Bumpin Spheda
New Member
Hosebomber, I may have posted the wrong NASA study. I remember the Green supplementation increasing dry leaf mass. I didn't really read that article, you're right, I just assumed it was what I thought it was. If I find the article I was thinking of I'll be sure to post it.
That being said, I can't help but feel you and I said very similar things, no? High light levels + Green light = good for deep leaf pigments (where I said it has an increased effect when Green is shown on the underside of leaves, thus closer to deeper pigments). I realize the use of that "NASA" study got you heated up. <<< My bad.
Oh, and I found the study I spoke of that was a corroboration between Texas A&M and Illumitex. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure:
Patent US20120218750 - Plant growth lighting device and method - Google Patents
Pretty basic, yes. Rather ambiguous, I agree. But I feel it's important since it states in simple terms that they found Green light to benefit the growth of both tobacco and lettuce which later led to the development of a spectrum used by Texas A&M in (what was at the time) the largest vertical greenhouse in the world, afaik.
The bottom line, for me, is that LED manufacturers have performed rather in depth lab tests showing that Green light is beneficial for some species of plants, and that finding happens to agree with my own point of view. I don't remember saying "everyone is wrong," I said the leaves of plants grown under narrowband R+B spectrums have a deeper shade of Green and a waxy texture. Other people I've spoken to have concurred, and I find it interesting that Area-51 chooses to incorporate Green in their TOL LED grow panels.
That being said, I can't help but feel you and I said very similar things, no? High light levels + Green light = good for deep leaf pigments (where I said it has an increased effect when Green is shown on the underside of leaves, thus closer to deeper pigments). I realize the use of that "NASA" study got you heated up. <<< My bad.
Oh, and I found the study I spoke of that was a corroboration between Texas A&M and Illumitex. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure:
Patent US20120218750 - Plant growth lighting device and method - Google Patents
A peak in the green region may assist in regulating aspects of plant physiology and assist accessory pigments in producing biochemical products. In the specific example shown in FIG. 4, the green light is about 8%, the blue light-about 12% of the total photon flux, with the balance in the red/far red spectral region, with a negligible amount of far red (less than 2%). Generally, though not necessarily, the amount of blue light is increased as height elongation is to be decreased. Preferably, in this example, the amount of green light is in the 5-10% range and the amount of blue light is within the 5% to 30% range.
...
Spectral distributions containing between 10% and 20% green light have been found to be particularly good for the growth of lettuce and tobacco. In them, the preferable amount of blue light is between 5% and 30%.
Pretty basic, yes. Rather ambiguous, I agree. But I feel it's important since it states in simple terms that they found Green light to benefit the growth of both tobacco and lettuce which later led to the development of a spectrum used by Texas A&M in (what was at the time) the largest vertical greenhouse in the world, afaik.
The bottom line, for me, is that LED manufacturers have performed rather in depth lab tests showing that Green light is beneficial for some species of plants, and that finding happens to agree with my own point of view. I don't remember saying "everyone is wrong," I said the leaves of plants grown under narrowband R+B spectrums have a deeper shade of Green and a waxy texture. Other people I've spoken to have concurred, and I find it interesting that Area-51 chooses to incorporate Green in their TOL LED grow panels.