Cerathule
Active member
so this is what I would consider to be the best spectrum for best quality, isn't it? I wonder how far the UVA stretches down?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Infra-Red Vs. No Infra-Red Who's Done Side by Side Testing w/Same Clones?
- Thread starter Douglas.Curtis
- Start date
I was told to use IR 15 minutes at lights on and off as signalling to produce more resin. Think it is 15 watts that I use. I worry about being in grow room with LED's without sunglasses, since constant IR. My concern with LED's vs HID is we switch from 6500K to 3500K for flower. How can one light do best for both?
Cerathule
Active member
to be honest, I find that chart quite faulty and misleading. it was deriven from Cree's crude investigations using strict monochromatic beams in 25nm steps, so the photochemistry between the 2 photosystems couldn't work correctly, bluntly speaking. It neglects both Emerson-enhancement and sabotages stomatal conductance to influence the results. When in fact green drives photosynthesis much stronger than either red or blue light, but only in the presence of white light. Like, outdoors or under a typical growlamp in flower power setting.
So around 400ppfd the colours weigh almost equally into the PS rate, and from onward there, the green colour dominates its positive position. It's just a matter of finding non-saturated photosystems by integrating deeper penetrating radiation.
There's just too many ways to skin the cat when looking at what spectrum does. As they can measure so many different things that occur directly or alongside the way in response. For example, Bugbee recently evaluated the integration of 730nm of up to 10% from 3-5% of the general white diode spectra. To be beneficial to carbon fixation in the range of 200-500% as compared to the control, which was white light and RB. The white light control was basically only "ok" because it already contained a moderate fraction of farred.
Cerathule
Active member
Corpselover Fat
Active member
I have not heard that. Do you have a source?
I agree the chart is obviously wrong because green is used in photosynthesis, but I have seen nothing that says it's used more efficiently.
Last edited:
Cerathule
Active member
I'm attaching the study
Ca++
Well-known member
I can't see the report, the title suggests the 2009 paper that doesn't quite hit the mark.
Some plants will grow under green.
Others don't really notice it
If a study isn't on cannabis, it's findings may not matter to cannabis.
Wheat doesn't care for Blue, and it's not alone. While a lettuce goes nuts on it. So work done on one plant of commercial use, isn't knowledge gained on another plant.
Most plants we are interested in, evolved under the sun (we think). So an especially light hungry plant like ours, might like all of it. Though as a sweeping comment borne from multiple plant testing, green is 50-75% useful. Plants look green to us as the red and blue are absorbed better, so we see more green bouncing back.
On a side note, we see more shades of green than other colours. Look in a green room long enough and your brain starts filling in with your memory map. Look at the green room above. What colour are the walls and net frame? If you think the wall is white, they your brain is making it up. Everything is green. But yeah... I know the wall is white to. I can see it is. Can't I?
This brings me to one of my favourate things about green rooms. Walking out
Fuck me, the world has gone blurple while I was in me room.
If you like that, try eating Miracle berries. Taste of cardboard box. That cardboard coats your sour receptors though. Lasts a good while. A lemon then tastes like an orange, while an orange tastes of heaven. Leaving strawberries the food of god.
Some plants will grow under green.
Others don't really notice it
If a study isn't on cannabis, it's findings may not matter to cannabis.
Wheat doesn't care for Blue, and it's not alone. While a lettuce goes nuts on it. So work done on one plant of commercial use, isn't knowledge gained on another plant.
Most plants we are interested in, evolved under the sun (we think). So an especially light hungry plant like ours, might like all of it. Though as a sweeping comment borne from multiple plant testing, green is 50-75% useful. Plants look green to us as the red and blue are absorbed better, so we see more green bouncing back.
On a side note, we see more shades of green than other colours. Look in a green room long enough and your brain starts filling in with your memory map. Look at the green room above. What colour are the walls and net frame? If you think the wall is white, they your brain is making it up. Everything is green. But yeah... I know the wall is white to. I can see it is. Can't I?
