What kind of light mj 'likes ' ? Decoded from it's reflectance ....

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
cannabis reflectance.JPGcultivar.jpgseason.jpg......spectrum 1.jpg

Nitrogen fertilising affects light absorption ...


nitrogen.JPG.....
..........


con 1.JPGcon2.JPGcon3.JPG......


mj spectra.jpg.....
For more info ...=>>>google it.jpg

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mj is a "light-sponge" of a plant ....
It reflects less than 20% of incident green photons ....

If deficient in Nitrogen ,bigger differences are seen in green photon absorption/reflection...
So ,in a HEALTHY PLANT ,when Nitrogen fertilisation is increasing , green light is more absorbed .
Direct relation of Light (Energy ) and Matter (Nitrogen ) into producing biomass (proteins / cellulose /lignin/etc ) ...
...........
Decreased reflectance (thus high absorption ) in blue photons ,
may show increased photoprotection pigment biosynthesis / action .
And not necessarily Chlorophyll absorption or PS center utilisation of blue photons .
....
For example ,Zeaxanthin-Lutein -B carotene do absorb most of blue photons ...

Some of photoprotective pigments
Most of them absorbing light at Violet/blue range .



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
...<=absorption of different Zeaxanthin isomers .



Anthocyanins.jpg<=Anthocyanins ...



rqe.jpg<= What really happens ,more or less....

Relative Quantum Efficiency (RQE).jpg<RQE per photon wavelength ( nanometers )




...........................................................................................................................................

Green light is "useless " - "wasted " light ?
Don't think so ...

Re-think your color theories ....

;-)
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
-Blue wls do increase lateral rooting as also secondary growth (thicker branches and stem ) .
Specially during the first week of vegetative growth * .......-Under led artif. lighting *-
( = ~ 10-15% of total flux )

-Blue wls do decrease PS rates .Slow down metabolism .( Vegging , > ~15% of total flux. )

-Blue wls most probably do increase trichome density .
But not necessarily the cannabinoid concentration / content inside them .
So BL wls ,may not increase potency ,
due to increasement/ ratio alteration of 'psychoactive' cannabinoids concentration / content per trichome ,
but through increased trichome density per flower/leaf area .

-Blue wls ,most probably prolong flowering and maturing times .( Possible phy action ) ..
...<= from : http://plantcellbiology.masters.grkraj.org/html/Plant_Growth_And_Development10-Physiology_Of_Flowering.htm

ZTLs :ZEITLUPE proteins : Photoreceptors at blue wls .Circadian Rythm Oschillator 'entrainer'..
Enhancing / 'augmenting PHY/CRY flowering signals


ZEITLUPE is a circadian photoreceptor stabilized by GIGANTEA in blue light.


Abstract

The circadian clock is essential for coordinating the proper phasing of many important cellular processes. Robust cycling of key clock elements is required to maintain strong circadian oscillations of these clock-controlled outputs. Rhythmic expression of the Arabidopsis thaliana F-box protein ZEITLUPE (ZTL) is necessary to sustain a normal circadian period by controlling the proteasome-dependent degradation of a central clock protein, TIMING OF CAB EXPRESSION 1 (TOC1). ZTL messenger RNA is constitutively expressed, but ZTL protein levels oscillate with a threefold change in amplitude through an unknown mechanism. Here we show that GIGANTEA (GI) is essential to establish and sustain oscillations of ZTL by a direct protein-protein interaction. GI, a large plant-specific protein with a previously undefined molecular role, stabilizes ZTL in vivo. Furthermore, the ZTL-GI interaction is strongly and specifically enhanced by blue light, through the amino-terminal flavin-binding LIGHT, OXYGEN OR VOLTAGE (LOV) domain of ZTL. Mutations within this domain greatly diminish ZTL-GI interactions, leading to strongly reduced ZTL levels. Notably, a C82A mutation in the LOV domain, implicated in the flavin-dependent photochemistry, eliminates blue-light-enhanced binding of GI to ZTL. These data establish ZTL as a blue-light photoreceptor, which facilitates its own stability through a blue-light-enhanced GI interaction. Because the regulation of GI transcription is clock-controlled, consequent GI protein cycling confers a post-translational rhythm on ZTL protein. This mechanism of establishing and sustaining robust oscillations of ZTL results in the high-amplitude TOC1 rhythms necessary for proper clock function.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704763

