lukio
Well-Known Member
LOL! 4x the yield bruh, at 3x the price
haters gna hate.
Ppfd :-)
- Thread starter Kingrow1
- Start date
haters gna hate.
hybridway2
Amare Shill
Burple goes the Rasta? No way.... i dont believe it.
Oh NM! I get it! Listen guys, that shit aint funny, im stuck with 980 buckaroos worth of ductaped, 1.4 umol/j supplemental lights.
They give you x4 the yield of a 55w cfl.
Seriously one of my XB-140'S pushing 224w would prob be an equal contender to x4-5 of my 40w , 6yr old led shop lights @ 90 lm/w (when they were new). 4k. But way better quality from the shop lights.
Last edited:
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
I didn't write transpiration is inefficient, its just that lost water cannot be turned into biomatter anymore - thus, excessive transpiration causes lost opportunities.
And dissolved into that water are minerals - these do NOT evaporate. Ask yourself: what happens if you boil saltwater? Salt remains. The same happens inside a plant --> burned tips/ claws/ yellow toxic buildups, that is, plant tissue is damaged from remaining excessive mineralic content that couldn't been used up because the water was needed for cooling.
I thought it's common practice amongst growers to drive back on nutes if temps get too high. That's the reason why^^ and an add. reason why excessive heat is bad for photosynthesis.
Yes, I do agree, but if photoreceptors are already in a state of too much photonic influx I don't see how additional IR is helping that at all...? It just makes matters more worse.
That's irrelevant. The question in charge is if it's helpful or not under a specific condition.
It's because heat drives chemical reactions/encymatic processes, or, in a broader sense, biological metabolism. Once 25°C are reached, Cannabis is fine and you gain no further profit from additionally transpiring water. Let the water stay in that place where it's needed to form biomatter. Everytime that happens new molecules instantly fill that spot. Over 30°C leave temperatur the rate of photosynthesis will shrink and completely decline at 50°C.
Furthermore, it's common knowledge among growers to keep rH high during vegetation. This is because a high rH will increase the amount of photosynthesis. And it would even be beneficial to have a high rH in flower but mold is too much of a risk. I'm gonna illustrate a few points by citing wikipedia in order to proof these points. (and if you still disbelief that you can just dive into that referenced-article/book/study and do some homework on your own)
The first article isn't available in english but I can translate the important parts easily in your language:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserhaushalt_der_Pflanzen (Watermanagements_of_plants):
"Weil Pflanzen über die Spaltöffnungen nicht nur transpirieren, sondern auch CO2 aufnehmen...[...]"
"Because plants not only transpire through their stomata, but also take in Co2[...]"
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassertransport_in_Pflanzen (Watertransport_in_plants)
" Da Kohlendioxid in der Luft nur in Spuren vorhanden ist (0,037 %), verliert die Pflanze für jedes aufgenommene CO2-Molekül mehrere hundert Wassermoleküle.[5]"
"Because Co2 is only found in traces in air (0,037%) the plant looses several hundred molecules of water just for a single molecule of CO2"
"Jedoch zeigten Pflanzen in Experimenten auch bei 15-fach verringerter Transpiration keine Wachstumsprobleme."
"However even when transpiration is reduced by factor 15 plants won't show any growthproblems in experiments"
"Somit dient die Transpiration wohl nicht in erster Linie dem Transport, sondern ist schlicht unvermeidlich, speziell durch die unumgängliche Aufnahme von Kohlenstoffdioxid.[8] Auch ohne Transpiration existiert ein interner Wasserstrom, der als Ionentransport vollständig ausreicht. Dieser kommt zustande durch den Wurzeldruck, Wachstumswasser und den internen Wasserkreislauf in Phloem und Xylem sowie Guttation in speziellen Fällen. Wachstumswasser ist Wasser, das der Volumenvergrößerung der Pflanze dient"
"Therefore transpiration doesn't serve the transport [of water] in the first place, but is instead simply unavoidable, specially due to the unavoidable takein of CO2.[8] Even without transpiration there exists an inner waterstream, which is enough to transport ions. This transport is realized by the root pressure, growthwater and the inner watercycles in the phloem & xylem as well as guttation in special cases. Growthwater is water which serves the volumeincrease of plants"
In other words, water lost by transpiration is not the same water than the water which plants reserve for photosynthesis.
You can actually read more indepth about these mechanism in your language here
Xylem - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
lukio
Well-Known Member
nah same EC, man, i dont think plant size really matters.
We did this in DM. Grow 1 plant my way and see how it goes, its not like you dont have the space.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
This actually is already enough scientific evidence that transpiration doesn't have anything to do with the gathering of new biomatter by photosynthesis. So I've already falsified your standpoint.
