Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NW_Kohaku]

Having them use some mysterious energy source completely messes up the whole ecosystem.  As in, the underground plants will take over the surface since the underground energy source is more plentiful than the sun.

So I favor the decomposer approach to underground plants.

Because surface plants are already partly underground, as in the roots; since the roots are underground they themselves 'collect' mysterious underground energy.  As for the completely unfit for surface survival, the question is rather backwards.  Why would surface plants remain surface plants when there is all that underground energy to collect, remember that symbiosis (as in lichen) with underground organisms is a possibility in the event they lack the native ability to exploit such energy.

It messes up the ecosystem composed of living amethyst creatures, giant mushrooms that completely subvert the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, sentient mushrooms with legs, crabs that live in magma and spit molten rock, evil human heads with wings, and whatever floating guts are supposed to be?

As discussed at length in the Xenosynthesis thread, this is a game with magic in it, and the caverns in particular run on magic, get over it.  There is room for simple decomposer mushrooms, but basically everything that goes on in the caverns is clearly, blatantly magical, and trying to cling onto the notion that DF is somehow without magic at this point is just denialism.   Xenosynthesis is a discussion about how to make this concept actually behave in a rational and bounded manner because, just as you tried to point out, yourself, tons of things in DF are magical and live in impossible cavern biomes, but also need rules to make them have some kinds of limits and behave in a manner that creates some sense of verisimilitude even when we're talking about farming magical mushrooms in underground caverns filled with monsters.

I wish you'd actually glanced at the Xenosynthesis thread rather than making wild assumptions about what I'd said to argue against, instead (which would be faster to read than making me answer the same question again), because you'd see how we'd spent nearly all of it talking about how to make the system have rational boundaries the player can interact with such that it doesn't overwhelm the whole world.  It's entirely about how magic "comes from" somewhere and "is consumed" by other things, very much like the sun and based upon a semblance of Conservation of Energy.  It also allows for "environmental effects" of what dwarves do in a magical sense, allowing for dwarves to commit, essentially, magical pollution for all those pollution allegories people want to have and also the ability to create a blasted hellscape with mutant monstrosities created from the excesses of dwarven industrialism if players so choose to push the envelope with the concept. 

Beyond that, saying that plants would clearly get "underground energy" because "they have roots" is like saying that clearly humans are plants because they have melatonin to convert sunlight into energy for making vitamin D, and therefore, that's totally the same thing as photosynthesis.  The point of Xenosynthesis is that different organisms require different energy sources to live, and creatures need to be specially adapted to various different sources of energy.  (Much like how deep sea volcanic vent bacteria that chemosynthesize are unsuited to life on the surface, and so are all the creatures that feed off of them.)  Xenosynthesis also, incidentally, doesn't focus upon a single "underground energy" so that not all caverns would be the same, anymore, and could have different sphere-related energy types, so that some caverns might be "war" caverns or "fire" caverns or "song" caverns, so you have creatures that are affected by changes that cause them to march in regimented formations against intruders or spit fireballs or be creatures that literally live on song, respectively.  While there would be some adaptable creatures, there would also be quite a few specialized species (in particular, the "producers" that xenosynthesize, themselves) that have evolved to exploit one particular energy source. 

