i think that blue light would be more of a macro nutrient and 650-680 nm range would be micro if you look at the output of the sun there is a huge and long peak of purple to blue light and then it goes down and is followed by a few tall spikes of green and amber ( 650-680 nm range ) unfortunately i cannot scan the page and put it on here but it says.....
"since blue light is more energetic it can travel deeper into the water ( it is at the lower end of the spectrum which is more energetic ) therefore plants are more likely to recieve lager amounts of light in the 400-500 nm range ( blue light ) The photosynthesis pigment chlorophyll used my the majority of plants for photosynthesis traps mostly blue and red light... although it is more efficent at trapping light in the 650-680 nm range. Blue light is used just as much as red light simpily because it is far more avalable, is stronger in natural sunlight, and passes through water easier. Artifical light with a strong blue and red light is much more appealing to our eyes and will still provide plants with sutable lighting. It is worth remembering that blue light will also promote algal growth, so aim for a balance of red and blue light."
as you can see plants being origianally grown in sunlight are used to more or equal blue light, how ever in most plant propagation companies they use 6,000 to 6,500 K lights. Im not one to say but depending on the kelvin of light they are grown in a similar kelvin would probabily be best. Now you cant forget that green plants reflect or asorb green light ( the reason they apper green) but red plants reflect red light ( the reason they appear red ) so having a bulb that peaks at 650-680 wouldn't be the best for a red plant they would need an alternative such as blue.
