User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 58

Thread: Favi's Heli Thread

  1. #33
    Favian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No hijacking here! I learned a lot from Butch & Mike's input and I had a lot of fun learning from it! I'll keep updating and if the heli collection increases, I'm sure I will have to change some of my lighting techniques. Great growing and great input! Happy Friday!
    Your momma!

  2. #34
    Favian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh! And thank you, everyone for the compliments!
    Your momma!

  3. #35
    Favian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm happy with the outcome!

    Update:



    Your momma!

  4. #36
    ps3isawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Bay Area, CA, USDA 9B
    Posts
    688
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks for the light info, really want to get this plant as my next one and this discussion has definitely helped a lot. Even though at time it sounds like my data mining class. I was just thinking soooo are we rejecting or fail to reject the hypothesis?

  5. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Looking good Favian!! Congrats on finishing your classes.

    Ps3isawesome: I can't tell if you are really asking or not, but my opinion is that so many observations are consistent with the hypothesis's predictions, it cannot be rejected. Perhaps this is needless and unwanted, if so I apologize. (I continue to think this is really interesting.) The paper I linked earlier discusses several studies that observed the photoprotective effect of anthocyanins by measuring light related damage in different treatments. In contrast, again just imo, it is difficult for me to believe that reduced temperatures, which reliably stimulate increased anthocyanin production, should be consistent with the prey attraction hypothesis. To me, if prey attraction is the explanation for the color, I would not expect optimal attractiveness (= most red) to occur at lower temps rather than higher, since it seems like nutrient demand would actually be higher at warmer temps rather than lower. In other words, imo, I'd expect overall metabolic activity to be higher at higher temps (within reason), and thus demand for nutrients/prey ought to be higher at higher temps. But if that's true, then one ought to expect maximum attractiveness (= increased anthocyanins/redness) to occur at those temps, not lower temps, which is what we actually observe. So on my reading of the observations, we can reject the prey attraction hypothesis, while finding substantial confirmation for the photoprotective hypothesis.

    I guess it could be objected that at lower temps, insects are expected to be rarer, and so therefore the observed behavior makes sense. And there is evidence in the paper that P and N deficiency stimulate anthocyanin production, which is arguably consistent with the prey attraction hypothesis. However, it seems crucial to note that this increased anthocyanin production under low P or N conditions is observed in many families, none of which are carnivorous. So this behavior can't be explained in terms of prey attraction--surely neither maize nor Arabidopsis evolved this behavior to increase prey attraction and therefore address P or N limitation! Since we observe this in monocots and dicots, it appears to be a much older synapomorphy in plants generally, not a novel adaptation in carnivores. So imo, the evidence is compelling, both against the prey attraction interpretation, and in support of photoprotection. Again, my apologies if this is tiresome and not what you wanted

  6. #38
    Favian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewilder View Post
    Looking good Favian!! Congrats on finishing your classes.

    Ps3isawesome: I can't tell if you are really asking or not, but my opinion is that so many observations are consistent with the hypothesis's predictions, it cannot be rejected. Perhaps this is needless and unwanted, if so I apologize. (I continue to think this is really interesting.) The paper I linked earlier discusses several studies that observed the photoprotective effect of anthocyanins by measuring light related damage in different treatments. In contrast, again just imo, it is difficult for me to believe that reduced temperatures, which reliably stimulate increased anthocyanin production, should be consistent with the prey attraction hypothesis. To me, if prey attraction is the explanation for the color, I would not expect optimal attractiveness (= most red) to occur at lower temps rather than higher, since it seems like nutrient demand would actually be higher at warmer temps rather than lower. In other words, imo, I'd expect overall metabolic activity to be higher at higher temps (within reason), and thus demand for nutrients/prey ought to be higher at higher temps. But if that's true, then one ought to expect maximum attractiveness (= increased anthocyanins/redness) to occur at those temps, not lower temps, which is what we actually observe. So on my reading of the observations, we can reject the prey attraction hypothesis, while finding substantial confirmation for the photoprotective hypothesis.

    I guess it could be objected that at lower temps, insects are expected to be rarer, and so therefore the observed behavior makes sense. And there is evidence in the paper that P and N deficiency stimulate anthocyanin production, which is arguably consistent with the prey attraction hypothesis. However, it seems crucial to note that this increased anthocyanin production under low P or N conditions is observed in many families, none of which are carnivorous. So this behavior can't be explained in terms of prey attraction--surely neither maize nor Arabidopsis evolved this behavior to increase prey attraction and therefore address P or N limitation! Since we observe this in monocots and dicots, it appears to be a much older synapomorphy in plants generally, not a novel adaptation in carnivores. So imo, the evidence is compelling, both against the prey attraction interpretation, and in support of photoprotection. Again, my apologies if this is tiresome and not what you wanted
    Thank you, Mike! It was a hard summer, term.
    Your momma!

  7. #39
    Favian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    freshly opened!

    Your momma!

  8. #40
    Av8tor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    4 out of 5 Heli growers approve of this image

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •