I thought this was interesting.

https://docs.google.com/spread...

Vaguely. Full sun varies by latitude and elevation, and most of the plants are an entire genus. Begonia, Euphorbia, and Sedum are very wide-ranging genera with various members which have various tolerances. Kalanchoe blossfeldiana will do well with much less, but other members of the genus won't look normal with much less than all day sun - needing much more than just the 6 hours benchmark of full sun. Is anything less than full sun recommended by anyone for Adenium? A lot of the plants that don't say full sun I have kept in full sun here.

The chart was specifically for houseplants.

The chart was specifically for houseplants under commercial production. Obviously we have all bought plants that did not thrive once in our not so bright homes. Just gives you an idea of what the optimum lighting for specific plants looks like.

Hmm... there is no full sun inside, unless it's inside a GH.

Thanks, Alice, interesting chart for me. A lot of confirming my guesses on lower light tolerant choices. Some surprises
Zebra plant as a low light need. I wouldn't have guessed.
Dragonfruit and Epiphyllum seem so similar yet very different on the scale.

Tiffany, I think that is the point but foot candles can be reproduced with additional lighting. I bought an inexpensive clip on plant light for a half dozen seedlings this year and the difference was amazing. I finally have healthy seedlings that look like they are supposed to.

I was able to copy.paste onto a new spreadsheet and sort to get all the lower light ones together, say, under 2000 fc minimum. And some have a max of full sun! Plants are amazing.

Now you could use that to make a chart or graph, showing an upward curve with the plant names along the bottom...

That is a good point about supplemental lighting. I wish I had a way to measure (without spending $ on it.) I can quantify from observing plants over the years, this spot has more overall light than that spot over the course of a normal winter day, but have no idea how to put a number on any of that.

After pushing some plants to their limits in the past, I decide I prefer the low light look. That would be most Begonias, Aglaonema, Dief, the few Philodendrons I've put through those situations, purple waffle, zigzag Euphorbia, Swedish ivy Plectranthus, Streptocarpella, Schefflera. It depends on what you want the plant to do. Some have as their best feature big, dark leaves in less light.

Trying to not add any more high-end requirement plants. Most of their year is spent declining, then recovering from low light. It would be so easy to be able to put plants in places where people do in magazine pics, in movies. But in reality, so few plants can stay close to normal looking unless they're right by a window - or get some supplemental lighting as said. Outlets are sparse and in weird places in our old house but I have used shoplights some winters with surprisingly good results from just a couple ordinary fluorescent bulbs.

My windows might be old, ugly, drafty, but I've always been glad they are just plain glass, made before any of the UV-reduction stuff.

That is true, we had a whole wall of west facing windows in our last home and had to add the UV reducing film. We were able to lower the temp in the house by 15 degrees on a sunny summer day but my plants really suffered during the winter when I had them inside.