Fan Leafs. Blockers of Light Or Energy Producers???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slab said:
I do believe by removing leaf you are freeing up air for the rest of the plants.
Click to expand...

Right, and by removing my left leg it frees up more blood for the rest of my body. Where in the hell do you guys get these delusionary feelings?

Sorry to be so crass, but you need to study up on the processes of photosynthesis, plant anatomy, plant part functiions and such BEFORE you consider growing anything, and that includes radishes, beets, and maters. :)
 
elkukupanda said:
Nope, it's clear to me that is a light problem... If light is unable to reach certain places its because something you are doing is not doing what the sun does outdoors...
Click to expand...

I discussed the issue of the dynamics of popcorn buds (which is what this thread is all about) in a previous post but folks glossed over it. Why? Because my explanation goes against the paradigms of forum protocol, and that makes people uncomfortable. Familiarity breeds comfort. Enough Sociology 101......

Change gears - Botany 405

I'll try again. Grow outdoors like I have many times, you will experience popcorn buds on the lower part of the plant, it's just what cannabis does and has NOTHING to do with light penetration to plant lower levels. That is another forum myth that just won't die, and with every new crop of noobs.....you get the rest. Popcorn buds are a RESULT of chronological plant development, (the top plant develops first and biggest, the bottom develops little or not at all), hormonal processes and most of all the affect of apical dominance. In plain Ingles, the top part of the plant gets all the goodies. Why do you think that when you deprive your plant of N that it sacrifices the N found in lower leaves and transports it to the upper leaves? The Herd of Calves hits their plants with bloom foods, the lower leaves yellow and fall off, and they sit there not able to figure out why.

Uncle Ben
 
Don't apologize , you can't help yourself.
No, the blood would run out on the floor:lol:

I am studying!, It was just a thought, his lack of co2 is effecting photosynthesis.
 
I did learn from my reading last night, that a leaf doesn't only absorb light for itself. It drives PS for the other leaves.

if you could UB, help me understand what happens to PAR when a leaf reaches its saturation point.

Does transmittance occur?
 
Here are some studies

Here Is a study Compensatory growth responses to defoliation and light availability in two native Mexican woody plant species
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...66467409990514

Defoliation, often caused by herbivory, is a common cause of biomass loss for plants that can affect current and future growth and reproduction. There are three
models that predict contrasting compensatory growth responses of plants to herbivory and resource availability: (1) Growth rate model, (2) Compensatory continuum
hypothesis and (3) Limiting resource model. The predictions of these three models were tested on the tree Brosimum alicastrum and the liana Vitis tiliifolia.
Seedlings were subjected to three levels of experimental defoliation (0%, 50% and 90% leaf removal) along a light resource gradient (1%, 9% and 65% of full sun).
In both species, defoliation significantly increased leaf production rate and relative growth rate of leaf area, but not of biomass.
Net assimilation rate was the strongest driver of biomass growth in both species, but leaf area ratio and specific leaf area were also important in B. alicastrum.
Compensatory responses of leaf area growth in B. alicastrum were significantly greater in higher than lower light availability, consistent with the compensatory
continuum hypothesis predictions, but in contrast to the growth rate model predictions. The limiting resource model offered an explanation for all possible
experimental outcomes by directly considering the effects of environmental differences in resource availability.


(Accepted August 5 2003)

Just one more with corn http://journals.cambridge.org/action...21859600062043

Defoliation studies in hybrid maize: II. Dry-matter accumulation, LAI, silking and yield components*
R. P. Singha1 and K. P. P. Naira1

a1 Department of Agronomy, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India

SUMMARY

Data are presented from an experiment made in two crop seasons, to examine the effects of plant density and degree of defoliation at different stages of growth
in maize at Pantnagar, India, on the dry-matter accumulation in different plant parts, leaf area index (LAI), time of silking and grain yield components.