[h=1]GIGANTEA is a nuclear protein involved in phytochrome signaling in Arabidopsis[/h]
[h=2]Abstract[/h] In a genetic screen of available T-DNA-mutagenized Arabidopsis populations for loci potentially involved in phytochrome (phy) signaling, we identified a mutant that displayed reduced seedling deetiolation under continuous red light, but little if any change in responsiveness to continuous far-red light. This behavior suggests disruption of phyB, but not phyA signaling. We have cloned the mutant locus by using the T-DNA insertion and found that the disrupted gene is identical to the recently described GIGANTEA (GI) gene identified as being involved in control of flowering time. The encoded GI polypeptide has no sequence similarity to any known proteins in the database. However, by using &#946;&#8722;glucuronidase-GI and green fluorescent protein-GI fusion constructs, we have shown that GI is constitutively targeted to the nucleus in transient transfection assays. Optical sectioning by using the green fluorescent protein-GI fusion protein showed green fluorescence throughout the nucleoplasm. Thus, contrary to previous computer-based predictions that GI would be an integral plasmamembrane-localized polypeptide, the data here indicate that it is a nucleoplasmically localized protein. This result is consistent with the proposed role in phyB signaling, given recent evidence that early phy signaling events are nuclear localized.




http://www.pnas.org/content/97/17/9789.abstract


More about ZTLs (blue light flowering inhibiting-to Cannabis - photoreceptors ) :

[h=1]The F-Box Protein ZEITLUPE Confers Dosage-Dependent Control on the Circadian Clock, Photomorphogenesis, and Flowering Time[/h].....the effect of the mutants and overexpressors on period in both light and dark suggests that ZTL acts as more than a typical photoreceptor. It may complex with one or more known photoreceptors under some circumstances (e.g., red, blue, or white light) and target one or more proteins for light-dependent degradation......

.....Presumably for ZTL, under all conditions at least some of the targeted polypeptides are involved in the control of the pace of the oscillator. Hence, unlike the on/off light switch nature of the phytochromes, ZTL may act more like a Y-valve, redirecting the ubiquitinating potential of the participating SCF complex in one direction or another, depending on the light environment.....

http://www.plantcell.org/content/16/3/769.full

More simply ,put ..Blue light affects 'pace' of flowering and maturing time ...



-BL wls do show( some serious ) indications of decreasing yields ...

-BL wls increase biosynthesis of waxy leaf protective substances and certain types of terpenes .

-Shade Adapted leaves ,make more use of BL wls (more ChB in those leaves .)


Personal Conclusions :

BL is beneficial at the very start of mj's life ..

( Initial photomorphogenesis .
Plant -in most cases - will follow same "pattern " ,even if - later on - BL wls are decreased in power .
Stimulus(blue photons) has ceased or diminished ,but it's 'effect ' will continue .
'Permanent / non-reversible effect " of some phy(tochrome) or cry(ptochrome ) type(s) ,activated early ( @ seedling st-age ) ,
by BL wls ? ....)
..


Through rest of vegging ,blue wls power should/could remain somewhere between 8-15% of total flux .
Later ,towards middle of flowering ,it should drop to ~ 4-8% . ( Advised )
At late flowering/maturing ,it can drop even more to about 1-4% of total flux . ( Advised )
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
-The more light flux is used in controlled horticultural environments ,the more green wls it should 'contain' .

-If green wls dominate ,over a low total light flux ,then Shade Avoidance Syndrome occurs .

-Green wls counteract photomorphogenic effects of red wls ,on leaf canopy .
Red wls cause Sun adaptations .Green wls cause Shade Adaptations .

-Older /Lower Fan leaves absorb & utilise more efficiently the Green Wls ,than Red ones .

-Direct relation between Green wls leaf reflectance & Nitrogen availability ,
clearly identifies the importance of Green wls ,in photosynthesis apparatus .
(The less Nitrogen assimilated ,the more green wls reflected )

-Green photons are of " stable ,long-termed ,moderate rate, energy producing " profile .
Due to their lower absorption ,but high relative quantum yield .
Not easy to saturate PS systems .

Plants ,in order to produce chemical energy /biomass utilising -only- green photons ,n
eed prolonged duration of exposure to them .

Or/and (really ) high power. (flux) .
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Short Break :


From beginning of flowering to fruit formation the highest values for photosynthesis

intensity* in the middle floor leaves, whilelight absorption is greater in the leaves under the

inflorescences**, leaves that have an important role also in insuring resistance to stress factors.


However, because different explanations exist for the presence and role of the flavonoids (Blackburn

B.A., 2007), and also the favorable climatic conditions for hemp in 2009, climatic controlled

experiments need to be done in order to determine the role of the flavonoids in counter stress factors

in Cannabis sativa L.
*RQE

**An inflorescence is a group or cluster of flowers arranged on a stem that is composed of a main branch or a complicated arrangement of branches. Morphologically, it is the part of the shoot of seed plants where flowers are formed and which is accordingly modified. The modifications can involve the length and the nature of the Internodes and the phyllotaxis, as well as variations in the proportions, compressions, swellings, adnations, connations and reduction of main and secondary axes. Inflorescence can also be defined as the reproductive portion of a plant that bears a cluster of flowers in a specific pattern.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Figure 4
Light absorption by acetone extract of
pigments (1%) in 320 nm wavelenght, dependindg on
floor of leaves, in five cultivars of
Cannabis sativa L.


