What's new

Studies recommend high intensity light: 900 and 1800 mols

crank3y frank3y

New member
These studies from the past two years recommend very high light intensities. 900 in veg and up to 1800 in flower. Study extracts follow:


Cannabis Yield, Potency, and Leaf Photosynthesis Respond Differently to Increasing Light Levels in an Indoor Environment 2021
Victoria Rodriguez-Morrison, David Llewellyn and Youbin Zheng

The objectives of this study were to establish the relationships between canopy-level LI (light intensity), leaf-level photosynthesis, and yield and quality of drug-type cannabis. … Plants were grown for 12 weeks in a 12-h light/12-h dark ‘flowering’ photoperiod under canopy-level PPFDs ranging from 120 to 1800 μmol·m-2·s-1 provided by light emitting diodes.

… dry inflorescence yield increased linearly with increasing canopy-level PPFD up to 1,800 μmol·m−2·s−1, while leaf-level photosynthesis saturated well-below 1,800 μmol·m−2·s−1. The density of the apical inflorescence and harvest index also increased linearly with increasing LI, resulting in higher-quality marketable tissues and less superfluous tissue to dispose of. There were no LI treatment effects on cannabinoid potency, while there were minor LI treatment effects on terpene potency



1663778149705

FIGURE 1 | Relative spectral photon flux distribution of Pro650 (Lumigrow) light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures.
Blurple” light. The photon flux ratio of B (400–500 nm), green (G, 500–600 nm), and R (600–700 nm) was B18:G5:R77.

It was predicted that cannabis yield would exhibit a saturating response to increasing LI, thereby signifying an optimum LI range for indoor cannabis production. However, the yield results of this trial demonstrated cannabis’ immense plasticity for exploiting the incident lighting environment by efficiently increasing marketable biomass up to extremely high—for indoor production—LIs. Even under ambient CO2, the linear increases in yield indicated that the availability of PAR photons was still limiting whole-canopy photosynthesis at APPFD levels as high as ≈1,800 μmol·m−2·s−1 (i.e., DLI ≈78 mol·m−2·d−1).


1663778252417


FIGURE 6 | Sketches of Cannabis sativa ‘Stillwater’ plants grown under low (A) and high (B) photosynthetic photon flux density (APPFD), 9 weeks after initiation of 12-h photoperiod

Overall, the impact that increasing LI had on cannabis morphology and yield were captured holistically in the plant sketches in Figure 6, which shows plants grown under higher LIs had shorter internodes, smaller leaves, and much larger and denser inflorescences (resulting in higher harvest index), especially at the plant apex.

Increasing Light Intensity Enhances Inflorescence Quality. Beyond simple yield, increasing LI also raised the harvest quality through higher apical inflorescence (also called “cola” in the cannabis industry) density—an important parameter for the whole-bud market—and increased ratios of inflorescence to total aboveground biomass (Figures 7B,C).


Figure 7


FIGURE 7 | The relationship between average apical photosynthetic photon flux density (APPFD) applied during the flowering stage (81 days) harvest index (total inflorescence dry weight / total aboveground dry weight) (B), and apical inflorescence density (based on fresh weight) (C) of Cannabis sativa ‘Stillwater’. Each datum is a single plant.

CONCLUSION. The results also indicate that the relationship between LI and cannabis yield does not saturate within the practical limits of LI used in indoor production. Increasing LI also increased harvest index and the size and density of the apical inflorescence; both markers for increasing quality. However, there were no and minor LI treatment effects on potency of cannabinoids and terpenes, respectively.






High light intensities can be used to grow healthy and robust cannabis plants during the vegetative stage of indoor production (2021)

Melissa Moher, David Llewellyn, Max Jones and Youbin Zheng


Abstract. Although the vegetative stage of indoor cannabis production can be relatively short in duration, there is a high energy demand due to higher light intensities (LI) than the clonal propagation stage and longer photoperiods than the flowering stage (i.e., 16 – 24 hours vs. 12 hours). … To determine the vegetative plant responses to LI, clonal plants of ‘Gelato’ were grown for 21 days with canopy-level photosynthetic photon flux densities (PPFD) ranging between 135 and 1430 μmol·m-2·s-1 on a 16-hour photoperiod (i.e., DLI daily light integrals of ≈ 8 to 80 mol·m-2·d-1). Plant height and growth index responded quadratically; the number of nodes, stem thickness, and aboveground dry weight increased asymptotically; and internode length and water content of aboveground tissues decreased linearly with increasing LI. … Generally, PPFD levels of ≈ 900 μmol·m-2·s-1 produced compact, robust plants that are commercially relevant, while PPFD levels of ≈ 600 μmol·m-2·s-1 promoted plant morphology with more open architecture – to increase airflow and reduce the potential foliar pests in compact (i.e., indica-dominant) genotypes.