But my point was that too much transpiration (or better: heat) actually does hurt photosynthesis and this I'm going to proove as well, some of that information is already vaguely hinted at in the previously cited full articles, but there are more clear references to be found in wikipedia:
In this article
en.wikipedia.org
it's explained that O2 actually rivals CO2 during photosynthesis, which then creates an unwanted metabolic compound and that this situation actually gets worse the higher the temperatures get. And that is because plants react to higher temperatures by *closing* their stomata which in turn decreases the potential uptake of CO2!
Furthermore, plants actually develop different tactics to keep rH *high* in the close vicinity of their stomata in order to mitigate the loss of water by transpiration. They also develop tactics to mitigate the loss of water by wind. Multiple tactics. They do everything to keep their water yet you think its beneficial to create a situation in which they have no other choice as to loose a boatload of water!
"Photorespiration[...] refers to a process in plant metabolism where the enzyme RuBisCO oxygenates RuBP, wasting some of the energy produced by photosynthesis."
"Factors which influence this include the atmospheric abundance of the two gases, the supply of the gases to the site of fixation (i.e. in land plants: whether the stomata are open or closed)"
"However, at temperatures higher than the photosynthetic thermal optimum, the increases in turnover rate are not translated into increased CO2 assimilation because of the decreased affinity of Rubisco for CO2 [7]."
[the photosynthetic thermal optimum for Cannabis/C3 plants is 20-30°C, there's a chart in wikipedia as well, unfortunately not in the english section, what the heck, the german wikipedia on plants seems to be much more complete than the english one, that's really an exception to the rule....:
de.wikipedia.org
Photosynthetische Temperaturbereiche verschiedener Pflanzenarten[87]
ok, going back to the previous article about photorespiration:
"Increased temperature
At higher temperatures RuBisCO is less able to discriminate between CO2 and O2. This is because the enediol intermediate is less stable. Increasing temperatures also reduce the solubility of CO2, thus reducing the concentration of CO2 relative to O2 in the chloroplast."
de.wikipedia.org
"Der photorespiratorische Stoffwechselweg gilt als einer der verschwenderischsten Prozesse auf der Erde.[2]"
"The photorespiratory metabolic way is one of the most wasteful processes on earth"
"jedes vierte bis jedes zweite Molekül Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphat mit Sauerstoff anstatt Kohlenstoffdioxid umgesetzt."
"every 4th to second molecule "Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphat" will be reacted with oxygen instead of CO2"
"Da RuBisCO sowohl Kohlenstoffdioxid als auch Sauerstoff als Substrat verwenden kann, tritt die Oxygenasereaktion von RuBisCO umso häufiger auf, je höher die Sauerstoffkonzentration im Verhältnis zur Kohlenstoffdioxidkonzentration ist. Dieses Verhältnis steigt mit der Temperatur. Die Löslichkeit eines Gases fällt mit steigender Temperatur, bei CO2 jedoch stärker als bei O2 (vgl. Tabelle). Bei gleichem Verhältnis der Partialdrucke beider Gase verringert sich deshalb das Verhältnis von gelöstem CO2 zu gelöstem O2 mit steigender Temperatur. Für eine CO2-Fixierung wird es damit ungünstiger. Außerdem werden bei höheren Temperaturen die Spaltöffnungen des Blattes geschlossen, um den Wasserverlust der Pflanze zu verringern. Dies bedeutet, dass auch weniger CO2 in die Zelle gelangt, während der lokale O2-Gehalt durch Photolyse ansteigt.[20] Hohe Temperaturen begünstigen infolgedessen die Photorespiration."
"because RuBisCO can use CO and also O2 for a substrate, the oxygenic reaction from RuBisCO occurs more if the concentration of O2 is higher in relation to CO2. This increases with temperatur. The solveability of a gas falls with increased temperature, with CO2 its actually stronger than with O2. At the same relation of the partial pressure of both gases the relation of dissolved CO2 gets lower with increased temperature. The fixation of CO2 actually gets worse. Also the stomata are more closed at higher temperatures in order to mitigate the loss of water of the plant. That means that less CO2 gets inside the cell, although the locale rate of O2 rises through photolyticism(?). High temperatures therefore increase photorespiration"
"Die Photorespiration ist ein kostspieliger Prozess, in dem vermehrt ATP und Reduktionsmittel investiert werden. Ohne Photorespiration würden pro fixiertem mol CO2 3 mol ATP und 2 mol NADPH verstoffwechselt. Für den Fall, dass das Verhältnis von Carboxylierung zu Oxygenierung 1 zu 0,25 beträgt, erhöht sich der Verbrauch pro fixiertem mol CO2 auf 5,375 mol ATP und 3,5 mol NADPH."