The dynamics of chlorophyll a 663 from the

beginning of flowering until fruit formation, for the

five studied cultivars, indicates a maximum
content during fruit formation for all cultivars

(Gopal N.H., 1973) except the dioecious hemp
cultivar Lovrin100.



The middle floor leaves show a superior

photosynthetic intensity compared to the leaves
under the inflorescence, suggesting their
contribution to the synthesis and transport of
assimilates.
The light absorption pigments content shows
reverse dynamic compared with chlorophyll a 663.


The chlorophylls a 430 and b 454 content has

maximum values during flowering and minimum

during fruit formation, except Lovrin 110 cultivar.
Light absorption, since flowering begins

until fruit formation has a greater intensity in the
leaves under the inflorescence wile maximum of
photosynthesis in the reaction center is identified
in the middle floor leaves (data not shown)









............................................
Higher RQE at mid-level canopy ... ( Higher utilisation of green-yellow-amber-amber/red wls )
While in leaves near buds /directly under the buds ,higher absorption of deep red wls occurs ...



Source : FOLIAR PIGMENTS
AND THEYR DYNAMICS DURING DIFFERENT

VEGETATION PHENOPHASES IN FIVE CULTIVARS OF CANNABIS SATIVA L.

http://www.revagrois.ro/PDF/2011/paper/2011-54(1)-7-en.pdf
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
[h=1]UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES[/h]

  1. John Lydon[SUP]2,*[/SUP],
  2. Alan H. Teramura[SUP]1[/SUP],
  3. C. Benjamin Coffman[SUP]3[/SUP]
Article first published online: 2 JAN 2008



[h=3]Abstract[/h]The effects of UV-B radiation on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two greenhouse-grown C. sativa chemotypes (drug and fiber) were assessed. Terminal meristems of vegetative and reproductive tissues were irradiated for 40 days at a daily dose of 0, 6.7 or 13.4 kJ m[SUP]-2[/SUP] biologically effective UV-B radiation. Infrared gas analysis was used to measure the physiological response of mature leaves, whereas gas-liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of cannabinoids in leaf and floral tissue.


There were no significant physiological or morphological differences among UV-B treatments in either drug- or fiber-type plants. The concentration of &#916;[SUP]9[/SUP]-tetrahydrocannabinol (&#916;[SUP]9[/SUP]-THC), but not of other cannabinoids, in both leaf and floral tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants. None of the cannabinoids in fiber-type plants were affected by UV-B radiation.


The increased levels of &#916;[SUP]9[/SUP]-THC in leaves after irradiation may account for the physiological and morphological tolerance to UV-B radiation in the drug-type plants. However, fiber plants showed no comparable change in the level of cannabidiol (a cannabinoid with UV-B absorptive characteristics similar to &#916;[SUP]9[/SUP] THC). Thus the contribution of cannabinoids as selective UV-B filters in C. sativa is equivocal.






http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
The impact of blue light on leaf mesophyll conductance

The conductance of CO(2) between substomatal cavities and the site of CO(2) fixation.
This conductance, commonly termed mesophyll conductance (g[SUB]m[/SUB])
Abstract