Different patterns of dry-matter accumulation in various plant parts was observed. Silking was delayed by increasing plant density. Defoliation (even partial)
at the 16th fully expanded leaf stage resulted in substantial reduction in LAI and such yield components as number of ears, ear length, ear diameter and
1000-grain weight. On the other hand, partial defoliation done at the 10th fully expanded leaf stage to simulate an ‘erectophile canopy’ led to yield increases
even under high plant density (90000 plants/ha) in the Kharif (rainy season), mainly through an increase in number of ears, 1000-grain weight and grain to stover
ratio coupled with a reduction in barrenness and percentage of lodging. It is suggested that an increase in the photosynthetic efficiency per unit area of leaf
resulting from the ‘erectophile canopy’ is the reason for these effects.

(Received December 18 1974)



http://www.actahort.org/books/218/218_10.htm
LEAF YIELD RESPONSE OF ETHIOPIAN MUSTARD (BRASSICA CARINATA A BR) SELECTIONS TO DEFOLIATION REGIMES
Authors: N.A. Mnzava, W.W. Msikita
Abstract:
The influence of leaf harvest frequency (weekly or bi-weekly) and amount of leaf removal (10%, 50% or 75%) on total yield of three local Ethiopian mustard
selections 'CRRS-V', 'CRRS-II' and 'Mulio Giant' were studied during two consecutive winter seasons in the field. The amount of leaves removed at each harvest
rather than harvest frequency significantly affected total yield which was test cultivar-dependent. Yield increased with defoliation rate to an optimum at 27 t
ha-1 for 'Mulio Giant', and 40 t ha-1 in 'CRRS-II' under either a 50% weekly or 75% bi-weekly harvest frequency, while 'CRRS-V' attained 55 t ha-1 under a
50% bi-weekly harvest frequency. More frequent and intense defoliation tended to prolong the vegetative phase in all cultivars. The physiological consequences
of defoliation on earliness to flower and compensatory growth in relation to yield variation in vegetable mustard is discussed.

This showed no loss in grain weight but increased leaf production and photosynthesis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
Effects of timing and defoliation intensity on growth, yield and gas exchange rate of wheat grown under well-watered and drought conditions.
Ahmadi A, Joudi M.
Source

Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
Abstract

The aim of this research was to determine the effects of timing and intensity of source reduction on grain yield of wheat under well-watered and drought stress
conditions. A field experiment was conducted at the research farm of the Agriculture College, University of Tehran, Karaj, in 2003-2004. Drought stress was
imposed when plants were at the second node stage by withholding watering and plants were re-irrigated when they showed signs of wilting or leaf rolling,
particularly during the morning. Various intensities of leaf defoliation were performed at three growth stages: booting, anthesis and 20 days after anthesis.
Flag leaf gas exchange parameters as well as chlorophyll content measurements were made 20 days after defoliation at each growth stage. Generally leaf removal
appeared to stimulate an increase of net photosynthesis rate (p(n)) and stomatal conductance (g(s)) of the remaining flag leaf. With leaf removal, stability of
the flag leaf chlorophyll content tended to increase. Neither grain yield, nor protein content were affected by defoliation. Interestingly, even removal of all
leaves at anthesis stage did not reduce grain yield and grain protein significantly. Increased remobilization of stored photoassimilate, decreased maintenance
respiration by source reduction and therefore enhanced photoassimilate partitioning toward grain and spike photosynthesis might be responsible for sustain grain
growth in this condition.
another http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67880905002793
Current-year defoliation increased both quality and production of protein and energy compared to non-defoliated plots

We assessed the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on ruminant forage quality and nutrient yields during 4 years in semiarid shortgrass steppe where grazing by
domestic livestock is the primary land-use. A defoliation and a nitrogen fertilization treatment were superimposed on CO2 treatments in large open-top chambers.
CO2 effects on forage soluble and fiber (celluloses, lignin) constituents were small, even though mid-growing season yield and end of season production increased.
However, large negative effects of elevated CO2 were evident in crude protein concentrations and digestibility of forages. While the effects were more negative
mid-growing season than autumn, a reduction in already poor quality autumn forage may be more critical to animals. Crude protein concentrations of autumn forage
on the elevated CO2 treatment fell below critical maintenance requirements 3 out of 4 years, compared to 1 of 4 for ambient and control treatments.
Forage digestibility declined 14% mid-season and 10% in autumn with elevated CO2. Negative effects of elevated CO2 on animal performance mediated through forage
quality are likely to be greater than the positive effects of increased quantity, because quality drops to critically low levels that can inhibit utilization.
Further, elevated CO2 shifted the proportional availability of protein and energy to a species of lower overall quality and the species most negatively affected
by drought. Current-year defoliation increased both quality and production of protein and energy compared to non-defoliated plots, but no CO2 by defoliation
treatment interactions were observed. Nitrogen fertilization increased crude protein concentrations and digestibilities, but not in the least nutritious species
that increased with elevated CO2 or in autumn when quality was lowest.


