Butch and Maiden: Hey guys, I apologize if I was overly aggressive or unfriendly in my replies, or mistook what you were trying to say. The truth is I got a surprise $2000 car repair bill yesterday afternoon ("the check engine light is on because of this $400 part, but you also need to replace the timing belt, water pump, drive belt, brakes, transmission flush,etc.") I was pretty worked up about it, I'm sure that spilled over in my writing here. So I apologize for that. I'm always trying to engage in reasonable friendly discussion/debate, but I know that I often err on the side of too much bulldog. So I apologize for that as well.
Maiden: I definitely agree with you that if you reduce the light, your plants will be less colorful. I think most or all growers have had this same observation, so I'm not questioning the validity of your observations. The only thing I am trying to convince you of is
1) any part of the plant that is red is reflecting PAR (specifically, red PAR) back at you. If the whole plant is red, the whole plant is reflecting PAR back at you. For these claims to be true, you just have to believe in how color works, that red things reflect red light, green things reflect green light, etc. I 100% agree that if you are trying to get the plant to be fully blood red or even more intensely colored, you must supply a lot of light, and that if you turn down the light the color will decrease. So if the goal is to get that extreme color, yes, you must supply that much light, and not a bit less at a given temperature. When I say light is being indisputably wasted in those cases, my point isn't that you could supply less light and still get that color. We agree that one must definitely supply that much light, and no less to maintain that color. When the plant is green, it is absorbing and using 100% of the light you are supplying. As the light is increased, and the plant becomes more and more red, those red parts are reflecting light back at you, instead of absorbing it. So the more light you supply, the redder it becomes, but also the more (red) light is being reflecting back at you, instead of being absorbed and used by the plant. So this is what I mean when I say light is being wasted on a fully blood red plant--it is reflecting back as much red light as it possibly can, it is not using any of the reflected light. It remains true that if your goal is to achieve and maintain that intense red color, you definitely have to supply all of that light, we agree on that.
Butch:
>In all fairness, I don't think I ever made the statement that maximum color equates to maximum health.
agreed, I don't think you did either, my purpose wasn't to put that claim on you. I should have written more carefully. All along, I've just been trying to explicitly isolate some possible views on cultivation, and point out that I think the science renders some less defensible than others.
One possible view is: I like how sarracenioides looks when it is growing in full sun on Ptari. I want to cultivate my plants so they look like that. I have no beef with that, I said so twice and I'm happy to say it again. People can and should have whatever horticultural goal they want imo.
Another possible view is: The plants look awesome on Ptari, it *should* be my horticultural goal to duplicate that appearance in cultivation, *because* that appearance only happens in ideal natural conditions when the plant is maximally happy. I have never tried to pin this claim on you or anyone else, I'm sorry that I failed to be clear enough about that. I've laid out my reasons why I think the 'because' is unjustified in that view. If we accept the photoprotection interpretation of coloration, we have to interpret that full sun Ptari summit coloration as an attempt to reflect/reject PAR that would otherwise damage the plant. So we have to interpret those conditions as being excessive light conditions from the plant's point of view, its response to those conditions is to turn real red and reflect PAR back at the universe. And so then we also have to wonder, are those plants successfully reflecting all of the excess, or are they being nevertheless stressed or damaged by excess light. No one knows, I assume we agree on that. My point has never been to argue that you are mistaken about something, it's just been to reject this view, which I have acknowledged, maybe no one even holds. For the artificial light gardener, if the science tells us that that intense red color is a sign of self defense under excess light conditions, then we have two options:
1. I don't want to pay for excess light that the plant is just reflecting back at my face. I'm going to supply less light, even though the price is that the plant will be less red.
2. Job 1 for me is maintaining that intense color, that's my highest priority because it looks awesome. I will keep supplying sufficient light to do so, even though some of that light is wasted/reflected, and even though it is possible that (but unknown whether) the excess light is stressing or damaging the plant.
As in all things, you pick your poison. I make no claim about what the correct answer to this dilemma is. I'm just trying to make this dilemma explicit. I have said that if efficiency is the highest priority, it seems like that implies option 1. (Let me be explicit--efficiency has obviously never been my highest priority, I use some of the least efficient light options available. So I'm not claiming anyone *ought* to make efficiency their highest priority. I'm just saying that as the coloration increases, so too does the proportion of reflected/wasted PAR. What anyone *should* do in light of that fact is their business, not mine.)
When we see those intensely colored wild plants, I think we all feel a craving and strong desire--they look awesome, who wouldn't want that in their house? I think it is easy to look at those wild plants and interpret that coloration as their proper, maximally happy, or flourishing coloration, though again I'm not attributing such claims to you or anyone else. But that's what is so important about the photoprotection research: it forces us to look at that coloration in a totally different way. It forces us to view that intense coloration as a signal of *self defense* from excess light at a given temperature. It may turn out that nevertheless, those plants *are* truly flourishing and maximally happy, because their reflective response is perfectly effective at dispersing excess light, and they are at peak sugar production. Or it may turn out that those plants are being damaged in an inconsequential way by excess light coming through. Or it may be that they are being damaged in a consequential way. No one knows, that's all I've been trying to say.