In particular, with Toady's (reletively) recent attempts at the mythology arc, where he wanted there to be the old placeholder "Good", "Evil", and "Savage" biome replaced with new sphere-related biomes, this is meant to mesh into that concept.  A god of song might create a "Song" magic field, and certain plants and creatures live off this energy, becoming song-related creatures, and interact with it.  Maybe the area of the song field can be expanded by holding religious events filled with songs to empower the magic field, and maybe silence and lack of prayer for the song god will cause it to shrink, as would anything that taps more song magic than is being produced.  This gives the player some ability to interact with these legends, rather than just having them be some assumed immutable feature of different creatures or areas, as they are, now.  Particularly when it comes to non-dwarven playable creatures from high-magic worlds from the Mythology Arc, which can have innate magical abilities, having those abilities (or even the survival of the species) tied to certain holy sites or rituals continuing to exist adds a lot of mythologic flavor, as well as a good rational reason for creatures to pursue goals that would otherwise be irrational.  Elves right now are just nuts who love trees, but spending some time reading through what Toady talks about with the nature spirits they worship, and it's pretty clear that they venerate trees because it is the basis of the magical power that underpins their whole society, as well as several species (possibly including elves, themselves). The nature spirit creates all the "savage" biome giant creatures and creature-man creatures for its own purposes, and the elves are dedicated to appeasing and feeding this spirit through what best serves the spirit: Preventing the destruction of forests.  It's not too much of a leap to then say that destroying forests is an attack upon this nature spirit, and that clear-cutting and destroying forests could eventually weaken the spirit (and drive the elves berserk) to the point it has a real impact upon the savage biomes and their giant and creature-man creatures.  (Including the spirit sending those creatures at the player in a desperate attempt to save itself.)

[Bumber]

How are they going to take over the surface when the energy source is underground? They might even be completely unfit for surface survival.

Because surface plants are already partly underground, as in the roots; since the roots are underground they themselves 'collect' mysterious underground energy.  As for the completely unfit for surface survival, the question is rather backwards.  Why would surface plants remain surface plants when there is all that underground energy to collect, remember that symbiosis (as in lichen) with underground organisms is a possibility in the event they lack the native ability to exploit such energy.

Ignoring the fact that you've switched which plants are doing the invading between your two posts...
If surface plants could utilize underground energy and spread underground, then they'd just be called underground plants, wouldn't they?
Instead, ecology dictates that the surface plants fill a unique niche, because they can't compete with the underground plants at their own game.
Underground plants, likewise, can't compete with surface plants at photosynthesis (which may or may not be in addition to underground energy from roots.)

[GoblinCookie]

Ignoring the fact that you've switched which plants are doing the invading between your two posts...
If surface plants could utilize underground energy and spread underground, then they'd just be called underground plants, wouldn't they?
Instead, ecology dictates that the surface plants fill a unique niche, because they can't compete with the underground plants at their own game.
Underground plants, likewise, can't compete with surface plants at photosynthesis (which may or may not be in addition to underground energy from roots.)

Surface plants are already around 50% underground Bumber.  If as a rule the underground is full of energy that can be extracted by plants just by virtue of it being underground, then the balance is going to favour the underground energy both because it is presumably available day+night rather than only in the day and because it's collection is over a 3D rather than 2D area.  In any case mysterious underground energy is far superior to the sun.

Here is the problem, just because you live on underground energy does not mean that you do not have an interest in the surface world for 'other reasons'.  For instance mushrooms, the actual mushroom energy source is entirely in the 'roots' of them mushroom, the mushroom itself on the other hand is simply there to reproduce more mushrooms; so basically it is akin to a flower rather than a leaf.  Given that underground energy is inherently better than solar energy, what we see is that the whole surface is covered in huge forests of potentially enormous mushrooms, rather than the familiar grass and trees we expect to see. 

The thing is that these mushroom trees compete with the normal plants and they will win since they have a far better energy source than the normal plants.  This means the only photosynthesizing  plants we will end up seeing is going to be found atop the mushroom trees, similar to the plants that grow atop rainforest trees in RL.

[NW_Kohaku]

Ignoring the fact that you've switched which plants are doing the invading between your two posts...
If surface plants could utilize underground energy and spread underground, then they'd just be called underground plants, wouldn't they?
Instead, ecology dictates that the surface plants fill a unique niche, because they can't compete with the underground plants at their own game.
Underground plants, likewise, can't compete with surface plants at photosynthesis (which may or may not be in addition to underground energy from roots.)

Surface plants are already around 50% underground Bumber.  If as a rule the underground is full of energy that can be extracted by plants just by virtue of it being underground, then the balance is going to favour the underground energy both because it is presumably available day+night rather than only in the day and because it's collection is over a 3D rather than 2D area.  In any case mysterious underground energy is far superior to the sun.