This brings me to one of my favourate things about green rooms. Walking out
Fuck me, the world has gone blurple while I was in me room. If you like that, try eating Miracle berries. Taste of cardboard box. That cardboard coats your sour receptors though. Lasts a good while. A lemon then tastes like an orange, while an orange tastes of heaven. Leaving strawberries the food of god.
Cerathule
Active member
Why not? It's public and refered to many times.
Photosynthesis and photoreceptor-stimuli IS NOT the same. The green night-maintenance light is designed to not trigger a phytochrome Pr reaction, to not interrupt the plant's Pfr buildup. Still, the chlorophyll will absorb about 85% of all green photons coming from that weak light.
Cannabis grown under lm301-ONE which is a red-green dominant spec the plants come out healthy like under HPS, though a bit less elongated. The only thing that bothers is the blurple appearance.
But there can be no doubt that at around a certain medium to high PPFD setting, like in flower, the green wavelengths become the most effective ones in terms of driving carbon fixation.
We know all plants do possess the same basic photoreceptors and share significant similarities.
One is the genetic code of the 2 thylakoid photosystems is evolutionairy hardconserved and will not change much at all. And we've seen this time and again by comparing leaf optical properties from many different plant species. But the extract prooved always similar, and small gradual changes on the absorbance can be interpreted to be due to a different leaf anatomy.
Morphological responses of wheat to blue light
"Blue light significantly increased tillering in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants..."Wheat cryptochromes: subcellular localization and involvement in photomorphogenesis and osmotic stress responses
"Cryptochromes (CRYs) are blue light receptors important for plant growth and development. Comprehensive information on monocot CRYs is currently only available for rice (Oryza sativa). We report here the molecular and functional characterization of two CRY genes, TaCRY1a and TaCRY2, from the monocot wheat (Triticum aestivum)."Yes, and in nature those green photons get deflected and fall onto nearby plant's leaves. The leaves in direct sunlight possess the luxury to scatter a portion of the light away as it's already saturating there. These diffused green photons can now boost places which currently are more light-hungry. Considering less heat stress the "bad green absorption" turns into a 'win-win' mechanism.
And yes, the sun is such an eternal constant for the majority of plants, it feels intuitive to just assume a plant grown under direct sunlight for millions of years would have found ways to harness all that, and quite efficiently considering the big selective pressure outdoors.
Ca++
Well-known member
I can't see your attachment, because it's a security risk. It's a pdf hosted where? If you offer the name of a paper, or a link that can be seen, that's okay. However constantly offering PDFs off site is how IP addresses are mapped.
It would be nice if the green light bounced off and lit another plant, but what we are seeing isn't doing that. I have walked in nature myself. Even flown over it. I can assure you, a lot of that green light bounces off and doesn't directly light another plant. Which would again lead to a proportion bouncing off until eventually absorbed you suggest. However that would be a game of pinball where another ball kept joining, until the machine was solid with them. Not all light absorbed is used, which might be the 85% you speak off. An absorbed amount, not the used amount. Though I doubt you will have the grace to explain. Like you don't confirm the article being offered to include me in debate.
I'm showing you plants growing under monochrome green. Find a pot plant doing this. You like to say all plants are the same, but they are not. Pot plants die under green monochrome light, while others thrive. That is not the same.
I'm guessing your paper isn't about pot, and so isn't of any use to use directly. It's likely the 2009 paper that 13 years on hasn't been influential as it's holed.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Many plants don't like a lot of blue light. Ours reacts badly to 40% but the sodium growers might be looking at this as a pat on the back.
I know tillering in wheat is increased by blue. I find myself often having the same conversation with you. It's about you reading something and applying it badly.
White light, with the green percentage being changed. 500ppdf like you spoke of, but a few plants. Tomato is our nearest analogue. Didn't really like it. Lettuce shows a real bias towards blue. Cucumber and wheat liked the green.
But yeah, all plants are the same.
You are now tempted to just laugh at my post and not reply. Like being impudent is a win.
It would be nice if the green light bounced off and lit another plant, but what we are seeing isn't doing that. I have walked in nature myself. Even flown over it. I can assure you, a lot of that green light bounces off and doesn't directly light another plant. Which would again lead to a proportion bouncing off until eventually absorbed you suggest. However that would be a game of pinball where another ball kept joining, until the machine was solid with them. Not all light absorbed is used, which might be the 85% you speak off. An absorbed amount, not the used amount. Though I doubt you will have the grace to explain. Like you don't confirm the article being offered to include me in debate.
