LED vs H.I.D

lol i thought this debate was settled at least 5 years ago.
Well sort of. People generally agree that you can grow well with leds which was a miracle some years ago.
Nowadays people dont argue which is best anymore but argue how to define best.
I use 2 of them, with a 1000w HID, for each 4 x 4 area, at 24 inches, and slowly build up the duration to 4 hours per day, but also still watch at the reaction the plants have to it. I also use often use a Blue Heavy Hortilux Blue or similar type of bulb for flowering, with a 6000k-6500k spectrum. Which the Halides, also release 280nm of light. All the way to 2400nm+. I use the Solacure, to intensify the lowest spectrum. I also find it useful with 1000w HPS-Hortilux to enhance the lowest spectrum.
Also at 280nm, it has been shown that it will reduce/eliminate powdery mildew. 280nm, is the line of UVB/UVC.
Thats a setup that makes a lot of sense. Equal height lighting.
We grow with leds pushed down fairly low towards the cannopy. Open space with amp limitations: any light on walls instead of cannopy is a loss. So single ledstars (or 4ups) is what works best for us; to be able to get the right spectrum mix and spread out evenly. Using uv led strips at the cost they ask for these would be very prohibitive. I get the feeling that its that car / fighter plane business model - the real money is in spare parts/maintenance. Led grow lights have become ridiculously cheap i dont knwo where they make their money on them any more.
 
Some strains, that didnt evolve around high UVA/B waves, may not benefit much from UVA/B supplementation, is what I understand. It is strain dependent.
Also it isnt really about increasing the NUMBER of Trichomes, it is about CHANGING THE CHEMICAL PROFILE.

It is also totally incorrect to state Infrared past 780nm has no benefit.

THIS IS NOT TRUE, as studies have been slim, to none, but, there is evidence that nm beyond 800nm, are beneficial.

One of the reasons nm beyond 800nm hasnt been studied, is for one, because the equipment, is limited to about 800nm, and beyond that, the equipment is not up to the task.


I'm well aware of the Emerson effect like up to a 750nm, stretch that maybe to 800nm.

But can you provide any sources for where they suggest over 800nm might be usefull?
Aside from certain shade responses from red to far-red ratios,
and the fact that rest of it just goes to heat.
Which of course could help if temps weren't optimal before.

  • Johnson et al. (1995): Proposed the existence of an undiscovered photopigment absorbing beyond 800 nm based on morphological changes observed in oat seedlings under NIR light.
  • Subsequent Research: Confirmed photosynthetic activity up to 780 nm and identified specialized organisms utilizing far-red light, but no evidence has been found for a photopigment in higher plants that absorbs beyond 800 nm.
 
The article ays the equipment, is not accurate enough to test above 800nm, but says, not enough study has been done to determine effects above that range.
The effects and potential economic benefits of near-infrared radiation – optical radiation with wavelengths longer than 800 nm – have yet to be explored.
Look at any textbook on botany and you will find this maxim: plants respond to optical radiation in the spectral range of 280 nm to 800 nm.The question is, how was this spectral range (sometimes referred to as Photobiologically Active Radiation, or PBAR) determined?

The Effect of Near-Infrared Radiation on Plants

The Effect of Near-Infrared Radiation on Plants​

Ian Ashdown, Senior Scientist | SunTracker Technologies

05/25/22, 05:34 AM | Indoor & Vertical Farming | LED

This question addresses issues beyond mere academic curiosity. Recent studies, both in the laboratory and in the field, have shown that ultraviolet-C radiation – optical radiation with wavelengths shorter than 280 nm – offers significant economic benefits for horticultural applications. The effects and potential economic benefits of near-infrared radiation – optical radiation with wavelengths longer than 800 nm – have yet to be explored.




Far-red and the Phytochromes​

To understand why 800 nm was chosen, we first need to look at the phytochromes, a class of photoreceptors that control numerous functions in higher plants, including seed germination, shade avoidance, photomorphogenesis, stem elongation, branching, circadian rhythms, root growth, and flowering times (e.g., Smith 2000 and Wang et al. 2015).

A phytochrome molecule has two isoforms, or states. Its ground state, designated Pr, preferentially absorbs red light with a peak spectral absorptance at approximately 660 nm. Upon absorbing a red photon, the molecule undergoes a conformational change to become the Pfr isoform. Left in the dark, this isoform will eventually revert to the Pr ground state. However, the molecule will also revert to the ground state if it absorbs a far-red photon with a peak spectral absorptance at approximately 725 nm.