Blue light has many direct and indirect effects on photosynthesis. The impact of blue light on mesophyll conductance (g[SUB]m[/SUB]), one of the main diffusive limitation to photosynthesis, was investigated in leaves of Nicotiana tabacum and Platanus orientalis, characterized by high and low g[SUB]m[/SUB], respectively. Leaves were exposed to blue light fractions between 0% and 80% of incident light intensity (300 &#956;mol photons m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP] s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]), the other fraction being supplied as red light. Leaves exposed to blue light showed reduced photosynthesis and unaltered stomatal conductance. The g[SUB]m[/SUB], measured using the chlorophyll fluorescence-based method, was strongly reduced in both plant species. Such a reduction of g[SUB]m[/SUB] may not be real, as several assumptions used for the calculation of g[SUB]m[/SUB] by fluorescence may not hold under blue light. To assess possible artefacts, the electron transport rate measured by fluorescence (J[SUB]f[/SUB]) and by gas-exchange (J[SUB]c[/SUB]) were compared in leaves exposed to different fractions of blue light under non-photorespiratory conditions. The two values were only equal, a prerequisite for correct g[SUB]m[/SUB] measurements, when the illumination was totally provided as red light. Under increasing blue light levels an increasing discrepancy was observed, which suggests that J[SUB]f[/SUB] was not correctly calculated, and that such an error could also upset g[SUB]m[/SUB] measurements. Blue light was not found to change the absorbance of light by leaves, whereas it slightly decreased the distribution of light to PSII. To equate J[SUB]f[/SUB] and J[SUB]c[/SUB] under blue light, a further factor must be added to the J[SUB]f[/SUB] equation, which possibly accounted for the reduced efficiency of energy transfer between the pigments predominantly absorbing blue light (the carotenoids) and the chlorophylls. This correction reduced by about 50% the effect of blue light on g[SUB]m[/SUB]. However, the residual reduction of g[SUB]m[/SUB] under blue light was real and significant, although it did not appear to limit the chloroplast CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration and, consequently, photosynthesis. Reduction of g[SUB]m[/SUB] might be caused by chloroplast movement to avoid photodamage, in turn affecting the chloroplast surface exposed to intercellular spaces. However, g[SUB]m[/SUB] reduction occurred immediately after exposure to blue light and was complete after less than 3 min, whereas chloroplast relocation was expected to occur more slowly. In addition, fast g[SUB]m[/SUB] reduction was also observed after inhibiting chloroplast movement by cytochalasin. It is therefore concluded that g[SUB]m[/SUB] reduction under blue light is unlikely to be caused by chloroplast movement only, and must be elicited by other, as yet unknown, factors.




http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/8/2283.short
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Photosynthetic response of Cannabis sativa L. to variations in photosynthetic photon flux densities, temperature and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] conditions

Rate of Photosynthesis : The amount of molecules CO2 fixed or O2 evolved per time unit(per leaf area)
>=same thing .O2 comes from fixing C of CO2 .
Usually measured in mmol( m&#8315;²) s&#8315;¹.



Abstract

Effect of different photosynthetic photon flux densities (0, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]), temperatures (20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 °C) and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations (250, 350, 450, 550, 650 and 750 &#956;mol mol[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]) on gas and water vapour exchange characteristics of Cannabis sativa L. were studied to determine the suitable and efficient environmental conditions for its indoor mass cultivation for pharmaceutical uses. The rate of photosynthesis (P[SUB]N[/SUB]) and water use efficiency (WUE) of Cannabis sativa increased with photosynthetic photon flux densities (PPFD) at the lower temperatures (20&#8211;25 °C). At 30 °C, PN and WUE increased only up to 1500 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] PPFD and decreased at higher light levels. The maximum rate of photosynthesis (P[SUB]N max[/SUB]) was observed at 30 °C and under 1500 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] PPFD. The rate of transpiration (E) responded positively to increased PPFD and temperature up to the highest levels tested (2000 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] and 40 °C). Similar to E, leaf stomatal conductance (g[SUB]s[/SUB]) also increased with PPFD irrespective of temperature. However, g[SUB]s[/SUB] increased with temperature up to 30 °C only. Temperature above 30 °C had an adverse effect on g[SUB]s[/SUB] in this species. Overall, high temperature and high PPFD showed an adverse effect on P[SUB]N[/SUB] and WUE. A continuous decrease in intercellular CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration (Ci) and therefore, in the ratio of intercellular CO[SUB]2[/SUB] to ambient CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration (Ci/Ca) was observed with the increase in temperature and PPFD. However, the decrease was less pronounced at light intensities above 1500 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]. In view of these results, temperature and light optima for photosynthesis was concluded to be at 25&#8211;30 °C and &#8764;1500 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] respectively. Furthermore, plants were also exposed to different concentrations of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (250, 350, 450, 550, 650 and 750 &#956;mol mol[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]) under optimum PPFD and temperature conditions to assess their photosynthetic response. Rate of photosynthesis, WUE and Ci decreased by 50 %, 53 % and 10 % respectively, and Ci/Ca, E and g[SUB]s[/SUB] increased by 25 %, 7 % and 3 % respectively when measurements were made at 250 &#956;mol mol-1 as compared to ambient CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (350 &#956;mol mol[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]) level. Elevated CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration (750 &#956;mol mol[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP]) suppressed E and g[SUB]s[/SUB] &#8764; 29% and 42% respectively, and stimulated P[SUB]N[/SUB], WUE and Ci by 50 %, 111 % and 115 % respectively as compared to ambient CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration. The study reveals that this species can be efficiently cultivated in the range of 25 to 30 °C and &#8764;1500 &#956;mol m[SUP]&#8722;2[/SUP]s[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] PPFD. Furthermore, higher PN, WUE and nearly constant Ci/Ca ratio under elevated CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations in C. sativa, reflects its potential for better survival, growth and productivity in drier and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] rich environment.





http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-008-0027-x
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Variations in Photosynthesis, Transpiration, Water Use and Cannabinoid Contents in Field Grown Drug Type Varieties of Cannabis sativa L.

S Chandra [SUP]1[/SUP], H Lata [SUP]1[/SUP], Z Mehmadic [SUP]1[/SUP], IA Khan [SUP]1[/SUP][SUP], [/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP][SUP], [/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP], MA ElSohly [SUP]1[/SUP][SUP], [/SUP][SUP]4[/SUP]


High potency Cannabis sativa plants propagated through vegetative cuttings were planted in the field for outdoor cultivation. These plants were monitored for their photosynthetic characteristics and cannabinoid contents during vegetative, flowering, budding and senescence stages. Different physiological parameters i.e. photosynthesis (P[SUB]N[/SUB]), dark respiration (R[SUB]D[/SUB]), transpiration (T[SUB]R[/SUB]), stomatal conductance (gCO[SUB]2[/SUB]) and intercellular CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration (C[SUB]i[/SUB]) were measured in these plants using Li-COR 6200 photosynthetic system. Mesophyll efficiency (C[SUB]i[/SUB]/g[SUB]S[/SUB]) and water use efficiency (WUE, P[SUB]N[/SUB]/T[SUB]R[/SUB]) were calculated based on P[SUB]N[/SUB][SUB], [/SUB]T[SUB]R,[/SUB] C[SUB]i[/SUB] and g[SUB]S [/SUB]values. Cannabinoid contents (&#916;[SUP]9[/SUP]-THC, THCV, CBD, CBC, CBG and CBN) were measured simultaneously in these plants using gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID). In general, an increase in the rate of P[SUB]N[/SUB] was observed in this species with plant growth from vegetative to early budding stage followed by a decrease during later growth stages. A reduction in WUE observed during the hot summer months is attributed towards its higher rate of T[SUB]R[/SUB]. Diurnal and seasonal changes in the environmental conditions reveal that the effect of light intensity was found to be more prominent in regulating P[SUB]N[/SUB], whereas, the effect of temperature was more prominent in regulating T[SUB]R[/SUB] in this species. Similar to P[SUB]N[/SUB], &#916;[SUP]9[/SUP]-THC content increased with plants age up to a highest level during budding stage where it reached a plateau for about a week before the plants were harvested. The changes in the concentration of other cannabinoids followed a similar pattern in some cases but show more variability depending on the variety. This study reveals a positive correlation between the rate of P[SUB]N[/SUB] and &#916;[SUP]9[/SUP]-THC content in Cannabis sativa L. However, the level of significance varied with plant variety.


http://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0031-1273536
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Effect of Light Intensity on Photosynthetic Characteristics of High &#916;9-THC Yielding Varieties of Cannabis sativa L.



Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae), an annual herb is the natural source of cannabinoids that mainly accumulate in glandular trichomes of the plant. Due to the allogamous (cross fertilization) nature of Cannabis sativa it is very difficult to maintain the efficacy of selected high THC yielding elite varieties if grown from seeds under field conditions. Thus, the indoor cultivation, under controlled environmental conditions, using vegetative propagation of selected high yielding female clones can be a better alternative for its mass propagation. In the present study, plants of four drug type Cannabis varieties namely HPM, MX, K2 and W1 were grown indoors, under controlled environmental conditions (25±3°C, 55±5% RH and &#732; 700±24µmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP]s[SUP]-1[/SUP] light at plant canopy level). Gas and water vapor characteristics of these plants were studied at different Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD; 000, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000µmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP]s[SUP]-1[/SUP]) for their efficient indoor cultivation. An increasing trend in photosynthesis (P[SUB]N[/SUB]), transpiration (Tr) and stomatal conductance (gCO[SUB]2[/SUB]) was observed with increase in PPFD up to 2000µmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP]s[SUP]-1[/SUP] in all the varieties at optimum growth temperature (25±3°C). However, the magnitude of increase and maximum rate of P[SUB]N[/SUB] (P[SUB]N max[/SUB]) varied with the varieties. Highest rate of photosynthesis was observed in W1 followed by MX, K2 and HPM. Water Use efficiency (WUE) in W1, MX and HPM increased with light up to highest level tested, whereas, in K2 highest WUE was observed at 1500µmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP]s[SUP]-1[/SUP].



Our results show that this species is able to use high level of PPFD for its P[SUB]N[/SUB] and therefore, may be cultivated in under bright indoor light
(&#732;1500 to 2000µmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP]s[SUP]-1[/SUP]) for better growth and biomass. The strict control of other environmental factors however, should be maintained for a higher yield.


http://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0030-1251773
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Ok...Enough for today ...


Edit / Note : ......Some...... relations ....


