food is food and if there are micro-organisms they are going to want to consume that food thereby decomposing it. The conclusion is ...


1

It would be very weird. Corpses wouldn't rot, trees wouldn't rot. to name a few consequences: Forest fires would become very deadly since trees don't decompose, so fires would burn many, many more trees, and have much more fuel. They would be harder to stop. Bodies won't decompose This would have many negative consequences: People could hide bodies in any ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible