Originally Posted by 2la
If you can (or anyone else) can answer the question of "how photons emitted at [and] around 420nm and subsequently absorbed by Chl a (or beta-carotene) fails to elicit any physiological response from the plant whatsoever," then I'll be convinced that the actinic portion of a 50/50 lamp contributes nothing to plant growth whatsoever. As it stands, I just don't see the science behind it.
It's about time that people question the myth that actinic light is worthless in the freshwater planted aquarium.
We all know that actinic bulbs exist to fill a particular lighting need in the marine aquarium because the corals and other marine life need light at the appropriate wavelengths they have evolved over time to use in deep ocean water.
Botany tells us that terrestrial plants use both red and blue wavelengths to control certain growth mechanisms, like flowering and producing fruit, etc...
But to a plant, photons are photons. If the photons arrive on a wavelength that is compatible with the receptors common to all plantlife, then the plant will be able to utilize its energy.
My question is how much light energy comes out of an actinc and is it enough to drive freshwater plant photosynthesis? Will utilizing blue light only have a specific effect on freshwater plants? Are they too squat? Leggy? Will they flower or put out babies? Big mysteries never fully explained except in research laboratories and universities.
I wish some botanist with a Ph.D would come out and definatively state the effects of actinic light on non-coral aquatic plantlife. Anyone know a botanist or a graduate student looking for a thesis idea?