Photosynthesis Rate (PN) : The amount of molecules CO2 fixed or O2 evolved per time unit.Usually measured in mmol s&#8315;¹.

http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/068/Rate%20of%20photosynthesis%20limiting%20factors.pdf

.................................................................
WUE = P[SUB]N[/SUB] / T[SUB]R[/SUB]


Water Use Efficiency = Photosynthesis Rate / Transpiration* Rate .
..........................................................................................................

Transpiration Rate ( T[SUB]R[/SUB] or E ) is the evaporation rate of water from aerial parts of plants. ) .
Usually measured in mmol s&#8315;¹.
...................................................................................................................................
By definition, stomatal conductance ( g[SUB]s[/SUB] or g[SUB]CO2[/SUB]) , usually measured in mmol m&#8315;² s&#8315;¹, is the measure of the rate of passage of carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) entering, or water vapor exiting through the stomata of a leaf.
Stomatal conductance ( gs - g[SUB]CO2[/SUB] ) is integral to leaf level calculations of transpiration ( T[SUB]R[/SUB] - E ) .
.............................................................................................................................
TheCO(2) concentration at the site of carboxylation inside the chloroplast stroma depends not only on the stomatal conductance, but also on the conductance of CO(2) between substomatal cavities and the site of CO(2) fixation. This conductance, commonly termed mesophyll conductance (g[SUB]m[/SUB]) ,significantly constrains the rate of photosynthesis (P[SUB]N[/SUB] )

g[SUB]m[/SUB]=Ci/ g[SUB]s[/SUB] = intercellular CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration (Ci) divided by stomatal conductance

High mesophyll conductance simply means high intercellular CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration ,with
lowest stomatal conductance possible .

How ?

But of course ,with lots of ambient CO2 ( C[SUB]a[/SUB] )....
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
So .....

Put all the info 'down' ....
And start making some really interesting thoughts ...
Like for example ....

Since blue light really has a negative impact on mesophyll conductance (g[SUB]m[/SUB] ) ...
Meaning : a ) intercellular CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (C[SUB]i[/SUB] ) concentration decreases ...and/ or b ) stomatal conductance (g[SUB]s[/SUB] ) increases ...
Simply : There's not much CO2 ABSORPTION but there's a lot of transpiration (due to large stomatal apertures ) .....

Low gm , means low P[SUB]N [/SUB](PS rate ) ...

So now plant has Low gm and thus Low PN ,as also has high gs ,thus High TR ..

(Low CO2 content inside cells and thus low photosynthesis rates .Also open stomatas with high water evaporation rates ..)

WUE =( Low ) PN /( high) TR ...

Water usage efficiency sucks ,under blue light ....

Water has to be plenty ,under blue light ....

(...Think of : Rainfalls -snow meltings at late winter/early spring .......) ..

All good indications ,that blue light has it's true beneficial place,
above clones and/or 'freshly' sprouted seedlings .

.........


Rest is yours to 'discover' ...
And there're plenty of them .....
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Basic Cannabis Lighting Notes :

-Maximun species Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density( @ T[SUB]a[/SUB]= ~25-30 °C , & 350-750 &#956;mol mol[SUP]&#8722;1 [/SUP]<= aka ' ppm ' ambient CO[SUB]2[/SUB] . ): 1500-2000 µmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP]s[SUP]-1[/SUP]
( ~ 300-400 Watts ,of light output flux, per square meter ..........
I.e 4x 400Watt HPS per 1m[SUP]2[/SUP] or (a bit less,maybe than )1000 Watts of (-wisely chosen -,whatever that means...) leds, per 1m[SUP]2[/SUP]).

-Photosynthetic Active Radiation range : ~360 nm - ~ 720 nm


-Middle level canopy has higher photosynthesis efficiencies( amber-red photons 560-625 nm ,thus long-duration moderate P[SUB]N[/SUB] rates )
contributing to overall anabolism (growth ) and nutrient/ carbonhydrate assimilation,
whileSub- bud-leaves & bud-leaves absorb deep-red wls( 640-670 nm ) mostly.(short-duration maximal P[SUB]N[/SUB] rates ).
Clearly indicating that :

-Deep red wls (640-670 nm ) are the most efficiently utilised , for local bud-production.
(....usually absorbed by top layer sub-bud leaves .Thus the bigger size of top-buds... ) "Directionability" of longer deep red wls -do not disperse easy - makes led arranging somewhat important .
As also,led lens emission angle has to be taken into consideration .Deep red wls need good distribution over leaf canopy .
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Clones / Seedlings