Here is the problem, just because you live on underground energy does not mean that you do not have an interest in the surface world for 'other reasons'.  For instance mushrooms, the actual mushroom energy source is entirely in the 'roots' of them mushroom, the mushroom itself on the other hand is simply there to reproduce more mushrooms; so basically it is akin to a flower rather than a leaf.  Given that underground energy is inherently better than solar energy, what we see is that the whole surface is covered in huge forests of potentially enormous mushrooms, rather than the familiar grass and trees we expect to see. 

The thing is that these mushroom trees compete with the normal plants and they will win since they have a far better energy source than the normal plants.  This means the only photosynthesizing  plants we will end up seeing is going to be found atop the mushroom trees, similar to the plants that grow atop rainforest trees in RL.

[Citation Required]

You're throwing around a lot of extremist claims based upon assumptions that no only have no supporting argument, but really need them because nobody else believes those assumptions. 

For example, you're assuming that literally any sort of energy source besides photosynthesis, even without giving any regard to what sort of energy source that is or what its limitations are at all, would automatically so vastly outstrip photosynthesis in efficacy that photosynthetic plants would all instantly go extinct... and use mundane mushrooms as an example.  Because clearly, mundane mushrooms have driven plants to the brink of extinction with their capacity to out-compete photosynthetic plants for resources... 

Why, for starters, should we assume that "underground energy" is omnipresent (even aboveground, belying the name), as or even more concentrated, is as inexhaustible, and more efficiently converted into biological energy than solar energy?  That's a massive set of assumptions you have no basis to claim.

Mundane mushrooms don't take over the world because they depend upon a resource that is exhaustible, and requires functionally feeding off the scraps of other living organisms that are in the food chain based upon photosynthesis... just like the xenoenergeia of the xenosynthesis argument.

Once again, xenosynthesis is entirely about limitations that bound the behavior of these sorts of magical fields.  It's meant to be a replacement for the current good/savage/evil/cavern biomes... none of which have been argued to be covering the whole world.  Even evil biomes, where the most dire changes occur and most mundane plants and animals are likely to be killed by the evil-powered creatures that live in such areas, don't actually constantly spread because the powers of the evil biomes are restrained to within those evil biomes, themselves.  The point of the system is talking about how and why those areas are restrained to specific areas, and under what rules they might expand or contract. 

I again urge you to actually read the argument I made before making arguments against non-existent strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Your argument is essentially that an infinite, omnipresent, unlimited-efficiency energy source would be an infinite, omnipresent, unlimited-efficiency energy source, and that's why you stand opposed to a finite, geographically restricted, potentially inefficient energy source, and that's just ridiculous.

[GoblinCookie]

[Citation Required]

You're throwing around a lot of extremist claims based upon assumptions that no only have no supporting argument, but really need them because nobody else believes those assumptions. 

For example, you're assuming that literally any sort of energy source besides photosynthesis, even without giving any regard to what sort of energy source that is or what its limitations are at all, would automatically so vastly outstrip photosynthesis in efficacy that photosynthetic plants would all instantly go extinct... and use mundane mushrooms as an example.  Because clearly, mundane mushrooms have driven plants to the brink of extinction with their capacity to out-compete photosynthetic plants for resources... 

Why, for starters, should we assume that "underground energy" is omnipresent (even aboveground, belying the name), as or even more concentrated, is as inexhaustible, and more efficiently converted into biological energy than solar energy?  That's a massive set of assumptions you have no basis to claim.

Mundane mushrooms don't take over the world because they depend upon a resource that is exhaustible, and requires functionally feeding off the scraps of other living organisms that are in the food chain based upon photosynthesis... just like the xenoenergeia of the xenosynthesis argument.