One more http://journals.cambridge.org/action...1447970002353X

Effects of Artificial Defoliation (Simulating Pest Damage) on Varieties of Upland Rice
W. E. Taylora1

a1 Njala University College, University of Sierra Leone, P. M. B. Freetown

Abstract

Artificial defoliation was used to simulate grazing by cutting-grass or cane-rat (Thryonomys swinderianus), on three rices with durations of 110–115, 130–135
and 140–145 days respectively, defoliated before, during and soon after tillering by removing leaves to half, two-thirds and the total height of the plants.
All varieties showed marked compensatory growth, resulting in increased tillering and yield, especially when defoliated during tillering, but yield fell when
foliage was removed after tillering, especially with shorter duration rice. Defoliation to half the height of the plant during tillering had the most beneficial
effect, whereas removal of all leaves to soil level after the tillering stage had the most adverse effect.

And another it produces more corn & double the cotton in dry conditions http://journals.cambridge.org/action...14479703001534

EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF DEFOLIATION ON GROWTH AND PRODUCTION OF WATER-STRESSED MAIZE AND COTTON PLANTS
Z. YANG a1c1 and D. J. MIDMORE a1
a1 Plant Sciences Group, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Qld 4702, Australia


Article author query
yang z [PubMed][Google Scholar]
midmore d [PubMed][Google Scholar]
Abstract

In this study, different levels of defoliation were imposed on a determinate species (maize) and a relatively indeterminate species (cotton).
The aim was to quantify the effects of defoliation on plant growth and production, under either optimum or water-stressed conditions. Under well-watered conditions,
33% defoliation twice (conducted 28 and 35 days after emergence) resulted in a 16% reduction in grain yield of maize while 67% defoliation once
(conducted 28 days after emergence) had no significant effect on yield. Under water stress, the grain yields of maize plants with 33% (twice) and 67% defoliation
were 13.5% and 25% greater than that of non-defoliated control plants, respectively. For cotton, the reproductive yields (seed and lint) with 33% and 67% defoliation
(conducted 43 days after emergence) were reduced, under well-watered conditions, by 28% and 37% of that of the non-defoliated control, respectively.
Defoliated cotton plants lost less fruiting forms (squares and young bolls) than non-defoliated plants during water stress. Therefore, under water stress the
harvestable product of cotton plants with 67% defoliation was double that of non-defoliated control plants. In non-defoliated cotton plants, a second flush of
flowering after release from water-stress permitted further compensatory fruit set and boll harvest. Defoliated plants did not show such levels of compensation.
Defoliation significantly reduced water use by maize and cotton. The relative yield advantage of defoliated plants under water-stress conditions can be attributed
to defoliation-induced improvement in water status as reflected in measures of photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance. Under anticipated drought stress,
defoliation could be an important management practice to reduce drought-induced yield decrease, but this needs to be tested under field conditions.
http://www.forages.ncsu.edu/Technica...scueTB_317.pdf
Research findings show that tall fescue pasture
yield and quality can be greatly improved through
proper defoliation practices and that endophyte-free
tall fescue cultivars can be no-till established into
infected pastures. Further, the experiments show that
with judicious planning and management, producers
can effectively use late summer-accumulated tall
fescue from October to March. These results have
applications wherever tall fescue is grown in North
Carolina and in other mid-Atlantic states.


These are for strawberries http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xm...dle/1957/25728
The number of trusses and flowers on control plants was significantly lower than on early-renovated plants (2 to 5 WAH). Date of renovation had no significant
effect on yield per plant in the summer of 1990 for all 3 cultivars individually. However, compared with the un-renovated control plants, the pooled yields of
'Benton', 'Totem', and 'Redcrest' showed a significant increase for early renovated plants (5 WAH or earlier). Compared with un-renovated plants, renovation
significantly increased berry size in 'Totem', and delayed the date of harvest in 'Totem' and 'Redcrest' but not in 'Benton'.



one more http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...31942298004440
However, growth of defoliated seedlings was considerably higher than that of nondefoliated ones.

