Staghorn fern under LED lights

[MateoinLosAngeles]

I was reading a care sheet for Staghorn ferns and it made a point that "artificial light" was a no no. And that it was a "Staghorn fern thing" that didn't apply to other plants.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. A photon is a photon, so why wouldn't a grow light work for Staghorn ferns?

Any ideas on why the author of this care sheet would make this point against artificial lights?

[Lil Duck]

They’re stupid. Done. Most “care guides” are full of garbage anyways, do what you think is best.

Edit : They might also think that houseplant people think that like a shop light or lamp they keep in their basement is enough for a Platycerium when it is most certainly not.

[MateoinLosAngeles]

Originally Posted by Lil Duck

They’re stupid. Done. Most “care guides” are full of garbage anyways, do what you think is best.

Edit : They might also think that houseplant people think that like a shop light or lamp they keep in their basement is enough for a Platycerium when it is most certainly not.

I really agree with most "care guides" being full of garbage. They feel (and probably are) written by someone who has never grown the plant at hand.

It's probably true that they might want to signal people that their 5W, 400-650nm spectrum, desk lamp won't cut it. But to differentiate "natural" and "artificial" light sounds really stupid.

[Dimples]

I agree with Lil Duck (great name btw). Anything can be grown under lights so long as the light provided meets the plant’s intensity/duration needs (in addition to other growing condition specifics).

Staghorn ferns need relatively high light compared to what is regularly suggested by online blogs, sites, and care sheets. They want some shade, more when it’s hot, but they’re not really low light plants. I could understand saying it’s a little impractical (maybe not now but definitely 5 years ago) for the average home grower to buy lights strong enough to grow them well without natural light, but not that it can’t be done.

[MateoinLosAngeles]

Originally Posted by Dimples

Staghorn ferns need relatively high light compared to what is regularly suggested by online blogs, sites, and care sheets. They want some shade, more when it’s hot, but they’re not really low light plants. I could understand saying it’s a little impractical (maybe not now but definitely 5 years ago) for the average home grower to buy lights strong enough to grow them well without natural light, but not that it can’t be done.

Yeah in my mind I was planning to give them Cattleya light. But, for example, regarding Oncidiums a lot of care guides say "a little more than Phalaenopsis and little less than Cattleya." Under artificial light I've found them to tolerate Cattleya light levels without issue. I also think most Phals can use a bit more light than what the guides suggest.

[PuiPuiMolcar]

I grow my superbum next to my cattleya, sometime higher when it's cold. imo depend on the species I think they can take the high light if it's grown under light.

[estación seca]

Properly grown many get big fast, and would soon need a lot of lights.

[Dimples]

I picked up a staghorn in September. It’s currently inside at night and outside during the day, except for days it doesn’t get above 55F outside. It gets eastern exposure with hours of direct sun in the morning, then half a day of 50% sun, followed by very bright shade with indirect light around 500-1000fc. It’s a very happy plant that’s overdue for a repotting. Replicating that with lights indoors would probably need 2,500fc minimum?

[MateoinLosAngeles]

Originally Posted by Dimples

I picked up a staghorn in September. It’s currently inside at night and outside during the day, except for days it doesn’t get above 55F outside. It gets eastern exposure with hours of direct sun in the morning, then half a day of 50% sun, followed by very bright shade with indirect light around 500-1000fc. It’s a very happy plant that’s overdue for a repotting. Replicating that with lights indoors would probably need 2,500fc minimum?

That was my thinking, something like 12-14h under lights at a constant 2,000-3,000fc or 250 umol/m2/s

[Ray]

Originally Posted by MateoinLosAngeles

That was my thinking, something like 12-14h under lights at a constant 2,000-3,000fc or 250 umol/m2/s

Don’t forget that “something like 12-14h under lights at a constant 2,000-3,000fc” is equivalent to natural daylight reaching 4000-6000 fc, which is too high for a staghorn.