1663775604752

There was almost a 3-fold increase in DW (dry weight) over the 135 to 1430 μmol·m-2·s-1 APPFD range in the present study, although 90% of the maximum increase in DW was attained at an APPFD of only ≈ 900 μmol·m-2·s-1.

In contrast, plants were smaller at ≈ 900 vs. 600 μmol·m-2·s-1 but had ≈ 15% higher DW and ≈ 6% thicker stems (i.e., ≈ 13% higher cross-sectional area).

Since the number of nodes saturated at relatively low LI, a canopy-level PPFD target of about 900 μmol·m-2·s-1 may be most appropriate for producing robust but not overly compact plants while also minimizing lighting-related energy and infrastructure costs. Although not as common in commercial settings, production facilities that target more open plant architecture and greater energy conservation may opt for canopy-level PPFD target of ≈ 600 μmol·m-2·s-1.

Few contemporary recommendations suggest exposing vegetative cannabis plants to PPFDs higher than 800 μmol·m-2·s-1 in indoor production systems. The current study demonstrates that vegetative cannabis can be exposed to substantially higher LIs (than commonly-used in the industry) with positive morphological outcomes that can prime plants for the transition into the flowering phase.



1663776230137


F igure 1. Relative spectral photon flux distribution of blue (B) and red (R) LEDs used during the propagation and vegetative stages
 
Last edited:

Creeperpark

Well-known member
Mentor
Veteran
That's a very interesting subject. I have been using the plant canopy as the determinating factor with light distance. When the plants get too tall and lanky, I lower the light or raise the lights when they are too dense and stocky. One good rule of thumb is always "More Light" as the plants grow. You can always raise them. Thank you for sharing that information.😎
 

Ca++

Well-known member
I couldn't quite get to the end, as a few things stood out that I found unacceptable.

First problem was using burple light. There seems no reason to do such a study
Second was the need for that full 1800umol to reach yields that don't take half that much white light.

Who in their right mind would want to replicate this study, or even do this study. The result was as expected, except they don't speak of bleaching. Or not.
 

Corpselover Fat

Active member
I couldn't quite get to the end, as a few things stood out that I found unacceptable.

First problem was using burple light. There seems no reason to do such a study
Second was the need for that full 1800umol to reach yields that don't take half that much white light.

Who in their right mind would want to replicate this study, or even do this study. The result was as expected, except they don't speak of bleaching. Or not.

Why would it matter that they used blurple?
 

romanoweed

Well-known member
so the title of the thread says: high intensity recommended.
The study in the thread says: it has no effect, and the amount of weight, potency is equal to more lightintensity used.. Its just that yo get more commercial looking bud, but its not more bud or such, its just more compact..

So, if one is aiming on quality, that doesent matter. For me having to consume a less dense bud is no downgrade.. its about the effect.. i dont care if i have 2, 3 little stems more in my Joint really.. altho it might minimally taste worse, or minimally change effect..

Im still thankfull for the study, but the conclusion is a bit unlogical.

I would have been much more interested with what lightentensity they got the most terpenes. bee it just 5 percent more. / 5 percent more potency.. Tiny details in a Prodct can mean the world for a conaisseur.. Its sometimes the extra 5 Percent that make a huge difference. So there is actually a difference in Potency, regardless if they first said there isnt any, they just talked it down i guess..

Sorry for the critical post.
 
Last edited:

Corpselover Fat

Active member
so the title of the thread says: high intensity recommended.
The study in the thread says: it has no effect, and the amount of weight, potency is equal to more lightintensity used.. Its just that yo get more commercial looking bud, but its not more bud or such, its just more compact..

No. They said

dry inflorescence yield increased linearly with increasing canopy-level PPFD up to 1,800
 

Ca++

Well-known member
Why would it matter that they used blurple?
Burple or 'pink lights' were produced from science not practice. The science then was mostly the study of colours, when not in the presence of other colours. Blue and Red work best by far, alone. So they combined this and made burples. An academic idea for general plant growth. Long since forgotten about in the cannabis world, having actually done trials.

