if light makes plants hermie what about the moon??

[budseyeveiw]

and i dont see how the moon would make plants hermie because that works against evolution in the natural world and lowers the chance of gene diversity which everything has tryed to evolve towards.. im sure plants would have evolved to not hermie by moon light. i reckon its more likely a result of inbreeding cannibis strains for decades, which has actually probs created problems.

 

[motherlode]

how does that work against evolution

a plants purpose is to propagate - as growers we tend to go against evolution by selective breeding and doing away with males so that plants dont reproduce

a plant wont hermie if its already been seeded by a male

Im really high and not sure what my point was - lol oh well

 

[jeffadies]

Motherload can you explain a bit more about the "if seeded by a male" part please?

 

[motherlode]

yeah in nature seeds drop on the ground - go dormant and pop the next time conditions are right - there is no culling of males

so the males would normally do their thing and the females would all produce seed

its my understanding sometimes plants (in general - not pot specifically) will hermie just to ensure a future generation

 

[jeffadies]

makes perfect sense. thank you.

 

[hiboy]

I believe the moon has no u.v. lighting, like the sun, therefor no growth or hermie from it.
Course im just a construction worker, what would i know
h

 

[Noworries]

i transplanted some DWC "slimed" plants outside, accidentally planted two into a shaded area for the first 3 hours of the day

the "full day sun getters" are veg'ing strong, the shaded plants immediately went into flower, and the buds look pretty good

i think it has a lot to do with DIRECT light

 

[budseyeveiw]

how does that work against evolution
a plants purpose is to propagate - as growers we tend to go against evolution by selective breeding and doing away with males so that plants dont reproduce

a plant wont hermie if its already been seeded by a male

Im really high and not sure what my point was - lol oh well

well evolution really only works with genetic diversity. apart from other organisms like bacteria or what not. a plants purpose is to propagate yeah, but the whole point of sexual reproduction of any animal/plant is to produce offspring carrying the best genes from both parent.
thats how evolution works.
reproduction, obviously doesnt require the diversity(in asexual reprpoduction) i think in wild plants it would be essential for long term survival, which is why i would doubt that they hermie that readily. perhaps if not fertilized maybe but not cos of the moon.

i dont smoke weed so maybe i ramble more.. get what im saying?

 

[budseyeveiw]

I believe the moon has no u.v. lighting, like the sun, therefor no growth or hermie from it.
Course im just a construction worker, what would i know
h

sounds like an interesting theory

 

[Seamaiden]

Budseye, I'm not getting what you're saying. A hermaphrodite is an organism that expresses both sexes (i.e. retains gonads, etcetera, of both male and female). A hermaphrodite *is* also able to reproduce, sexually, with itself and other organisms. Therefore, we can automatically assume that such sexual reproduction, even if via hermaphrodism, is still sexual and thusly is a mixing of the genetic material offered up by both parents.

when something is green such as leaves, its because the only light that object is reflecting is green. so technically i doubt green light can affect your plants.

Read the papers first, before you dismiss out of hand so quickly. Your assumptions, first that you can see all available green light, and second that it's all reflected back off the plant are both erroneous, IMO.

how does that work against evolution

a plants purpose is to propagate - as growers we tend to go against evolution by selective breeding and doing away with males so that plants dont reproduce

a plant wont hermie if its already been seeded by a male

Im really high and not sure what my point was - lol oh well

Actually, I have discovered that a plant may show hermaphrodism despite being pollinated by a proper male (lower branches pollinated by hand). I thought they wouldn't/couldn't, but they can. Just a coupla bananas late in flower, but still, that qualifies, no?

 

[Badmf]

I think this got off topic a bit.
Moonlight alone will not cause hermie conditions.
Plants as noted often will throw "nanners" late in bloom to further their existence. Some won't and there isn't anything "you" can do except watch for it.
If you have a small garden just cut em off as they appear.
Shock from any source isn't good and can influence stress. Watch temperature/humidity ranges in day to night!
Small "it's on" lights don't emit much light and reasons of hermie are elsewhere. But why not just tape up the lite since you "know" it's on, lol.
Collecting pollen from these will pass on the hermie trait more than getting a "fem" line, in my expereince I avoid hermie types period.

 

[budseyeveiw]

Budseye, I'm not getting what you're saying. A hermaphrodite is an organism that expresses both sexes (i.e. retains gonads, etcetera, of both male and female). A hermaphrodite *is* also able to reproduce, sexually, with itself and other organisms. Therefore, we can automatically assume that such sexual reproduction, even if via hermaphrodism, is still sexual and thusly is a mixing of the genetic material offered up by both parents..

that is quite true, im assuming that it would pollinate itself. which is more probable if the male flowers are growing in and around the female buds. i do understand what your saying i agree, the male flowers from a (original) female would fertilize another female plant and visa versa so the plant would have still forfilled its ''purpose'' so yep i guess your right.
quite clever survival tactic really.

i remember reading about a particular type of stick insect, in which the male is rare, male to female ratio being 1 male per one thousand females. so the females just adapted by laying eggs which were an exact genetic copy of the parent. i wonder why or if males can go through the same thing,i know they can both hermie but many people dont keep males so we dont see as much of their hermie tendencies.

