Well, I certainly agree with all that, but I digress. Experimental results are not opinions. Debate is only opinions. Arguments, or grab ass are the only outcomes, other than discussion in a forum context.
Discussion of facts that are relevant to our avocation is soothing to ganga and to me. So, I appreciate the candid discussion you pose for science.
Then.... let's do some science. What are we trying to disprove? (see my .sig)
What do we know? What can we build on, that already has been done? This study in Nature, (thanks again) strongly points to the notion that not only trees but other plants modify their Photo-Response, beginning in the morning, to be ready for solar max.
Could you design an experiment to rule out, what you really would like to see happen? We would like to see what? More! Better! Sooner! Etc! The plant pulls back its PR, (I did not know that) but what if we add more light as the hours go by, can we push it's PR back up to get a better outcome? Or does it just adapt stubbornly....for example.
If you set out to prove something instead of disprove, it is not science. It is how you get Cold Fusion madness.
Design experiments to prove that something is not possible. Design to rule that out. That is how you design experiments. For example, design to prove a dark period every afternoon does nothing or worse, or that flushing with boiling water is useless or worse. Science is a humble calling. If you don't rule it out, and the next guy finds your dumb mistake, humble crow in public for you. Science is a ruthless discipline, but it gets to the UN-debate-able facts.