Sugar demand, not auxin, is the initial regulator of apical dominance

[pinkus]

It seems like this could really help even out the canopy without resorting to annihilating the apical bud. I think I'll spray the clone that's going into the flower room tonight with some magic green right now

 

[lost in a sea]

is sucrose ideal for cannabis?
Any thoughts on other sugars?.. glucose/fructose etc..

I'll have to read the study..

my guess would be ganja would want more simple monosaccharides over disaccharides towards the end, when it is apparantly most beneficial, because that is more likely to be what bacteria would feed back to the plant i'd guess

all just my

 

[JumpKickYerGunt]

Damn, people really aren't understanding the research done here

 

[lost in a sea]

lighten up it's not complicated

It's saying that auxins have always been thought to be behind the dominance shown by the main apical stem, but this study is saying that it supports the theory that the greater consumption of sucrose by the apical stem causes a repression of the other branches..

so injecting sucrose specifically will repress branches according to this study in whichever plant speceis they tested on, but they only used sucrose, what would the results be with other carbs? and in different plant species?

 

[RonSmooth]

Don't plants produce sugars/carbs via photosynthesis?


Does adding sugar, molasses, maple syrup, grape soda or any other "sweetner" really contribute sugars/carbs or anything for that matter?

I have always thought that the sugar feeds organisms in the soil, the organisms can break down organic amendments so they plant can use them. This is only really necessary with large plots that have been stripped of beneficial organisms and must be reintroduced and fed until they establish themselves. If you have good soil with organic amendments, there is no need to "feed" the soil.

If you are using a fertilizer that is in ionic salt form, the nutrients are immediately available. Nothing needed to break anything down for the plant.

Can someone who believes sugar water affects the plant directly help me understand?

 

[Tonygreen]

Im talking about injecting it into the plant directly. A few others hypothesized about feeding.

 

[cannacultural]

I think the idea of injecting a sugar solution directly to the bud would be the most likely to work. Feeding the roots has no guarantee of it being transported to the axillary buds. Sprays wouldn't be as effective I don't think - and I'd be concerned about leaving a sugar residue on leaf tissue. However it will be most important to work out type of sugar, concentration, time of application, amount, and where. Taking a reliable, known clone, you could apply multiple treatments to buds to see which elicits a response.

As for how to inject, look into tree injections perhaps. While they are much larger, the procedure would be similar - but need to determine at what age the plant would be able to handle the damage - mid veg would be my guess

 

[lost in a sea]

Don't plants produce sugars/carbs via photosynthesis?


Does adding sugar, molasses, maple syrup, grape soda or any other "sweetner" really contribute sugars/carbs or anything for that matter?

I have always thought that the sugar feeds organisms in the soil, the organisms can break down organic amendments so they plant can use them. This is only really necessary with large plots that have been stripped of beneficial organisms and must be reintroduced and fed until they establish themselves. If you have good soil with organic amendments, there is no need to "feed" the soil.

If you are using a fertilizer that is in ionic salt form, the nutrients are immediately available. Nothing needed to break anything down for the plant.

Can someone who believes sugar water affects the plant directly help me understand?

Like i said (i believe) plants have transporter proteins for carbohydrates so they can swap some sugars with the bacteria if they need it at that time.. which sugars will depend on the species of plant and the stage of growth. in all likelyhood the process is so dynamic that you can't approximate what the plant actually wants and most of whatever you add will get used by bacteria, which is why it is thought that less than 10% of whatever carbohydrates you add to the soil will actually get assimilated by the plant. As is my understanding.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Like i said (i believe) plants have transporter proteins for carbohydrates so they can swap some sugars with the bacteria if they need it at that time.. which sugars will depend on the species of plant and the stage of growth. in all likelyhood the process is so dynamic that you can't approximate what the plant actually wants and most of whatever you add will get used by bacteria, which is why it is thought that less than 10% of whatever carbohydrates you add to the soil will actually get assimilated by the plant. As is my understanding.