The Pfr isoform regulates physiological changes in plants, and so it represents the biologically active form of phytochrome. It is, in other words, a biological switch. The relative concentration of Pr to Pfr will depend on the ratio of red to far-red light (expressed as R:FR) incident upon the plant leaves, and the plant will respond accordingly (although often in a species-specific manner).



FIG. 2 – Phytochrome spectral absorptances (from Sager et al. 1988).



The role of red and far-red light (which is nowadays defined by ASABE 2017 as the spectral region of 700 nm to 800 nm) was discovered by Borthwick et al. (1952). They determined that red light in the region of 525 nm to 700 nm promoted the germination of lettuce seeds (Lactuca sativa L.) with a peak spectral response at 660 nm, while far-red light in the region of 700 nm to 820 nm inhibited germination, with a peak spectral response of roughly 720 nm.

The spectral absorptances of Pr and Pfr were measured in vitro by Butler et al. (1964), Gardner and Graceffo (1982), and Sager et al. (1988), with moderately similar results. Today, the high-resolution (2 nm) dataset of Sager et al. is most commonly referenced.

Of note however is the spectral limit for these datasets: 800 nm. Visible light spectroradiometers typically have a spectral range of 350 nm to 800 nm. Wider spectral ranges are possible, but at the cost of reduced spectral resolution. Thus, while near-infrared spectroradiometers are available, they typically have spectral ranges on the order of 650 nm to 1100 nm. The decision therefore to define 800 nm as the limit of PBAR may have been dependent in part on the limitations of laboratory equipment.

Jury is still out, because almost no studies have been done.

My argument is?? The SUN has these light waves, and the plants evolved under these conditions, and anything less than the widest spectrum possible, is not a good example of a light used for growing plants. Sure, they work, but, are not optimal, and come nowhere near the spectrum of the sun.


 
This here post is one of those that i love that somebody had the idea to do:
Since were getting into spectrum i think its a good thing to check out.


Spectrometer placed under 1, 2 and then 3 leaves in order to determine what light was absorbed by the leaves.

If anyone got access to a spectrometer with good range it would be a very cool idea to repeat it but using sunlight as a light source, could be a very good place to start investigating this. Or why not adding a few IR diodes to one side of a plant?

There is a tendency for people getting stuck in looking at research papers and arguing things backwards and forwards; when we are perfectly able to generate data ourselves if we put a little effort and funds towards it. Its very nice to grow some good buds, but growing knowledge and understanding is much much greater. :)
 
Jury is still out, because almost no studies have been done.

My argument is?? The SUN has these light waves, and the plants evolved under these conditions, and anything less than the widest spectrum possible, is not a good example of a light used for growing plants. Sure, they work, but, are not optimal, and come nowhere near the spectrum of the sun.

When researchers explicitly control for temperature (e.g., matching leaf or canopy temperatures between treatments), the beneficial effects of 800+ nm light tend to disappear or greatly diminish. That’s strong evidence that any apparent benefits were likely thermal rather than photobiological.


Some studies that have done this:
  • Zhen & Bugbee (2020): Focused more on 700–750nm, but they point out that benefits from >750nm taper off rapidly, and >800nm effects are negligible if you eliminate temperature influence.
  • Lanoue et al. (2019, 2020): Tested high-intensity near-IR and found some elongation and stomatal responses, but also noted that most effects were linked to heat rather than photoreceptor activation.

I guess my argument is that there hasn't been any evidence that they would be usefull.
So especially when talking about grow lights, I'd say definatly not worth the electricity or the equipment.

I guess sun is valid control, though different places have different output, especially if talking about UV.
So when talking about optimal for plant growth, we ought to have better controlled setups.
But there is very little to none that suggests +800nm would be usefull, especially considering the efficiency of it.

If the questions is more about "chemical profile", as in more about terpenes,
then there is alot more buttons to push from imitating certain insects or providing UV at levels and wavelength that
is optimal for the specific plant, unlike what the sun provides, which is one size better fit all.
 
In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth's surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm). At the top of the atmosphere, sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically damaging short-wave ultraviolet
 
Sad that we are still entertaining threads with led vs hid..
It has been proven that led can produce more gpw than hid.
Why people are still trying to push hid anywhere outside of a greenhouse sized grow or other large scale thing is mind boggling. The benefits of led even have large scale growers making the switch.. Plants dont care about the artificial light source, and love the lack of issues associated with being outdoors
 
Back
Top