Once again, xenosynthesis is entirely about limitations that bound the behavior of these sorts of magical fields.  It's meant to be a replacement for the current good/savage/evil/cavern biomes... none of which have been argued to be covering the whole world.  Even evil biomes, where the most dire changes occur and most mundane plants and animals are likely to be killed by the evil-powered creatures that live in such areas, don't actually constantly spread because the powers of the evil biomes are restrained to within those evil biomes, themselves.  The point of the system is talking about how and why those areas are restrained to specific areas, and under what rules they might expand or contract. 

I again urge you to actually read the argument I made before making arguments against non-existent strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Your argument is essentially that an infinite, omnipresent, unlimited-efficiency energy source would be an infinite, omnipresent, unlimited-efficiency energy source, and that's why you stand opposed to a finite, geographically restricted, potentially inefficient energy source, and that's just ridiculous.

Not so, aggressive one.  You can make up whatever rules you wish when we are talking about an imaginary physical principle, the premise was that underground plants (in general) are fed by some mysterious underground energy, the conclusions that follow is that underground energy based plants will take over the surface world based upon the fact that the underground is everywhere.  If we are talking about a localised thing then it is indeed otherwise, but is what we call an exception rather than the rule; nobody other than you however said it was a localized thing but how said plants in general are fed. 

Mundane mushrooms do not take over the world because the underground energy source does not exist in real life.  If it did then since the mushrooms themselves are mostly underground but also take up space on the surface they very much would take everything over, which is what I was saying. 

[Draco18s]

nobody other than you however said it was a localized thing but how said plants in general are fed.

Dude. Xenosynthesis is her¹ thread.
It's her suggestion that underground plants operate that way.

You're trying to discount her suggested idea of underground crops by dismissing the limitations she built into the idea on the grounds that "it's only limited because you said so" and "if it's unlimited, there's no reason why underground plants wouldn't outcompete above ground plants."

Seriously.  Stop.

¹Gender assumption totally made blind.

[Bumber]

... the conclusions that follow is that underground energy based plants will take over the surface world based upon the fact that the underground is everywhere.

The underground is everywhere? Then what is even the surface? The infinitesimal layer that separates ground from air? How would you classify a surface plant? Photosynthesis? You say surface plants are already around 50% below ground, but then how can an underground plant compete with a surface/photosynthetic plant for the other 50% and take over? The likely outcome would be surface plants that parasitise on underground plants for nutrients, or blur the definition further by using both sources of energy.

Additional vagueness: What if we transplant soil to the top of a tower? Does it still contain underground energy, or does the soil merely act like a conductor for the energy? You're running with your own specific interpretation and laws of how it works, which can't really prove anything about the concept as a whole. Most I can do is point out that a surface invasion is still fundamentally flawed. An organism can't invade where it can't derive benefit.

My interpretation is that the energy would get weaker closer to the surface, given that the underground sphere would be opposed to sun and sky. That's even assuming that we're talking about underground-derived power, and not just coincidental proximity to the HFS, Armok's Blood, or Cosmic Eggshell. Sunlight could be harmful to underground plants, via sunburn or dehydration. Underground energy could be weaker than the sun. I'm sure there are plenty of other workable ideas, rather than the single one proposed which might not.

[GoblinCookie]

nobody other than you however said it was a localized thing but how said plants in general are fed.

Dude. Xenosynthesis is her¹ thread.
It's her suggestion that underground plants operate that way.

You're trying to discount her suggested idea of underground crops by dismissing the limitations she built into the idea on the grounds that "it's only limited because you said so" and "if it's unlimited, there's no reason why underground plants wouldn't outcompete above ground plants."

Seriously.  Stop.

¹Gender assumption totally made blind.

Seriously, shut up. 

The underground is everywhere? Then what is even the surface? The infinitesimal layer that separates ground from air? How would you classify a surface plant? Photosynthesis? You say surface plants are already around 50% below ground, but then how can an underground plant compete with a surface/photosynthetic plant for the other 50% and take over? The likely outcome would be surface plants that parasitise on underground plants for nutrients, or blur the definition further by using both sources of energy.

