[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

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