I'm late for work.. I can't answer fully
 

Ca++

Well-known member
B18:G5:R77 they are saying, which means 18% blue, 5% green, 77% red.
Current understanding, and thus testing, revolves around 30/20/50

It's the red best studied. With 40% red, our plants don't bleach (if the blue and green are reasonably balanced). That sun like balance, which leans towards the red in later seasons, has guided the plants evolution. The processes all align and you will tire it out with about 2500umol. That same 2500umol can't be done with 60% red though. Whats actually happening is a distant memory now (it's been at least a week). The green gets over excited, and with nothing to do, buggers up. Collapses. Green goes white. In the HID days many of us (guilty) thought the heat might of been a player in bleaching, but it seems it was always the imbalanced light of sodium. Pushing some processes so hard, that without the supporting infrastructure, caused the green to blow up. Bits flying off. Like a fairground ride that went to fast. Remember this was a week ago though. Now I just remember the figures that concern me.

Back off on the light, a lot, and they are okay with 60% red. In fact, many lights run about 60%. The red is very easy to make. Light manufacturers like to sell us red, and we are happy growing at the light levels that keep 60% tolerable.

Now it's strange the burple is 77% red, yet they don't seem to of bleached. They really should of. However the growth rate tells us the these are very different grows. We are looking at a study of plants, not doing very well. With 700umol they got a bar. I would be crying.

The tests with 40% and 60% also did 80%. It was a joke. I just know not to do it.
Today, we use white light with 60% red, but if you really want to slam it, you want 40%. Which is actually difficult to find. However, that is when everything is ticking along like the sun was out. Which is the direction lighting constantly moves in.

Other tests have seen blue levels of 40% cause problem. I later read an article that suggested it would also be bleaching.
I have not seen a green level test, as it was only the week before last that people were trialing burple ratio's. Then a week or so back we went white. Looked at colour temperatures, over the weekend. Then just the day before last the Red and Blue levels were done again, in the presence of other colours this time. It's the time of year for results though. The temperate weather that favours big trials.


Why they are doing a Burple trial baffles me. They hit 600g a couple of times (per meter) but with 600w. May be better just hanging a 600, for the same result from a much cheaper light.
 

Vandenberg

Well-known member
Just looking at pictures of a glowing blurple grow light ( no, no, not that light, aaah) triggers my eyes to go buggy and hurt.
My eyes and I despise blurple lights, my cat too. :)

Vandenberg :)
 

Corpselover Fat

Active member
Why they are doing a Burple trial baffles me. They hit 600g a couple of times (per meter) but with 600w. May be better just hanging a 600, for the same result from a much cheaper light.

Them using blurple is completely irrelevant for the study. They are not trying to find out how much you can grow per m². They are trying to find out how light levels affect yield.
 

Ca++

Well-known member
Them using blurple is completely irrelevant for the study. They are not trying to find out how much you can grow per m². They are trying to find out how light levels affect yield.
With a light that nobody uses, you collect data that effects nobody. They have shown a linear increase, while every other study shows diminishing returns. Why didn't they keep going if this was what they found.

It's a lemon. Looks interesting, but don't take a bite.
 

Corpselover Fat

Active member
With a light that nobody uses, you collect data that effects nobody. They have shown a linear increase, while every other study shows diminishing returns. Why didn't they keep going if this was what they found.

It's a lemon. Looks interesting, but don't take a bite.

As far as I know blurple grows equally to white light so i still don't see the problem.

Edit: and "nobody" uses blurples just because good diodes are too expensive.
 

Ca++

Well-known member
Their blurple grew half of what white does. It's really not very equal. That's why nobody sells them, except old designs. White is probably cheaper in ppf/$ terms, as so much effort has been put into making them. The numbers on blurples are exaggerated in every case I have seen. It's a fools market now. That's why I don't understand a study bothering to test them. However, the fact they did, and got nonsense results, tells us how much notice to take.
Not only do they not see diminishing returns, they actually see the oppersite. Then stop testing further. I think they are trolling.
 

Corpselover Fat

Active member
Their blurple grew half of what white does. It's really not very equal. That's why nobody sells them, except old designs. White is probably cheaper in ppf/$ terms, as so much effort has been put into making them. The numbers on blurples are exaggerated in every case I have seen. It's a fools market now. That's why I don't understand a study bothering to test them. However, the fact they did, and got nonsense results, tells us how much notice to take.
Not only do they not see diminishing returns, they actually see the oppersite. Then stop testing further. I think they are trolling.