Yes a surface plant is being defined as a plant that is sustained by photosynthesis and in a wide sense plants along the lines we are familiar (trees, grass, flowers).  Having the surface taken over by parasitic plants that live on the underground energy plants belong them is an just one example of underground energy based plants taking over the surface. 

Another problem with the underground energy idea is that yes the underground is everywhere.  There is simply no clear point at which the underground ends and the surface begins, if we have a cave and we fill it with underground life sustained by an underground energy and then we make a whole in it, do all the underground plants die off because it now counts as being part of the surface? If not the case then what stops the whole surface world from counting as an extension of said magical cave, resulting in takeover of the world by underground plants? 

Additional vagueness: What if we transplant soil to the top of a tower? Does it still contain underground energy, or does the soil merely act like a conductor for the energy? You're running with your own specific interpretation and laws of how it works, which can't really prove anything about the concept as a whole. Most I can do is point out that a surface invasion is still fundamentally flawed. An organism can't invade where it can't derive benefit.

The answer to the tower question does not really matter, unless it is the actual soil that is the source of the underground energy, magic soil is one possible option I guess.  I actually prefer the idea that the soil contains the energy myself, since it fits well with how fungi grow in the real-life, the only difference being in this case the source of the nutrients in the soil would be magical rather than mundane. 

Yes an organism that is based upon underground energy sources (mushrooms) does takeover the surface world in the real-life.  If a mushroom grows somewhere, that physically prevents say a blade of grass from growing in the same location.  Even though the mushrooms do not gain any energy benefit from invading the surface, they still take over the surface whenever enough 'underground energy' is present in the real-life soil, competing with surface plants. 

My interpretation is that the energy would get weaker closer to the surface, given that the underground sphere would be opposed to sun and sky. That's even assuming that we're talking about underground-derived power, and not just coincidental proximity to the HFS, Armok's Blood, or Cosmic Eggshell. Sunlight could be harmful to underground plants, via sunburn or dehydration. Underground energy could be weaker than the sun. I'm sure there are plenty of other workable ideas, rather than the single one proposed which might not.

The problem is not that there are innumerable possible ideas, it is isolating the ideas that result in a situation that is not completely alien to reality.  This is the logical problem that all fantasy fiction has inherently, it is not easily possible to add in 'cool new things' without logically altering the world to the extent that it is no longer relatible to the world we know. 

This results in a situation where we must 'bracket' in the magic.  Yes you can magically create a fireball but all the fires started by your fireball have to themselves be nonmagical in nature and follow the normal physical laws; the alternative is to have a binary situation where we end up with two competing realities following different rules.  This means that instead of the devs making the plants work by 'magical underground energy', it is better that they factor in the energy value in soil and have magical things then alter the energy level of the soil.

That way underground we end up with an abundance of underground plants and the lifeforms supported by them, as opposed to in normal mundane caverns where they are generally sparse because only mundane means of energy transfer exist.  However if there is (or we did) a deep valley that brings said underground energy source closer to the surface then we will see an abundance of surface fungi, maybe even giant mushrooms like those in Morrowind.  This is what I mean when I say I prefer that the underground plants be sustained like real-life fungi do, rather than being directly fed by some magical force; it is not that I am opposed to them being ultimately sustained by magic in some circumstances.

[Bumber]

Yes a surface plant is being defined as a plant that is sustained by photosynthesis and in a wide sense plants along the lines we are familiar (trees, grass, flowers).  Having the surface taken over by parasitic plants that live on the underground energy plants belong them is an just one example of underground energy based plants taking over the surface.

They don't have to be special parasitic plants. Regular plants can parasitise merely by having their roots grow through and steal nutrients. They also benefit from decomposers, which is analogous to processing underground energy.

