Light color and plant growth

Boppa

Active Member
ran across this article and found it interesting. Not sure if I agree 100% with the conclusions, but judge for yourself.....


Green light: Is it important for plant growth?
Green light is considered the least efficient wavelength in the visible spectrum for photosynthesis, but it is still useful in photosynthesis and regulates plant architecture.
Posted on February 6, 2014 by Heidi Wollaeger, Michigan State University Extension, and Erik Runkle, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Horticulture

  • inShare0
.plugin-social { clear: both; display: inline-block; margin: 2px; overflow: visible; } .plugin-social.layout-wide .plugin-social-button, .plugin-social.layout-small .plugin-social-button { float: left; } .plugin-social.layout-wide a.tumblr-share-link { background-image: url("http://platform.tumblr.com/v1/share_1.png"); } .plugin-social.layout-wide .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button iframe#twitter-widget-0 { width: 90px !important; } .plugin-social.layout-small a.tumblr-share-link { background-image: url("http://platform.tumblr.com/v1/share_2.png"); } .plugin-social.layout-tall { float: center; } .plugin-social.layout-tall .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button a.tumblr-share-link { background-image: url("https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/images/logo_page/img_logo_bluebg_2x.png"); background-size: 56px; height: 56px; width: 56px; } .plugin-social .plugin-social-buttons { list-style-type: none; } .plugin-social .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button { display: block; padding: 3px; } .plugin-social .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button a.tumblr-share-link { background-color: transparent; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: scroll; background-position: left top; background-clip: border-box; background-origin: padding-box; background-size: auto auto; display: inline-block; height: 20px; overflow: hidden; text-indent: -9999px; width: 81px; }
Sometimes one may hear that plants don’t use green light for photosynthesis, they reflect it. However, this is only partly true. While most plants reflect more green than any other in the visible spectrum, a relatively small percentage of green light is transmitted through or reflected by the leaves. The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis. The relative quantum efficiency curve (Photo 1) shows how efficiently plants use wavelengths between 300 and 800 nm. Green light is the least efficiently used color of light in the visible spectrum.


Photo 1. Relative quantum efficiency curve. (Adapted by Erik Runkle from McCree, 1972. Agric. Meteorology 9:191-216.)

As a part of a series of experiments performed in enclosed environments, Michigan State University Extension investigated how different wavebands of light (blue, green and red) from LEDs influenced growth of seedlings. We grew tomato ‘Early Girl,’ salvia ‘Vista Red,’ petunia ‘Wave Pink,’ and impatiens ‘SuperElfin XP Red’ in growth chambers for four to five weeks at 68 degrees Fahrenheit under 160 µmol∙m-2∙s-1 of LED or fluorescent light. The percentages from each LED color were: B25+G25+R50 (25 percent of light from blue and green LEDs and 50 percent from red LEDs); B50+G50; B50+R50; G50+R50; R100; and B100.

Plants grown with 50 percent green and 50 percent red light were approximately 25 percent shorter than those grown under only red light, but approximately 50 percent taller than all plants grown under more than 25 percent blue light (Photo 2). Therefore, blue light suppressed extension growth more than green light in an enclosed environment. Twenty-five percent green light could substitute for the same percentage of blue light without affecting fresh weight. However, the electrical efficiency of the green LEDs was much lower than that of blue LEDs. To read more about this experiment, please read “Growing Plants under LEDs: Part Two” in Greenhouse Grower.


Photo 2. Salvia grown for four weeks under the same intensity of blue (B), green (G) and red (R) LEDs or fluorescent lamps (FL). The number after each color represents the percentage of that color, e.g., B50+R50 means that plants were grown under 50 percent blue light and 50 percent red light.

One potential advantage of including green in a light spectrum is to reduce eye strain of employees. Under monochromatic, or sometimes two colors of light such as blue and red, plants may not appear their typical color, which could make noticing nutritional, disease or insect pest issues difficult. Another potential advantage of green light is that it can penetrate a canopy better than other wavebands of light. It’s possible that with better canopy penetration, lower leaves will continue to photosynthesize, leading to less loss of the lower leaves.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit http://bit.ly/MSUENews. To contact an expert in your area, visit http://expert.msue.msu.edu, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).
 