Last one I could go on forever http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78429004000541

Analysis of physiological data collected in 1999 suggests that defoliation suppressed vegetative growth, optimized the ratio of AGDM at anthesis to that at final
harvest (0.5–0.8, peak 0.66) and led to more AGDM post-anthesis for maximal grain production. Defoliation that led to a yield increase also increased the leaf
area ratio and enhanced stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity at anthesis.

It is concluded that defoliation of early (April)-sown wheat defoliated at the middle to late tillering stage could let to greater yield and WUE, and would not
result in yield reduction. The value of foliage removed and overall economic and risk analyses are discussed in a further paper.


None of these plants are like pot that can photosynthesis from there fruit or create leaves on the fruit it is like nothing else. Fruit is usually separate from
leaf like apples.

Defoliation is just another pruning technique like topping, suppercroping, lollypoping or listing.

Topping a plant they go into shock and then develop branches faster then if the top was on.

Supercroping you crush the stem stopping food and water to the branch it goes into shock and stops growing until it heals then gains vigor.

Lollypoping defoliates and removes branches leaving large holes in the stem causing shock till the wounds heal and hormones transfer.

Listing shocks the plant forcing it to change the flow of hormones and stops growth until the hormone transfers and leaves reorientates up.

Defoliation removes large leaf forcing growth to the smaller leaves attached to branches making the branches develop much more replacing the leaf mass in three
days while keeping the top and creating more bud sites with closer nodes and denser branching.

Are any of these methods scientifically proven to work on pot all cause some shock I have never seen a side by side or proof
of any kind that these methods work other that peoples opinion but are not questioned much most try it for themselves. The vast majority of people who have
defoliated are happy with the results I bet a much higher % than the other methods which is why dozens of growers have defended the thread always
against people who have never tried it usually only a couple of haters at a time versus many more who have done it and produce increased numbers from previous grows.

The only people who argue are ones who admit to not trying it but believe the solar panel religion blindly even thou the leaves replace themselves in 3 days
I have read much more than most about this and can not find one person who put up numbers or pictures proving this didn't work only a rare post where it didn't
work for them or they did it wrong I have asked them what happened and they never give details

I have tried all the pruning methods over the years with the exception of supercroping to move a branch I don't care for any of the other methods none have been as good or as fast as defoliation a buddy showed me this years ago when I was part of the solar panel religion till I was converted we didn't do it exactly like the thread but did see results.

I want to investigate this to the fullest Including real side by sides with numbers for a valued test of timing and amounts with controls which will be started soon.

I thank you for reading this and I hope you look at it with an open mind it is a bit to read and much more to write.
SAM_7561.jpgSAM_7602.jpg this is week four a week after taking a shopping bag of leaf off you see they keep growing leaves no mater what you do they are over 4 feet high dense bushes. These were defoliated half a dozen times in veg I should have done it a couple of more times but did it again after stretch and now i'm going to do it again a couple of weeks before they are done. I still have too many leaves the light doesn't penetrate far with my 1000 watt less than a foot away the bottom buds that get light are doing good the ones higher up in the shade are losing leaves and have under developed buds it has too do with available light more than apical dominance.
 
How about your nitrogen levels bud brewer?

also a majority of those studies are unavailable for review.
 
That is the way with studies they want you to pay for the full report your welcome to pay and see if the conclusions can be disputed but it is proven to work with many different plants just the timing and amounts have to be worked out for maximum yield that is what we should be talking about how to best do it those of us that have done it keep doing it because it makes dense branching in veg and gives light to bud that wouldn't get any very little gets past the canopy.

My nitrogen is high I always feed homemade organics look at the leaves they are perfect so it isn't a lack of anything but light getting past the top canopy and that the plants are over 4 feet high and 3 feet wide the 1000 watt still can't penetrate very far past leaves i have excellent reflection. I'll post some pictures before and after I defoliate to show how much undeveloped buds are buried in the middle lower canopy.