Blue Range 400-499nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 410 nm , ~430 nm & ~453 nm : 20-25%
Green Range 500-550 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 550 nm : 20-25 %
Yellow-Amber Range 551-599 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 599 nm : 5-10%
Red Range 600-639 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 625 nm : 15-20%
Deep Red Range 640-670 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~642 nm & 662 nm : 5-10 %
Far Red Range 671-750 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~680 nm ,700 nm & ~730 nmm : 5-10 %


Young Plants

Blue Range 400-499nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 410 nm , ~430 nm & ~453 nm : 10-15%
Green Range 500-550 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 550 nm : 10-20 %
Yellow-Amber Range 551-599 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 599 nm : 25-30%
Red Range 600-639 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 625 nm : 30-40%
Deep Red Range 640-670 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~642 nm & 662 nm : 10-15 %
Far Red Range 671-750 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~680 nm ,700 nm & ~730 nmm : 3-5%



Early Flowering

Blue Range 400-499nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 410 nm , ~430 nm & ~453 nm : 8-10 %
Green Range 500-550 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 550 nm : 10-20 %
Yellow-Amber Range 551-599 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 599 nm : 10-20%
Red Range 600-639 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 625 nm : 25-30 %
Deep Red Range 640-670 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~642 nm & 662 nm : 25-35 %
Far Red Range 671-750 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~680 nm ,700 nm & ~730 nmm : 3-5%


Middle Flowering

Blue Range 400-499nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 410 nm , ~430 nm & ~453 nm : 8-10 %
Green Range 500-550 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 550 nm : 1-15 %
Yellow-Amber Range 551-599 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 599 nm : 5-10%
Red Range 600-639 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 625 nm : 25-30 %
Deep Red Range 640-670 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~642 nm & 662 nm : 30-55 %
Far Red Range 671-750 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~680 nm ,700 nm & ~730 nmm : 3-5%


Late Flowering

Blue Range 400-499nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 410 nm , ~430 nm & ~453 nm : 1-8 %
Green Range 500-550 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 550 nm : 1-10 %
Yellow-Amber Range 551-599 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 599 nm : 1-10%
Red Range 600-639 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~ 625 nm : 25-40 %
Deep Red Range 640-670 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~642 nm & 662 nm : 35-70 %
Far Red Range 671-750 nm .Peaks pref. @ ~680 nm ,700 nm & ~730 nmm : 3-5%
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Hmm....Not so much of an interest ...
Anyway ...
For the future generations ....





Potency and Light Spectrum. Basic Notes

-There's little known about what exactly influences trichome number /density ,apart from genetics** .....


**Interrelationships of glandular trichomes and cannabinoid content. I: Developing pistillatebracts of Cannabis sativa L (Cannabaceae)
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1981-01-01_2_page008.html


Or what's their purpose first place .......


Although it was proposed in the 19th century that plants produce specialized compounds to protect themselves from animals and insects (Stahl, 1888), interest in this area of chemical ecology declined in the early 20th century just as biochemistry was becoming an independent scientific area of investigation, and did not re-emerge until the late 1950s (Fraenkel, 1959). Well into the 1950s and even the 1960s, awareness of the ecological roles of what were called &#8216;secondary&#8217; metabolites was not widespread, and the predominant view was that such chemicals were most likely waste products. . Given the animal model of excretion of toxic or useless waste products, it is not surprising that trichomes, together with hydathodes, first caught the attention of the modern plant physiologists and biochemists as structures that function to remove such compounds from the plant (Uphof, 1962). For example, it was noted that the trichomes of some plants accumulate heavy metals, and that the leaf surfaces of some plants are covered by sticky material that appears to be secreted from the trichomes (reviewed by Wagner et al., 2004). However, there was little interest in identifying specific compounds found in trichomes or elucidating their biosynthetic pathways, particularly as it was generally believed that such waste products were the result of random or indeterminate chemical reactions.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03432.x/full
Still there's plenty of non-scientific proved/backed indications -casual observations ,that blue wls ,do increase trich density .Anecdotal ,though .



-UVb radiation does increase psycoactive cannabinoid content in psycoactive only ,
Cannabis varieties .
Anecdotal indications of decreased yields,also .




-Since Photosynthesis Ratio ( PN ) and THC content ,are officially proven that are correlated.

Then providing middle level leaves with 580-630 nm photons
and sub-bud / bud leaves with 640-670 nm ones ,is most probably
an efficient way to increase both yield and potency ...


