[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: more green light

> From: "Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill at rt66_com>
> Subject: Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #137
> On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Dr. Dave wrote:
> >
> > Plants can utilize green light for photosynthesis. This occurs because,
> > even though chlorophyll does not absorb green light, accessory pigments
> > do. The energy captured by the accessory pigments is then magically
> > transferred to the applicable photosystem. Take a look at Barry James'
> > book on P. 21 and you will clearly see what Im talking about.
> >
> I have a few plant books, but not that one.
> Do you have a sense for how common that adaptation is?  My understanding
> is that most plants show so little response to green light (~530 nm) that
> it is called "safelight" in plant growth research.  The researcher can
> work by it, but the plants show minimal response to it.

I'm gradually learning that it depends greatly on the particular plant.
Most research literature seems to be based on emersed food plants,
ignoring more primitive immersed or floating plants. I sent a post here,
a while back, that tried to show the "green dip" but I had to get my
info from agriculture texts.

Subsequently, I have observed that my Riccia fluitans *loves* cool white
flourescents (530 nm peak and almost no red or blue). Amano's
observations seem to confirm this, from what I have read here. In no way
does Riccia seem to do as well under broad-spectrum lighting. It
*demands* green. Go figure!

I think we have uncovered a most fruitful area for some winning
science-fair projects, since the results appear to have such low
commercial value (compared to food and clothing) that the graduate
schools aren't doing too much on studying this topic.


Wright Huntley, Fremont CA, USA, 510 494-8679 huntley at ix_netcom.com
                   "Superstition brings bad luck."