The Truth About Photoperiods!
- Thread starter Verdant Whisperer
- Start date
"if this seed is shaped like this its male.”[nah] - I am not saying that i am saying i would like to look into if male seeds have higher dominance in lower auxin/smaller seedling than in larger seedlings in general ratio wise i think it may be like 60:40 versuse 40:60 it could be 50:50 i am just guessing based on the differences observed in hormonal profiles of male and female cannabis plants. just because a seedling has low auxins doesnt mean its a male, and visa versa. as far as the cotelydons they predict the growth of the plant its been documented and observed in other species as well. its possible one gets damages so you cant observe good results but in general the cotelydons ive observed match predicted plant profiles.
Size factor? what do you mean? if i start a bunch of seedlings in a tray and some have small cotelydons and others big i can see their genetic predisposition at a seedling stage, genetics wise, factors from environement can always change things im just talking about selecting based on genetic predisposition and hormonal profile and how to indentify without instruments just by learning how the hormones express themselves and visual cues.
you said big cotelydons=early small cotelydons =late.
I sometimes get pure haze plants with big cotelydons...still 18 wks
old,old tired hard to germ seed can also have huge cotelydons..
ok enough from me..
all the best..
regardless of if its correct ..very interesting observation and a clever one too.
thank you
The basis of the idea is the environment shapes the hormonal profiles and chemical profiles of plants from that region, everything is interconnected once you look deeper into things the soil is acidic because the area has alot of rainfall, because its has higher temperatures because its closer to equator, ect ect and the minerals in the soil reflect the climate which help those species survive in the same region just like the plants do everything is interconnected.
Wouldn't that mean, if I have a plant under a weak lamp, lets say 20 Watts, and Its on for 18-24 hours, that the plant would still start flowering, since it will not produce high amounts of auxins?
realistically so far ..-->MOSTLY due to photo period
Its more complex than that in that sense the plant would lower auxins and prioritize vegatative growth until it knew it had enough energy to go into flowering, if you take a mature plant grown outdoors and put it under 20watts of light but more light hours i imagine it will start flowering because i knows it doesnt have enough light energy to survive in its current state. there are people with mother plants depending on predisposition where they will flower under stress in 24 hours of light in 7 months where others take 10+ years in 24 hours and dont flower, but any plant with enough time and rootbound the mother will eventually find a way to flower in 24 hours of light even if it takes 30 years.
interesting subject for sure.
I have been (for some time now) playing around with Auxin buildup to promote growth while in veg. I practice outdoors and thats where environment becomes the constant and I become the variable.
I use the simple method of mechanical stress (pinching nodes and breaking cell walls) to create auxin response in other to promote lateral growth.
I interpret the movement of Auxins to go from top meristem to down roots and back up thru the plants branching system. I use the Auxin response to eliminate Apical dominance and lateral branching.
I've had plants recover from serious bending and breaking in 6 hrs (while peak of sunlight), faster than anything I have seen.
I yet to experience Auxins in the flower transition and build up.
I have been (for some time now) playing around with Auxin buildup to promote growth while in veg. I practice outdoors and thats where environment becomes the constant and I become the variable.
I use the simple method of mechanical stress (pinching nodes and breaking cell walls) to create auxin response in other to promote lateral growth.
I interpret the movement of Auxins to go from top meristem to down roots and back up thru the plants branching system. I use the Auxin response to eliminate Apical dominance and lateral branching.
I've had plants recover from serious bending and breaking in 6 hrs (while peak of sunlight), faster than anything I have seen.
I yet to experience Auxins in the flower transition and build up.
I've noticed Auxins work similiar to thyroids in human i think its thyroid or whatever part is responible for hormonal creation, this is near the base of the plant you can see auxin dominance closer to the base and diminish as the plant grows farther away. for reducing apical dominance focus on pollinating the farhest flowers from the base of the stem an using the male from the sacks fatherst away from the main stem as well. so auxins flow outwards from the base or middle of the plant kind of where the seedling starts in the soil kinda area. the roots start thicker and get skinnier and the stem starts thicker and gets skinnier, the reason the first flowers form at the tips is because of this.
Well its an interesting hypotheses and you put a lot of thought into it. But on the other hand, there is no Refernce quoted in any of your statement. Sadly science isnt just observations. You gotta aim for scientific framework on your trial. otherwise the data is worthless, or just observations respectively. 10 Seeds and 10 Seeds isnt statistically reliable. How many repetitions do you do? How uniform is your genetic material? How will you be minimizing noise?
Imho theories are nice and those who found the most amazing novelties were told to be fools. But still, those people, on one point, had to prove their theory and findings. By statistics, mathematics and so on. If you need help with statistical framework, there is knowledgable people.
Also your theory is lacking critical thinking. Noone ever would say: This is it and I am sure, coz I observed it. Where do you see flaws in your theory? What needs to be found, that you would say: Oh well, this was a good try, but I maybe am wrong.
After all, interesting thought. Was reading something simililar in a book once I think.
Imho theories are nice and those who found the most amazing novelties were told to be fools. But still, those people, on one point, had to prove their theory and findings. By statistics, mathematics and so on. If you need help with statistical framework, there is knowledgable people.
Also your theory is lacking critical thinking. Noone ever would say: This is it and I am sure, coz I observed it. Where do you see flaws in your theory? What needs to be found, that you would say: Oh well, this was a good try, but I maybe am wrong.
After all, interesting thought. Was reading something simililar in a book once I think.
Interesting!
when I harvest and select a pheno for further work I cut the plant always leaving the first 2 nodes/branching from the base of the plant. I didn't know a reason to why I started doing this but I have observed that the first 2 nodes closest to the ground/soil are by far the strongest, most resilient, responsive but also the least developed in flower... that means to me that they are least induced by hormonal changes.
Later when I start the reveg process the plant choses one of the branches and drops what seems to be all the Auxins available almost depleting the other 3 branches of growth hormone, to the point of chocking the growth and dying off. Still showing apical dominance, seems like the plant only wants 1 branch to survive.
Anyway I might be on another spectrum regarding Auxins but I find interesting and important to understand it for Veg development in our beloved plant.
Its true i am no one in scientific community other than this forums, just someone who has a passion and wanted to understand the plants better. I have put alot of critial thought and addressed the counterarguements to the best of my abilities before posting this and consulted with friends and professors which help me solidfy my model. I am confident enough to say the current model is wrong, I have all the rights in my eyes, but i totally understand the other side of the coin. theres a process and way to prove and solidifity things. but i am sharing my thoughts and beliefs, like a cult leader haha, and until science wants to test my theory and accept it, its more of a logical and faith based idea, if it makes sense and works and i can see it and observe the AER Model i am going to believe it over science . why would i believe in photoperiods now if i think its wrong and i know how it works and can observe that in every example in nature. for me its proven for science or others no. but i wanted to put ideas out there so some scientist in a big institution can prove this because i have no desire trying to prove the aer a big scientific group can prove it more powerfully than me i am just sharing my beliefs. let someone whos getting paid to do experiment do it haha, i did all my research on my own. but intellectual wealth is precious to me as well. knowledge is powerful tool when used and harnessed
I just would like to say that phytohormones are a thing, widely studied by many. Yet remain unknown to most. Most of the research has been made in order to make fruiting bodies look great for capital gain. Just saying that mainstream research is paid for/by corporations. Not a lot (if any) research to actually understand plant chemistry and synergy.