Another problem with the underground energy idea is that yes the underground is everywhere.  There is simply no clear point at which the underground ends and the surface begins, if we have a cave and we fill it with underground life sustained by an underground energy and then we make a whole in it, do all the underground plants die off because it now counts as being part of the surface? If not the case then what stops the whole surface world from counting as an extension of said magical cave, resulting in takeover of the world by underground plants?

I would assume either it's dependent on sunlight, in which case the ones directly under the opening die, or it's based on soil content / z-level, in which case no immediate effect. Current DF is closer to the former, with quirks.

Yes an organism that is based upon underground energy sources (mushrooms) does takeover the surface world in the real-life.  If a mushroom grows somewhere, that physically prevents say a blade of grass from growing in the same location.  Even though the mushrooms do not gain any energy benefit from invading the surface, they still take over the surface whenever enough 'underground energy' is present in the real-life soil, competing with surface plants.

Notice the greener grass near the mushrooms. The grass actually benefits in the long run, despite the loss of a few blades. The mushroom only surfaces to reproduce, and then the exposed parts of the fungus eventually wither in the sun.

[GoblinCookie]

]They don't have to be special parasitic plants. Regular plants can parasitise merely by having their roots grow through and steal nutrients. They also benefit from decomposers, which is analogous to processing underground energy.

In real-life the fungi need the plants in order that they decompose and transfer energy from the sun to them.  In this situation we are talking about the exact opposite situation, the surface plants are behaving like the mushrooms do, the energy transfer is going in the opposite direction instead.

Problem is that fungi on the surface can parasite on other fungi growing underground, so the ability of plants on the surface to steal nutrients from those underground simply drives the fungi take over the surface problem.  Again it does not rule out regular plants, it just makes them look different. 

I would assume either it's dependent on sunlight, in which case the ones directly under the opening die, or it's based on soil content / z-level, in which case no immediate effect. Current DF is closer to the former, with quirks.

Sunlight can easily be avoided by retreating into the earth during the daytime and coming out at night.  Since my energy is in the ground I do not have to be on the surface during the daytime, but I still take up space. 

Notice the greener grass near the mushrooms.[/url] The grass actually benefits in the long run, despite the loss of a few blades. The mushroom only surfaces to reproduce, and then the exposed parts of the fungus eventually wither in the sun.

Is the situation the result of the mushrooms fertilizing the soil or is it instead the same factor that is making the grass green and the mushrooms grow? 

Assuming that you are correct what we are seeing is that the mushrooms are breaking down the organic matter in the soil into a form that is more 'digestible' to the plants, while at the same time using up the energy which the soil needs.  In the end the mushrooms run out energy and die off, which makes space for the plants to grow to use the fertilized soil.

In this situation the dying off does not happen, because the mushrooms have an unending source of energy.  That means they can indeed simply get bigger and bigger, or more and more densely packed until everything is covered in them.  This means they end up smothering every form of plant-life that tries to grow in the soil.  They can also grow faster because they have an energy source that form 24hrs a day and can be exploited immediately without needing to expend energy to first grow leaves, which reduces the cost of reproducing.

[NW_Kohaku]

OK, could you stop? 

This is arguing something you're openly admitting has absolutely nothing to do with the actual suggestion for... I don't even know what you're trying to prove.

I don't want to call Toady in for thread derailment, here.

[GoblinCookie]

OK, could you stop? 

This is arguing something you're openly admitting has absolutely nothing to do with the actual suggestion for... I don't even know what you're trying to prove.

I don't want to call Toady in for thread derailment, here.

So the nature of how plants in the DF world are fed has nothing to do with the topic of agriculture?

[SixOfSpades]

At the risk of re-railing the thread, what does the Xenosynthesis theory have to say about artificial caverns? If I dig a hole in bedrock & sprinkle some water in it, I assume I'll be able to grow basic crops (a whole lot of young forts are going to get absolutely shafted otherwise), but will there be enough "underground energy" to support the same kind of mushroom forests found in a bona fide cavern?