Read the papers first, before you dismiss out of hand so quickly. Your assumptions, first that you can see all available green light, and second that it's all reflected back off the plant are both erroneous, IMO.

i wont dismiss your comment at all, as for reading the papers or assuming anything, i have a-levels in physics and chemistry so i have an ok grasp of lights and light spectrums but im no expert of course. all i can say is that if you choose a light, which are sold at the moment for the purpose of grow rooms etc, which produces a light which the plant reflects,( which your right the plant might not a reflect all parts of the green light spec,) then it should work and not affect them. i should have been more specific with my answer. the science will answer that question but when an object reflects light of a certain spec it wont absorb any(to my knowledge) im sure some site could clear that up.

if ive said anything wrong feel free to correct me. when you say papers do you mean scientific papers? if so drop some some links and il have a read.

 

[Chronic Monster]

interesting thread/discussion. thanks for sharing:)

 

[Seamaiden]

Budseye, I'm out of town right now and on a tiny computer that's a bit of a pain in the ass to use. I thought I linked the papers in this thread, one of my previous posts. Will relink if not. I was quite surprised when I read them.

Yes, I did, post #13.

 

[budseyeveiw]

Budseye, I'm out of town right now and on a tiny computer that's a bit of a pain in the ass to use. I thought I linked the papers in this thread, one of my previous posts. Will relink if not. I was quite surprised when I read them.

Yes, I did, post #13.

your statment is actually untrue and that paper has no scientific merit at all. it is not a scientific paper. it doesnt even detail any kind of experiement.

green light does not make plants photosynthesise more thats not true. in green lights plants can only use photorespiration which is simlar to photosynthesis but instead of using carbondioxide they respire with oxygen. and instead of being benificial there are tests which show it aids other plant functions but is actual more of a survival tactic rather than a means of producing sugars.

physics does no lie seamaiden plants green things can not efficiantly absorb green light. and after checking some of the manufactorers sites for grow lux etc, they also say the same thing. this is a quote from sylvania small but makes my point

''The substance that
performs photosynthesis is
called chlorophyll. Studies have
shown that chlorophyll absorbs
blue (short wavelength) and red
(long wavelength) light for
photosynthesis, as shown in
Figure 4 (above). However,
chlorophyll doesn’t absorb
green (medium wavelength)
light. It reflects the green light,
which is why chlorophyll –
and therefore most leaves –
look green.''

 

[Seamaiden]

your statment is actually untrue and that paper has no scientific merit at all. it is not a scientific paper. it doesnt even detail any kind of experiement.

green light does not make plants photosynthesise more thats not true. in green lights plants can only use photorespiration which is simlar to photosynthesis but instead of using carbondioxide they respire with oxygen. and instead of being benificial there are tests which show it aids other plant functions but is actual more of a survival tactic rather than a means of producing sugars.

If that's the conclusion you've come to after "reading" the papers (there are more than one linked) then I will suggest that you didn't read the abstracts. Both outline their hypothesis and experiments. One of those papers is cited and PUBLISHED and you're dismissing it.
One paper, the published and cited paper, says that green light drives leaf photosynthesis, especially in the presence of white light.

physics does no lie seamaiden plants green things can not efficiantly absorb green light. and after checking some of the manufactorers sites for grow lux etc, they also say the same thing. this is a quote from sylvania small but makes my point

''The substance that
performs photosynthesis is
called chlorophyll. Studies have
shown that chlorophyll absorbs
blue (short wavelength) and red
(long wavelength) light for
photosynthesis, as shown in
Figure 4 (above). However,
chlorophyll doesn’t absorb
green (medium wavelength)
light. It reflects the green light,
which is why chlorophyll –
and therefore most leaves –
look green.''

Ok. At least I tried.

 

[Zedekia]

Plants are designed to use LIGHT, they have adapted to use certain spectrums more efficiently based on where they grow. We are being sold a bag of goods when it comes to certain ideas of what is the best light and what lights don't cause problems. Why because most people are ignorant to the true science of how plants use the light....

Green light will and does in fact grow plants. Look at the studies that pretty much all the Photosynthisis curves are based on. Please show me where there are any zeros in the curve... In other words if green light were not beneficial why does the plant still use CO2 when only given green light? I am not saying if you absolutely need to go to work on your plants not to use a green light... But me.... I live by the zero light policy.

We take nature in our own hands some times.... For one most plants are not native to the area they are grown in... Most plants are not started naturally and are babied until strong enough to survive... Most plants are tricked into producing what we want them to produce.... When we let them grow in Nature we find out many things and sometimes we find out we need to change some things.

 

[wobbly goblin]

a interesting link regarding green light

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=147095

fwiw

 

[Chronic Monster]

So seamaiden, whatcha think of those green lights they sell in sunlight supply type mags, (supposedly safe to use in the dark?) maybe not so safe?

 

[budseyeveiw]

If that's the conclusion you've come to after "reading" the papers (there are more than one linked) then I will suggest that you didn't read the abstracts. Both outline their hypothesis and experiments. One of those papers is cited and PUBLISHED and you're dismissing it.
One paper, the published and cited paper, says that green light drives leaf photosynthesis, especially in the presence of white light.

Ok. At least I tried.

its not enough proof of anything.