------------------------------------------

Nothin' compares,though to good drying and ' curing ' ...
Cannabis sativa L.: Effect of drying time and temperature on cannabinoid profile of stored leaf tissue



http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1974-01-01_1_page006.html
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2474665?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102319242587

Abstract: Plants of a drug strain of Cannabis sativa L -grown 33 days under daylight, shaded daylight conditions, filtered green, blue, and red light, and darkness-were analyzed by gas-liquid chromatography for their cannabinoid content. The highest content of cannabinoids, predominantly &#916;9-tetrahydrocannabinol (&#916;9-THC) in this strain, occurred in the youngest leaves of daylight-grown plants Leaves at successively lower nodes of this control condition and all treated plants subsequently grown in daylight contained progressively lower levels of cannabinoids Leaves from plants grown under filtered green light and darkness contained significantly lower levels of &#916;9-THC than those from plants grown in daylight However, the &#916;9-THC content of leaves from plants grown under shaded daylight and filtered red and blue light did not differ significantly from the &#916;9-THC content in daylight controls, indicating that these conditions did not alter the synthetic rate of this cannabinoid The cannabichromene (CBC) content of plants grown under filtered red and green light and darkness differed from the CBC content in plants grown in daylight, indicating that the formation of this cannabinoid was independent of &#916;9-THC Leaves from plants grown under filtered red and green light and darkness recovered the capacity to synthesize typical levels of &#916;9-THC and CBC when placed under daylight conditions Plants from all light and dark treatments, when subsequently placed under daylight conditions for 66 days, attained levels of cannabinoid synthesis comparable to the daylight controls
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficiently than Red Light in Strong White Light:
Revisiting the Enigmatic Question of Why Leaves are Green



Abstract

The literature and our present examinations indicate that the intra-leaf light absorption profile is in most cases steeper than the photosynthetic capacity profile. In strong white light, therefore, the quantum yield of photosynthesis would be lower in the upper chloroplasts, located near the illuminated surface, than that in the lower chloroplasts.Because green light can penetrate further into the leaf than red or blue light, in strong white light, any additional green light absorbed by the lower chloroplasts would increase leaf photosynthesis to a greater extent than would additional red or blue light. Based on the assessment of effects of the additional monochromatic light on leaf photosynthesis, we developed the differential quantum yield method that quantifies efficiency of any monochromatic light in white light. Application of this method to sunflower leaves clearly showed that, in moderate to strong white light, green light drove photosynthesis more effectively than red light. The green leaf should have a considerable volume of chloroplasts to accommodate the inefficient carboxylation enzyme, Rubisco, and deliver appropriate light to all the chloroplasts. By using chlorophylls that absorb green light weakly, modifying mesophyll structure and adjusting the Rubisco/chlorophyll ratio, the leaf appears to satisfy two somewhat conflicting requirements: to increase the absorptance of photosynthetically active radiation, and to drive photosynthesis efficiently in all the chloroplasts. We also discuss some serious problems that are caused by neglecting these intra-leaf profiles when estimating whole leaf electron transport rates and assessing photoinhibition by fluorescence techniques.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full.pdf+html


White vs Red muscle fiber ....Higher Animal ,analogy ...
;-)

Long termed but moderate P[SUB]N[/SUB] ,especially at mid level canopy ....
Short -termed but extreme P[SUB]N[/SUB] ,especially to sub-bud / bud leaves ...
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Role of zeaxanthin in blue light photoreception and the modulation of light-CO[SUB]2[/SUB] interactions in guard cells


Abstract

The stomatal response to blue light is an intrinsic component of the sensory transducing processes mediating light-stimulated stomatal movements. Guard cell chloroplasts have a specific blue light response with an action spectrum that resembles the action spectrum for blue light-stimulated stomatal opening, suggesting a role of guard cell chloroplasts in the sensory transduction of blue light. The xanthophyll, zeaxanthin has recently been identified as a blue light photoreceptor in guard cells. The inhibitor of zeaxanthin formation, dithiothreitol, inhibits zeaxanthin formation and the stomatal response to blue light in a concentration-dependent fashion. In greenhousegrown leaves, guard cell zeaxanthin content closely tracks incident radiation and it is positively correlated with stomatal apertures. The sensitivity of guard cells to blue light co-varies with guard cell zeaxanthin content. A zeaxanthin-less mutant of Arabidopsis is devoid of a typical stomatal response to blue light. At constant light and temperature, changes in ambient [CO[SUB]2[/SUB]] in a growth chamber caused large changes in stomata aperture and in guard cell zeaxanthin. The aperturezeaxanthin changes were linearly related over a wide range of [CO[SUB]2[/SUB]]. Experiments with detached epidermis showed a similar relation among [CO[SUB]2[/SUB]], stomatal apertures and guard cell zeaxanthin, and DTT inhibited the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] response in the light without altering the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] response in the dark. These results indicate that blue light sensing by guard cell zeaxanthin has a regulatory role in the light response of stomata. Zeaxanthin also appears to mediate light-CO[SUB]2[/SUB] interactions in guard cells.

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/Special_Issue/433
 
Top