Do you mean accessory pigments such as xanthophyll? Those should all be
between 400 and 700 nm rather than in the IR or UV ranges. I can't disagree
with your experience in broad spectrum lights, whatever works works. But I
think that Busko's criticism of broad spectrum lights is more that they're
inefficient through producing unnecessary types of light, rather than that
they don't work. This is especially true of metal halides, which use large
amounts of electricity, produce lots of electromagnetic radiation, but only
some of that EM is usable to plants as "light". But, they DO produce LOTS of
light as an absolute measure, so they should work.
(I'm speaking as someone who has had limited success with aquatic plants,
although the _Coleus_ and passionflower plants in my greenhouse are growing
like weeds in natural light.)
--Bruce Stallsmith
Huntsville, AL
"George W. WHAT?!"
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org
</x-flowed>