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
"Plants grown with 50 percent green and 50 percent red light were approximately 25 percent shorter than those grown under only red light, but approximately 50 percent taller than all plants grown under more than 25 percent blue light (Photo 2). Therefore, blue light suppressed extension growth more than green light in an enclosed environment."

Okay so both combos produce less than red alone. I see no real purpose in using green except on my headlight I use at night to do adjustments in the flower room. Am I missing something here?
 

Boppa

Active Member
Green and Blue for Vegetation and red for flower
a

Other than stretch (all of the plants with blue light had the same height) all of the plants appear healthy and seem to have the same number of leaves and similar root structure. So the light color does not appear to influence health or growth in the vegetative stage.

That is unless you want tall plants..

Under identical light strength, perhaps having different veg and flower lights may be a waist of effort, time and money?
 

Dr. Who

Well-Known Member
a

Other than stretch (all of the plants with blue light had the same height) all of the plants appear healthy and seem to have the same number of leaves and similar root structure. So the light color does not appear to influence health or growth in the vegetative stage.

That is unless you want tall plants..

Under identical light strength, perhaps having different veg and flower lights may be a waist of effort, time and money?
Depends on what you want as in plant height and node spacing.

It takes time to balance the amount of PAR reds to your blues in T5 banks to get that balance of improved growth time vs too much growth (stretch and long nodal spacing)......Increased intensity and using MH do fit this bill ok but, more PAR lighting makes for faster growth in time.....You also don't get much of the central nm bands in using one or the other...

Using only HPS in flower can lead to too much stretch and again increased nodal spacing.....One trick to stop that is to run your MH till the stretch has finished and switch to HPS. This works well and adds almost nothing to grow times. The other problem with HPS in bloom (complete) is longer finish times due to the slower ripening of plants with only HPS lighting.....Some may argue this but, I see this all the time as compared to when I did MH lighting all the way....YET, I also see increased bulk and yield from these as I feel it's due TO that longer finish time. So some give and take on that.

Now there are Dual arc bulbs that have 600watts of HPS coupled with 400watts of MH for a 1k watt bulb in total...
Interesting idea and yet the EYE Hort bulbs are about 150 bucks.....I have NEVER been a fan of these "name brand" bulbs and their pricing due to nm banding claims! The cheapies work just fine for < 25 bucks (plantmax)......Now the thing is that PlantMax and a cpl of others have come out with these dual arc bulbs and they are less then 1/3rd of the price of the EYE Hort's!

I'm going to try a cpl of these later this year and early into next to see just what these "dual arc" bulbs will do.....There are a cpl of members using them now.....I have yet to hear of results (and I want to know for myself by my own hand how they compare in all area's)....

Just a few points to ponder

Nice thread Boppa

Doc
 

vostok

Well-Known Member
ran across this article and found it interesting. Not sure if I agree 100% with the conclusions, but judge for yourself.....


Green light: Is it important for plant growth?
Green light is considered the least efficient wavelength in the visible spectrum for photosynthesis, but it is still useful in photosynthesis and regulates plant architecture.
Posted on February 6, 2014 by Heidi Wollaeger, Michigan State University Extension, and Erik Runkle, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Horticulture

