B
budseyeveiw
- Posts
- 257
- Reactions
- 6
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Points
- 18
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
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
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.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.
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?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
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..
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.
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.
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.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.
Ok. At least I tried.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.''
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?