AFAIK do the roots secrete (via said active transport) sugar to nourish the bacteria which in return furnish for example nitrate and trace elements (mainly iron).
The trick with the sugar is not that it boosts lateral buds (sure, they need it to grow) but that the apical bud uses all sugar up, produces a sort of carbohydrate sink, and 'starves' the other buds. Obviously, there has to be some organised system letting the sugars produced in the leaves flowing mainly towards that bud and away from the smaller ones. Anyway, removing the apical one will quickly redistribute (due to a mechanical necessity) all soluble carbohydrates to the only possible sites (the lateral buds). My logic tells me that mimicking this effect would not start with sugar injections (which only get used up by the apical bud letting it grow even faster) but with something that halts the sugar consumption in the apical bud or modifies the 'sugar highway patrol' and redistributes the sugar without physically removing the sink. How that could be done, I don't know at all *sad*...

 

[pinkus]

Can sugars be absorbed through stomata?

 

[Only Ornamental]

Can sugars be absorbed through stomata?

Yes

 

[pinkus]

Thank you; I thought so. Well then it seems to me that a foliar spray of something with sugars would in theory help even out the canopy. I like Magic Green, though I'm reasonably certain it's molasses with additives. The additives work well IME

 

[Only Ornamental]

And here a paper (free full text article!) about another hypothesis (which does not exclude the sugar theory) involving cytokinin and strigolactone in apical dominance: CLICK ME
It shows that application of 6-benzylaminopurine (BA, a synthetic cytokinin analogue) to the lateral buds (only at pretty high concentrations!) does induce lateral branching.

 

[Only Ornamental]

I got the full text of the fist publication (post #1)... seems like sugar (at a certain threshold) only 'liberates' dormant buds but they still require enough sugar AND low levels of IAA (auxin) to grow to their full potential. In the case of a non-decapitated plant, sugar levels in the lateral buds will drop rapidly after local application of sugar to the dormant buds and auxin concentrations will remain high and counteract a proper growth of the lateral buds.
If the theory of above post of mine is taken into account, treatment of the apical bud with strigolactone (or rather a synthetic analogue thereof) could overcome said two problems resulting in a 'non-topped' plant with lateral branching... remains to be proven, though .

@Shaggyballs: You're in for an experiment?

 

[shaggyballs]

I got the full text of the fist publication (post #1)... seems like sugar (at a certain threshold) only 'liberates' dormant buds but they still require enough sugar AND low levels of IAA (auxin) to grow to their full potential. In the case of a non-decapitated plant, sugar levels in the lateral buds will drop rapidly after local application of sugar to the dormant buds and auxin concentrations will remain high and counteract a proper growth of the lateral buds.
If the theory of above post of mine is taken into account, treatment of the apical bud with strigolactone (or rather a synthetic analogue thereof) could overcome said two problems resulting in a 'non-topped' plant with lateral branching... remains to be proven, though .

@Shaggyballs: You're in for an experiment?

This is very very interesting!!
I hope I am correct to assume you will be carrying out said experiment?
As I am still trying to absorb the additional hormone info you supplied from the other thread.

Either way with some guidance I would be willing to give it a shot.
How would one supply strigolactone or stimulate it's production?

My brain is catching fire!!!....be back soon.
:

 

[Only Ornamental]

...
I hope I am correct to assume you will be carrying out said experiment?
...
Either way with some guidance I would be willing to give it a shot.
How would one supply strigolactone or stimulate it's production?
...

Errr... honestly, I was more thinking about being the Brain and let Pinky do the heavy lifting .
Though, the experiment shall not fall short due a lack of guidance .
I have no idea where to get strigo or GR24, a synthetic derivative thereof, (well, actually I do... but they don't supply private persons) but I figured since you guys from the US can get a lot more than we here...
Local application is easy: dissolve it in lanolin, vaseline or other greasy stuff and apply where needed. Quite simple . BTW stimulation of endogenous production won't work without topping (and we don't want to top *g* ).

 

[Only Ornamental]

F**K... GR24 costs € 300 for 5 mg!
We need a donation box... or just stick to simple topping...

 

[shaggyballs]

I am here to help......from the neck down!
Let us not clutter Tony's thread!
A Fluorescent Alternative to the Synthetic Strigolactone GR24
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=6424850#post6424850

 

[morningdewd]

unsulfured organic blackstrap molasses seems to work in an organic medium. side by side sour bubble clones one organic and hit with BSM the other coco on a pro blend w supplement diet not including BSM.usually the coco outgrows the soil.md

 

[Only Ornamental]

It's not about outgrowing but 'outbranching' .