I've been running around with the idea that lighting in the blue spectrum is better for red plants. That conclusion comes from the following progression:
* Plants primarily respond (photosynthesize) to light in wavelengths not visible to the human eye, i.e. infrared and ultraviolet.
* Plants reflect back colors that they do not absorb (or use). Most plants reflect back green which is in the heart of the human-visible spectrum.
* Plants can't really control the rate at which they photosynthesize. However, one thing some can do is change color from green to red.
* Photosynthesis is most efficient using Red light. If a plant turns red, it cuts down on its growth by reflecting back infrared light.
* If a red plant isn't using green (human visible) light or red light, then it must use ultraviolet light.
Do I have that right? So, for example, throwing 100 watts of actinic light at a 20 gallon tank with only R. Macrandra would be better than using 100 watts of say an Aquasun bulb or any of the mid-day bulbs on the same tank.
Thoughts?
Thanks. - Chris
* Plants primarily respond (photosynthesize) to light in wavelengths not visible to the human eye, i.e. infrared and ultraviolet.
* Plants reflect back colors that they do not absorb (or use). Most plants reflect back green which is in the heart of the human-visible spectrum.
* Plants can't really control the rate at which they photosynthesize. However, one thing some can do is change color from green to red.
* Photosynthesis is most efficient using Red light. If a plant turns red, it cuts down on its growth by reflecting back infrared light.
* If a red plant isn't using green (human visible) light or red light, then it must use ultraviolet light.
Do I have that right? So, for example, throwing 100 watts of actinic light at a 20 gallon tank with only R. Macrandra would be better than using 100 watts of say an Aquasun bulb or any of the mid-day bulbs on the same tank.
Thoughts?
Thanks. - Chris