The purpose of this is to test the effects of triacontanol on different parameters related to yield and yield. The plants used were not originally intended for this test therefor the 18 plants consisted of six strains. The strains were two different grand daddy purps (gd1 and gd 5), hindu kush (hk), chem valley kush (cvk), candy kush (ck) and sweet tooth (st). Treatments consisted of no spray (k), foliar spray with 1ppm triacontanol (1) and foilar spray with 5ppm triacontanol (5).
Plants rooted three weeks under an 8w fluorescent tube in jiffy pots. Then vegged two and a half week in 1 L pots with coco from IKEA under 2x36w fluorescent tube cool white. Then another two and a half week under 400w hps before being transplanted to 4,5 L pots and vegged for four days more. Then plants were put under 600w hps and vegged three weeks before flower was initiated under the same 600w hps. Plants were treated with triacontanol three times during veg (one time under 400w hps, two times under 600w hps) and one time in early flower. Plants were allowed to completely dry before being put back into the tent. Fertiliser was canna coco a and b 1-3 mL/L, ph 5,6 with slight increase in flower, canna pk 13/14 1,5 mL/L during week 4 and 5 of flower. Min:max ec 1,3:2,3
Plants were measured to obtain height, average inter nodal distance and number of shoots after last triacontanol application. Yield was obtained after drying to an equilibrium humidity of 62,5% after 9 weeks of flowering.
[FONT="]Absolute values used for the statistically analysis[/FONT]
To circumstance the problem of comparing different strains, values were made relative to the control plants (k), so a value above 1 indicates higher absolute values and under 1 a lower absolute value compared to the plants not receiving triacontanol (k). An * indicates significantly difference a the 0,05 level.
The position of the plants in the tent, from last triacontanol application and onwards to the end of flower period. Before that plant was randomly moved around once a week. My general experience is that corner plants tend to yield lower (gd1 5, ck 5, cvk 1). The only effect of triacontanol seems to be an increase in shoots per plant at 1ppm, all other parameters were not significantly different from each other. I still think triacontanol can have an effect on yield, but the effect is not possible to see in this test due to the effect from different strains and light intensities (the before mentioned observation of corner plants low yield and mutual shading). Maybe another test with only one strain and 9 untreated in one side and 9 sprayed in the other side. Comparison could be made as average of all 9 plants or average of delta values between position gd1 5 vs. ck 5, gd1 1 vs. hk k, gd5 k vs. gd5 1and so on.
Plants rooted three weeks under an 8w fluorescent tube in jiffy pots. Then vegged two and a half week in 1 L pots with coco from IKEA under 2x36w fluorescent tube cool white. Then another two and a half week under 400w hps before being transplanted to 4,5 L pots and vegged for four days more. Then plants were put under 600w hps and vegged three weeks before flower was initiated under the same 600w hps. Plants were treated with triacontanol three times during veg (one time under 400w hps, two times under 600w hps) and one time in early flower. Plants were allowed to completely dry before being put back into the tent. Fertiliser was canna coco a and b 1-3 mL/L, ph 5,6 with slight increase in flower, canna pk 13/14 1,5 mL/L during week 4 and 5 of flower. Min:max ec 1,3:2,3
Plants were measured to obtain height, average inter nodal distance and number of shoots after last triacontanol application. Yield was obtained after drying to an equilibrium humidity of 62,5% after 9 weeks of flowering.
[FONT="]Absolute values used for the statistically analysis[/FONT]
To circumstance the problem of comparing different strains, values were made relative to the control plants (k), so a value above 1 indicates higher absolute values and under 1 a lower absolute value compared to the plants not receiving triacontanol (k). An * indicates significantly difference a the 0,05 level.
The position of the plants in the tent, from last triacontanol application and onwards to the end of flower period. Before that plant was randomly moved around once a week. My general experience is that corner plants tend to yield lower (gd1 5, ck 5, cvk 1). The only effect of triacontanol seems to be an increase in shoots per plant at 1ppm, all other parameters were not significantly different from each other. I still think triacontanol can have an effect on yield, but the effect is not possible to see in this test due to the effect from different strains and light intensities (the before mentioned observation of corner plants low yield and mutual shading). Maybe another test with only one strain and 9 untreated in one side and 9 sprayed in the other side. Comparison could be made as average of all 9 plants or average of delta values between position gd1 5 vs. ck 5, gd1 1 vs. hk k, gd5 k vs. gd5 1and so on.