Also, suppose I dig this cavern high up in the mountains, and tunnel down so far that I avoid Caverns 1 & 2, and instead breach nothing but Cavern 3. Could I have nether-caps growing at ridiculously high altitudes?

[Bumber]

I would assume you'd have to fertilize them like you will surface plants.

I think also the releasing spores mechanic might get removed once Toady adds plantable tree saplings, etc.

[NW_Kohaku]

At the risk of re-railing the thread, what does the Xenosynthesis theory have to say about artificial caverns? If I dig a hole in bedrock & sprinkle some water in it, I assume I'll be able to grow basic crops (a whole lot of young forts are going to get absolutely shafted otherwise), but will there be enough "underground energy" to support the same kind of mushroom forests found in a bona fide cavern?

Also, suppose I dig this cavern high up in the mountains, and tunnel down so far that I avoid Caverns 1 & 2, and instead breach nothing but Cavern 3. Could I have nether-caps growing at ridiculously high altitudes?

Well, I don't use terms like "underground energy", to start with, but rather that different spheres have their own forms of energy.  This is meant to replace the "evil" or "good" or "savage" biomes as they exist now, as well as the caverns, although different depths can have different sphere influences.  (Such as the surface having a "Law" sphere influence, the first cavern having a "Darkness" sphere influence, the second cavern having no sphere influence at all, and being a barren cave, and the third cavern having a "Fire" sphere influence.)  Similar to how biomes (and the layer stones) have boundaries now, the X and Y coordinate boundaries are just tied to the biomes, and then if there are differences in sphere influence by depth, then they'd be within certain bands of depth from the caverns.  (So the soil layer and first half dozen Z-levels of layer stone will likely be whatever sphere is on the surface.) 

Also keep in mind that part of the whole point is that you can also build up xenoenergia (xenosynthesis energy) through different player actions, such as building temples to specific sphere-aligned deities, or as a side-effect of actions taken for other reasons (leaving lots of unburied dead may raise an "undeath" sphere that can eventually lead to an undead problem), or through growing xenoenergia-generating plants or raising animals that exude similar magic.  (The last of which would consume from one energy source - which could possibly just be sunlight or decomposing organics - to produce xenoenergia in another.)  Xenosynthetic plants and animals drain their particular flavor of xenoenergia by existing, and will die if there is insufficient xenoenergia of their particular type.  (Again, these are all sphere-related.)  This can also tie in directly with magic, making magic require building up xenoenergia.  (So necromancers generate the undeath energy they need by being around lots of dead bodies that generate undeath xenoenergia.) 

In particular, megabeasts and forgotten beasts are a major source of xenoenergia.  In the current game, the eras are based off of the number of remaining megabeasts, and eras generally start off with the mythical/magical eras, and then gradually decay into the more mundane.  Following that concept, those creatures are inherently extremely exomagical, and having some around can greatly increase the xenoenergia, for better or for worse.

Xenoenergia inherently attracts creatures that feed off of it, and in extreme levels of xenoenergia, can start manifesting itself directly, or "mutating" creatures.  To go back an example, leaving lots of unburied dead around can generate enough death xenoenergia to eventually create an undeath field that causes the dead to rise on their own, similar to some current evil biomes.  Even before that, it would attract necromancers, or the occasional skeleton or zombie that would instinctually go where the energy that sustains it can be found.  Burning many things can start creating fireproof and spontaneously combusting creatures.  Holding many, many song and dance parties in your tavern can start to attract or generate singing animals. etc.

So far as the initial embark goes, I have suggested that the likes of plump helmets just be ordinary mushrooms that require decaying matter to feed. This could generally mean that you throw down a log (or any dead animal bodies you might happen to accrue) and dump water on it to start a plump helmet plot.  Something like dimple cups and quarry bushes might be explicitly magical, and require xenoenergia from being around cavern depth, however.   Xenosynthesis would generally demand there be a lot more xenoenergia-dependent plants so that there should be at least a dozen plants unique to each sphere major enough to be worth making into biomes.