  • inShare0
.plugin-social { clear: both; display: inline-block; margin: 2px; overflow: visible; } .plugin-social.layout-wide .plugin-social-button, .plugin-social.layout-small .plugin-social-button { float: left; } .plugin-social.layout-wide a.tumblr-share-link { background-image: url("http://platform.tumblr.com/v1/share_1.png"); } .plugin-social.layout-wide .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button iframe#twitter-widget-0 { width: 90px !important; } .plugin-social.layout-small a.tumblr-share-link { background-image: url("http://platform.tumblr.com/v1/share_2.png"); } .plugin-social.layout-tall { float: center; } .plugin-social.layout-tall .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button a.tumblr-share-link { background-image: url("https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/images/logo_page/img_logo_bluebg_2x.png"); background-size: 56px; height: 56px; width: 56px; } .plugin-social .plugin-social-buttons { list-style-type: none; } .plugin-social .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button { display: block; padding: 3px; } .plugin-social .plugin-social-buttons .plugin-social-button a.tumblr-share-link { background-color: transparent; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: scroll; background-position: left top; background-clip: border-box; background-origin: padding-box; background-size: auto auto; display: inline-block; height: 20px; overflow: hidden; text-indent: -9999px; width: 81px; }
Sometimes one may hear that plants don’t use green light for photosynthesis, they reflect it. However, this is only partly true. While most plants reflect more green than any other in the visible spectrum, a relatively small percentage of green light is transmitted through or reflected by the leaves. The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis. The relative quantum efficiency curve (Photo 1) shows how efficiently plants use wavelengths between 300 and 800 nm. Green light is the least efficiently used color of light in the visible spectrum.


Photo 1. Relative quantum efficiency curve. (Adapted by Erik Runkle from McCree, 1972. Agric. Meteorology 9:191-216.)

As a part of a series of experiments performed in enclosed environments, Michigan State University Extension investigated how different wavebands of light (blue, green and red) from LEDs influenced growth of seedlings. We grew tomato ‘Early Girl,’ salvia ‘Vista Red,’ petunia ‘Wave Pink,’ and impatiens ‘SuperElfin XP Red’ in growth chambers for four to five weeks at 68 degrees Fahrenheit under 160 µmol∙m-2∙s-1 of LED or fluorescent light. The percentages from each LED color were: B25+G25+R50 (25 percent of light from blue and green LEDs and 50 percent from red LEDs); B50+G50; B50+R50; G50+R50; R100; and B100.

Plants grown with 50 percent green and 50 percent red light were approximately 25 percent shorter than those grown under only red light, but approximately 50 percent taller than all plants grown under more than 25 percent blue light (Photo 2). Therefore, blue light suppressed extension growth more than green light in an enclosed environment. Twenty-five percent green light could substitute for the same percentage of blue light without affecting fresh weight. However, the electrical efficiency of the green LEDs was much lower than that of blue LEDs. To read more about this experiment, please read “Growing Plants under LEDs: Part Two” in Greenhouse Grower.


Photo 2. Salvia grown for four weeks under the same intensity of blue (B), green (G) and red (R) LEDs or fluorescent lamps (FL). The number after each color represents the percentage of that color, e.g., B50+R50 means that plants were grown under 50 percent blue light and 50 percent red light.

One potential advantage of including green in a light spectrum is to reduce eye strain of employees. Under monochromatic, or sometimes two colors of light such as blue and red, plants may not appear their typical color, which could make noticing nutritional, disease or insect pest issues difficult. Another potential advantage of green light is that it can penetrate a canopy better than other wavebands of light. It’s possible that with better canopy penetration, lower leaves will continue to photosynthesize, leading to less loss of the lower leaves.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit http://bit.ly/MSUENews. To contact an expert in your area, visit http://expert.msue.msu.edu, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).
I have for the last 20 plus years have had a green incandescent light hi above in my grow room

its there so if I forget something I can enter whilst they sleep, so as not to disturb them

the deal being green light is not absorbed by the canna leaves,

and have been assured over the years plants can't SEE it!

as a result of my intrusions, I yet to have any issues with them or this bulb

I'm saying your post is wrong, but someone is?

its basic horticultural knowledge that blue light(6500k) makes leaf

and red light(2700k) makes stem, so use both in a vegging grow

to get correctly spaced internodes

good luck
 

Dr. Who

Well-Known Member
I have for the last 20 plus years have had a green incandescent light hi above in my grow room

its there so if I forget something I can enter whilst they sleep, so as not to disturb them

the deal being green light is not absorbed by the canna leaves,

and have been assured over the years plants can't SEE it!

as a result of my intrusions, I yet to have any issues with them or this bulb

I'm saying your post is wrong, but someone is?

its basic horticultural knowledge that blue light(6500k) makes leaf

and red light(2700k) makes stem, so use both in a vegging grow

to get correctly spaced internodes

good luck
What your not understanding by saying the post is wrong V. Is that while the "green" light nm bands do not effect the photoreceptors that actually change the pfr response from night to day. They do "effect" plant structural growth in the end.