I'm showing you plants growing under monochrome green. Find a pot plant doing this. You like to say all plants are the same, but they are not. Pot plants die under green monochrome light, while others thrive. That is not the same.
I'm guessing your paper isn't about pot, and so isn't of any use to use directly. It's likely the 2009 paper that 13 years on hasn't been influential as it's holed.
Is blue light good or bad for plants? - PubMed
Blue photons are energetically expensive so the most energy-efficient lamps contain the least blue light. Blue photons are not used efficiently in photosynthesis, but blue light has dramatic effects on plant development. We studied the growth and development of soybean, wheat, and lettuce plants...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Differences in the response of wheat, soybean and lettuce to reduced blue radiation - PubMed
Although many fundamental blue light responses have been identified, blue light dose-response curves are not well characterized. We studied the growth and development of soybean, wheat and lettuce plants under high-pressure sodium (HPS) and metal halide (MH) lamps with yellow filters creating...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Many plants don't like a lot of blue light. Ours reacts badly to 40% but the sodium growers might be looking at this as a pat on the back.
I know tillering in wheat is increased by blue. I find myself often having the same conversation with you. It's about you reading something and applying it badly.
White light, with the green percentage being changed. 500ppdf like you spoke of, but a few plants. Tomato is our nearest analogue. Didn't really like it. Lettuce shows a real bias towards blue. Cucumber and wheat liked the green.
But yeah, all plants are the same.
You are now tempted to just laugh at my post and not reply. Like being impudent is a win.
goingrey
Well-known member
So put on some sunglasses.
Did you notice a difference with the 15 minutes IR? Found a site that suggests doing so but they are also selling the gear, so biased.
So put on some sunglasses.
Did you notice a difference with the 15 minutes IR? Found a site that suggests doing so but they are also selling the gear, so biased.
I have sunglasses for blurple and Vero 29 Gen 7 spectrum. I just do not open tent when they are on. Never did side by side, which would require clone strain, and identical light. Then would need to use microscope or better yet a THC test in addition. Anyone know of cheap accurate THC tests???
Cerathule
Active member
No, it is not. I just downloaded it flawlessly:
I attached/uploaded it, so it is hosted here. For your convenience, so you don't have to leave this very site.
If you want to download that study from somewhere else, just type its name in google within 2 apostrophs, and you'll find a dozen links easily.
??? I'm not offering anything "off site"! And besides, there's VPN. You strike me as a noob that doesn't know how to use internet/PC
Cerathule
Active member
Ah you think you can understand reality/nature just by looking at it with your eyes?
There's quite a lot of studies and reviews to be found freely on the nature of the farred-enriched shade-greenlight, why don't you make up your mind up first before speaking?
Besides, this can be measured:
This is spectrum decay by cannabis leaves in a grow tent
The plasticity of both photosystems allows for the optimisation of light harnessing for both spectras. With more canopy depth, the farred gets even way more dominant. At that point, blue and red are almost gone. Then, this spectrum causes photosystem I to be overexcited so PSII enlarges its antenna to better capture that last remaining greenlight (for gaining electrons for PSI).
I'm aware that only a minority of photons are actually photochemically used, but that seems irrelevant to me in this context.
The difference in absorbance of green vs blue/red is there, yes, but it is only +-5% at best, as has been shown for Cannabis.
Prof. Chandra was able to still measure an increase of photosynthesisrate when going from 2000 to 2500 PPFD so this is proof that some cultivars can utilize & harness the fullstrength sunlight.
So there's no point, or rather, it would be counterproductive to not use the green...
Cerathule
Active member
Tbh I don't care much about monochrome-colours grown plants at all...
As the above posted study already illustrates how the individual colours of light can have different effects depending on its fluxstrength, or, if other colours are accompanyingly also present.
So it is not so simple as to observe just a plant grown by a single colour to reveil, what this colour does to any given situation.
But yeah, I'd like to see how cannabis plants under green light just died, as you say...