How would you know white would have grown double? Tests show they grow essentially the same as far as I know. Besides avaraging 500g/m² is not a low yield in my books and yielding the highest ammount possible per m² is not relevant to the study. Cost of the lights is also irrelevant to the study. I do not know why they used blurple... Maybe they had them. Maybe they used high efficacy blurples. It's irrelevant. Why did they not see diminishing results? Who knows. Maybe they took better care of the plants. Maybe it was because they did sea of green. Maybe it's because they used blurple, but if that was true it would open great possibilities (I highly doubt it though). More studies needed.
 
Last edited:

Koondense

Well-known member
Veteran
Old purple LEDs were using cheap LEDs, the blue+red concept is not so bad actually.
I would love to see a side by side of these two lights:
Same drivers, same design but different diodes except reds. Numbers look better for the purple light.
Just a consideration.

Cheers
 

Ca++

Well-known member
How would you know white would have grown double? Tests show they grow essentially the same as far as I know. Besides avaraging 500g/m² is not a low yield in my books and yielding the highest ammount possible per m² is not relevant to the study. Cost of the lights is also irrelevant to the study. I do not know why they used blurple... Maybe they had them. Maybe they used high efficacy blurples. It's irrelevant. Why did they not see diminishing results? Who knows. Maybe they took better care of the plants. Maybe it was because they did sea of green. Maybe it's because they used blurple, but if that was true it would open great possibilities (I highly doubt it though). More studies needed.

It's hard to say if they would of got double with white. It would be nice to think people doing such tests can grow, but many times we find they can't. These guys give me no confidence. However, to be doing such a trail, you should be able to double that. Otherwise you would be pissing in the wind.

Yield per meter isn't irrelevant. It's what they are measuring.

All the maybes don't help pin down the facts we need from such a study. I can see the grow was very poor, and the lighting choice unusual at best. The diminishing returns never came, and in fact we got a reversal of that, which is highly improbable. Though possible as they were so far off track, that slamming them with light might of had some unseen effect. Hot lights perhaps. Giving a little IR that helped correct the spectrum a little. I'm not going to look at maybes too long though.



I have not seen them lights @Koondense
The burple says 3.4umol so 1800 would be made with 530w. Though we know that all the photons emitted won't equal canopy illumination, I'm happy to for get about such losses for a moment here. They put 530w of burple over a meter if they used this very efficient lights and had no losses. To yield a gram per watt.

That kind of grow isn't one I'm interested in. I suspect they might of used that very light as it's 680w and so aligns nicely with more realistic expectations, and their lack of light to go past 1800umol. However the gram per watt is looking more like 0.8 at this point.
 

Hatery1967

New member
It's hard to say if they would of got double with white. It would be nice to think people doing such tests can grow, but many times we find they can't. These guys give me no confidence. However, to be doing such a trail, you should be able to double that. Otherwise you would be pissing in the wind.

Yield per meter isn't irrelevant. It's what they are measuring.

All the maybes don't help pin down the facts we need from such a study. I can see the grow was very poor, and the lighting choice unusual at best. The diminishing returns never came, and in fact we got a reversal of that, which is highly improbable. Though possible as they were so far off track, that slamming them with light might of had some unseen effect. Hot lights perhaps. Giving a little IR that helped correct the spectrum a little. I'm not going to look at maybes too long though.



I have not seen them lights @Koondense
The burple says 3.4umol so 1800 would be made with 530w. Though we know that all the photons emitted won't equal canopy illumination, I'm happy to for get about such losses for a moment here. They put 530w of burple over a meter if they used this very efficient lights and had no losses. To yield a gram per watt.

That kind of grow isn't one I'm interested in. I suspect they might of used that very light as it's 680w and so aligns nicely with more realistic expectations, and their lack of light to go past 1800umol. However the gram per watt is looking more like 0.8 at this point.

I also know something about it. According to the results, the last two years have shown that high intensity light is very beneficial for plants. For plants in the vegetative stage, lighting with an intensity of 900 mol is recommended. This provides optimal conditions for their growth and development. I like research much more than something stupid to learn. So I often find a writing sample, use https://samplius.com/for that. In the flowering stage, an even higher light intensity is recommended - up to 1800 mol. This approach contributes to the formation of healthy and beautiful flowers. These new scientific findings allow for more efficient lighting choices for optimal plant development at different stages of their life cycle.
interesting....
 
Last edited:
Top