Your Following comment is quite the generalization. BTW, measuring lighting by the Kalvin scale is another weak generalization.
HPS will always blow MH away for growth in time as they are more powerful at the same wattage and effect the faster growth PAR photoreceptors.
The point about mixed nm banding use in the dual arc's are to supply the more natural spectral spread so as to effect a more timely and complete finish in BLOOM........In vegging I do mix some PAR value bulbs to my Blue's and also use "deep blue" aquarium bulbs in the same fixture at a rate of 2 of each. These six bulb T5 fixtures are used for the solo cup and 1 gallon stage.
They move on to an 8 bulb with 2 more "mid range" value bulbs for balance for the early 2 gallon up potting and after reaching a prescribed height move to full on MH at 1k to carry them to the 5 gallon up pot point where they are repotted with bloom soil and replaced under the 1K again for 10-14 days of root expansion. Into the bloom room and flowering is done under HPS. I control big stretchers by supercropping..But generally don't have too.

Doc
 

bravedave

Well-Known Member
Depends on what you want as in plant height and node spacing.

It takes time to balance the amount of PAR reds to your blues in T5 banks to get that balance of improved growth time vs too much growth (stretch and long nodal spacing)......Increased intensity and using MH do fit this bill ok but, more PAR lighting makes for faster growth in time.....You also don't get much of the central nm bands in using one or the other...

Using only HPS in flower can lead to too much stretch and again increased nodal spacing.....One trick to stop that is to run your MH till the stretch has finished and switch to HPS. This works well and adds almost nothing to grow times. The other problem with HPS in bloom (complete) is longer finish times due to the slower ripening of plants with only HPS lighting.....Some may argue this but, I see this all the time as compared to when I did MH lighting all the way....YET, I also see increased bulk and yield from these as I feel it's due TO that longer finish time. So some give and take on that.

Now there are Dual arc bulbs that have 600watts of HPS coupled with 400watts of MH for a 1k watt bulb in total...
Interesting idea and yet the EYE Hort bulbs are about 150 bucks.....I have NEVER been a fan of these "name brand" bulbs and their pricing due to nm banding claims! The cheapies work just fine for < 25 bucks (plantmax)......Now the thing is that PlantMax and a cpl of others have come out with these dual arc bulbs and they are less then 1/3rd of the price of the EYE Hort's!

I'm going to try a cpl of these later this year and early into next to see just what these "dual arc" bulbs will do.....There are a cpl of members using them now.....I have yet to hear of results (and I want to know for myself by my own hand how they compare in all area's)....

Just a few points to ponder

Nice thread Boppa

Doc
Hey Doc, Nice to read someone infer that the lone HPS seems to cause longer finish times. I have been primarily a MH all the way guy but the one grow I flowered with a lone HPS my 70 day plants became 77 day plants and that was with switching back to my trusty MH for the last 27 days or so.
My current grow (10 days since flip) I an sticking with the MH for the first 25 days (somewhat dictated by the delivery of Fluorogrow fixture) and then switching to an HPS augmented by a 4 bulb 4' T5 holding one ATI True Actinic and 3 ATI Coral Plus.

http://www.atinorthamerica.com/bulbs.php?tabbedtabs=0
 

Dr. Who

Well-Known Member
Hey Doc, Nice to read someone infer that the lone HPS seems to cause longer finish times. I have been primarily a MH all the way guy but the one grow I flowered with a lone HPS my 70 day plants became 77 day plants and that was with switching back to my trusty MH for the last 27 days or so.
My current grow (10 days since flip) I an sticking with the MH for the first 25 days (somewhat dictated by the delivery of Fluorogrow fixture) and then switching to an HPS augmented by a 4 bulb 4' T5 holding one ATI True Actinic and 3 ATI Coral Plus.

http://www.atinorthamerica.com/bulbs.php?tabbedtabs=0
NICE!
And yeah, I sure DO see extended finish times with only HPS use in bloom!

Doc
 
Top