I will be doing a second harvest I started budding at 14 hours light and drop a half hour a week now I'm at 11 hours with two weeks to go they should finish at 10 hours light then chop the big buds reset the light back to 14 hours and feed them some alfalfa. I'll get a bit of a growth spurt a bit of reveg sort of and should get almost as much bud the second time.
 
I am going to try that lighting schedule, mimicking the outdoors more.

It looks stuffy in there, are those walls up only during lights off?

i went vertical this last run, no leaf dropping and the usually popcorn were like aces of spades.

the leaves actuated to the light source, quite a sight.

i wanted to add I did triple the amount of N I was feeding ( fish emulsion ).

Apical dominance was a factor in how developed the lower buds were ( size was stil small) I believe the orientation of the light combated the favoring of the tallest cola.
 
It is exactly the schedule I get up north here I thought I'd do it to see if this strain would finish outside and it gives them more light and is natural they budded just as fast the pics were week four that was 12.5 hour light it works very well.

The walls are a suspended shield of reflex from ropes to move up and down the top foot is folded in to form a 45 degree angle on four sides to reflect light down it works perfect looks cool and works very well. The plants have definitely filled in the space and I could have flipped them sooner but I'll get a great second harvest.
 
I am up north also.


last year I lost the bottom third outside, we no that can't be a lack of penetration.

lack of nitrogen was the cause.
 
I'm losing some in the middle the bottom leaves that get light are fine some of it might be the plants are near done. You might have had low nitrogen or they could have dried out also even outside light will not penatrate all the way through even with the wind and suns movement.
 
oHsiN666 said:
hey guys, im just talking about the lower ones, and SOME of the middle leafs in the middle. and JUST the BUGGER fan leafs. that is all. im not talking about all the leafs or anything like that. but i will leave the rest of the leafs alone. i just had to tie up some plants and was tieing them up with bamboo shots. kinda squeezed the main branches closer together. not much, but enough to have to light travel further down around the outsides of the plants. so there is not as much crowding.
Click to expand...

Love to see some pics ? I am in the same boat more or less . I have been tucking them, but when they get moved for whatever reason the tucking goes for naught ...... so like a good TRANNY I tuck again :)
 
420forme said:
I pull leaves, Cervantes can kiss my ass. I take hand fulls off all through flower. Improves air flow, light penetration, and mold resistance. I get fan leaves the size of your head, if I left them that's all you would see is leaf.
I have grown with leaving everything on there, just makes for alot of undeveloped buds, and alot more trimming. I had no change in yield.
Click to expand...

Great point man !!!!
 
The leafs lower in the canopy are designed to perform under lower amounts of PAR, r, fr.

me thinks spectrum of light could be a factor
 
donmagicjuan said:
What point that he can't grow a good plant now he cuts leaves and he thinks that's good? That is one dumass point
Click to expand...

They don't have enough light or air quality, aside from fixing those issues. This is there work around.

it is a poor one I admit.
 
elkukupanda said:
PJ Diaz said:
No, I'm simply trying to disprove misinformation. If you want to believe one thing, and hold fast to that, well good for you (I guess). Thing is you haven't even gotten through one harvest yet, and you're already set in your ways. Seems kinda silly to me.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's clear to me that is a light problem... If light is unable to reach certain places its because something you are doing is not doing what the sun does outdoors...I'm not a perfectionist... I know how silly fellas get with this... We are growing pot.. Yes, it's my first grow but I wasn't born yesterday.... You are trying to disprove nothing.... You just don't want to accept facts... Grow one in a 10 x 10 x 10 room... With a couple 1k lights and light movers... You will see that it gets light everywhere.... The sky is pretty wide here... See one thing about arguing to get to an answer is sticking with the main concern... Answering it and then moving on... But if you don't want to hear the answer to your question and decide to ask a bunch more and so.. Lets not reinvent the wheel man... Removing leaves Is the solution... I guess... Like I said before... Before you waste your time doing that... Veg Shorter or whatever..
Click to expand...

It's not reaching certain places because it's an indoor grow in a small space with 4 large plants, and I want to maximize my yields. If I had less or smaller plants I wouldn't have leaves covering each other. I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm trying to describe. Again, you haven't even gotten through your first harvest and you already think you know it all. I'm simply gonna call you Little Ben.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top