Cerathule
Active member
I mean you realize the title of the study is "green light drives photosynthesis more efficiently.... in strong white light" so this refers to a white light illumination. Adding green to it will not make it blurple.
Here we can see what a few blurples or monochrome colours do:
>>
The pure green is really bad, it is about 55% only of the control White Light. But still, it will grow from this.
Here we can see what a few blurples or monochrome colours do:
>>
The pure green is really bad, it is about 55% only of the control White Light. But still, it will grow from this.
Cerathule
Active member
the paper has been written generally for all plants
Growenhaft
Active member
what was your discussion about again?
Guys please be nice to each other... you both have good arguments for such a discussion without being dirty.
the key message was that green light plays a greater role in plant photosynthesis than blue and red light... did i understand that correctly?
you both know a lot...i'm really impressed. but they both look at the subject from different angles... that brings you war! it doesn't have to be... there are always casualties in war... the best men always die.
If you allow me, I'll help you change the perspective for a moment.
if you look at the leaf individually which are not covered and catch direct sunlight... then blue and red are absorbed much more strongly than green light...
however, if you look at the plant as a whole... then most of the leaves will not receive any direct light... they are shade leaves... and these hardly receive any red or blue light... but almost exclusively green light... on Because of this fact, green light has a much more important impact on the overall photosynthetic performance of the whole plant than blue or red light.
today we know exactly what role the green light plays in the overall growth behavior and vitality of our plants... would it really be worth quarreling about? when you're on the same page anyway...
Edit
i'm a nerd of the english language and i don't really know much about computers and all that stuff... i use google to translate. I don't know if you understood the core of my statement correctly... shadow leaves have a completely different photosynthetic system than sun leaves... completely different operating systems. This is very important when considering cannabis' receptivity to the green light. a nightshade plant!
Guys please be nice to each other... you both have good arguments for such a discussion without being dirty.
the key message was that green light plays a greater role in plant photosynthesis than blue and red light... did i understand that correctly?
you both know a lot...i'm really impressed. but they both look at the subject from different angles... that brings you war! it doesn't have to be... there are always casualties in war... the best men always die.
If you allow me, I'll help you change the perspective for a moment.
if you look at the leaf individually which are not covered and catch direct sunlight... then blue and red are absorbed much more strongly than green light...
however, if you look at the plant as a whole... then most of the leaves will not receive any direct light... they are shade leaves... and these hardly receive any red or blue light... but almost exclusively green light... on Because of this fact, green light has a much more important impact on the overall photosynthetic performance of the whole plant than blue or red light.
today we know exactly what role the green light plays in the overall growth behavior and vitality of our plants... would it really be worth quarreling about? when you're on the same page anyway...
Edit
i'm a nerd of the english language and i don't really know much about computers and all that stuff... i use google to translate. I don't know if you understood the core of my statement correctly... shadow leaves have a completely different photosynthetic system than sun leaves... completely different operating systems. This is very important when considering cannabis' receptivity to the green light. a nightshade plant!
Last edited:
Cerathule
Active member
You are comparing apples to oranges.Many plants don't like a lot of blue light. Ours reacts badly to 40% but the sodium growers might be looking at this as a pat on the back.
I know tillering in wheat is increased by blue. I find myself often having the same conversation with you. It's about you reading something and applying it badly.
White light, with the green percentage being changed. 500ppdf like you spoke of, but a few plants. Tomato is our nearest analogue. Didn't really like it. Lettuce shows a real bias towards blue. Cucumber and wheat liked the green.
But yeah, all plants are the same.
You are now tempted to just laugh at my post and not reply. Like being impudent is a win.
My charts showed
- photosynthesis rate
- leaf transpiration
- stomatal conductance
- Mesophyll CO2 levels
So these were all measurements taken at a single individual leaf.
Your chart shows dry mass gains. These parameters cannot be used interchangeably.
You are trying to falsify a statement or findings of a study about greenlight's ability to drive photosynthesis at high flux rates. By citing evidence of dry mass gains. But this is a complete different measurement, and there are alot of factors in between leaf-growth and harvest happening that can affect the result.