Dieser Mehrverbrauch reduziert die Effizienz der Photosynthese. Nur unter ausreichend hohen CO2-Partialdrücken (z. B. 1 % CO2) findet keine Oxygenasereaktion und damit kein Effizienzverlust der Photosynthese statt. Somit stellt die Photorespiration per se eine energetisch ungünstige Mehrinvestition für die C3-Pflanze dar. Man schätzt, dass der Kohlenstoffgewinn im Calvin-Zyklus ohne Photorespiration um etwa 30 % höher sein könnte.[28]"
Both paragraphs are a little too hard for me to translate, but I can summarize.
The first paragraph actually informs you that with photorespiration a plant needs to invest around twice the amount of energetical compounds.
The second paragraphs says that only when CO2 is increased to 1% there's no lost efficiency in photosynthesis for C3 plants (Cannabis is C3), and that then photosynthesis is increased in efficiency by 30%.
"In C3-Pflanzen tritt die Photorespiration besonders unter warmen und trockenen Umweltbedingungen auf, was die Ernteerträge in jenen Regionen [...] mindert. "
"In C3 plants photorespiration especially occurs under warm and dry circumstances, which reduces the amount of harvest at these regions [...]"
The article also states that genetically engineered tobacco plants that saw a reduction in photorespiration by 17% increased harvest by 40%!
However, both english and german versions state that photorespiration may serve some positive biological functions, one (out of 4) is actually to reduce the damage done by too much photonic influx (ie. if plants are CO2 capped, which is actually normal for C3 plants. The article also states that in the silurian-devonian times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher, so photorespiration may be seen as a positive evolutionairy mechanism of survival of C3 plants against abnormal low rates of CO2. Other plants developed different methods of dealing with this (C4 etc pp)
But my point was that too much transpiration (or better: heat) actually does hurt photosynthesis and this I'm going to proove as well, some of that information is already vaguely hinted at in the previously cited full articles, but there are more clear references to be found in wikipedia:
In this article
Photorespiration - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
it's explained that O2 actually rivals CO2 during photosynthesis, which then creates an unwanted metabolic compound and that this situation actually gets worse the higher the temperatures get. And that is because plants react to higher temperatures by *closing* their stomata which in turn decreases the potential uptake of CO2!
Furthermore, plants actually develop different tactics to keep rH *high* in the close vicinity of their stomata in order to mitigate the loss of water by transpiration. They also develop tactics to mitigate the loss of water by wind. Multiple tactics. They do everything to keep their water yet you think its beneficial to create a situation in which they have no other choice as to loose a boatload of water!
"Photorespiration[...] refers to a process in plant metabolism where the enzyme RuBisCO oxygenates RuBP, wasting some of the energy produced by photosynthesis."
"Factors which influence this include the atmospheric abundance of the two gases, the supply of the gases to the site of fixation (i.e. in land plants: whether the stomata are open or closed)"
"However, at temperatures higher than the photosynthetic thermal optimum, the increases in turnover rate are not translated into increased CO2 assimilation because of the decreased affinity of Rubisco for CO2 [7]."
[the photosynthetic thermal optimum for Cannabis/C3 plants is 20-30°C, there's a chart in wikipedia as well, unfortunately not in the english section, what the heck, the german wikipedia on plants seems to be much more complete than the english one, that's really an exception to the rule....:
Photosynthese – Wikipedia
de.wikipedia.org
Photosynthetische Temperaturbereiche verschiedener Pflanzenarten[87]
| Pflanzentyp | Mindesttemperatur | Temperaturoptimum | Temperaturmaximum |
| C4-Pflanze | 5 bis 7 °C | 35 bis 45 °C | 50 bis 60 °C |
| C3-Pflanze | −2 bis 0 °C | 20 bis 30 °C | 40 bis 50 °C |
| Sonnenpflanze | −2 bis 0 °C | 20 bis 30 °C | 40 bis 50 °C |
| Schattenpflanze | −2 bis 0 °C | 10 bis 20 °C | 40 bis 50 °C |
| Immergrüne tropische Laubbäume | 0 bis 5 °C | 25 bis 30 °C | 45 bis 50 °C |
| Laubbäume gemäßigter Breiten | −3 bis −1 °C | 15 bis 25 °C | 40 bis 45 °C |
| Nadelbäume | −5 bis −3 °C | 10 bis 25 °C | 35 bis 40 °C |
| Flechten | −15 bis −10 °C | 5 bis 15 °C | 20 bis 30 °C |
"Increased temperature
At higher temperatures RuBisCO is less able to discriminate between CO2 and O2. This is because the enediol intermediate is less stable. Increasing temperatures also reduce the solubility of CO2, thus reducing the concentration of CO2 relative to O2 in the chloroplast."
Photorespiration – Wikipedia
de.wikipedia.org
"Der photorespiratorische Stoffwechselweg gilt als einer der verschwenderischsten Prozesse auf der Erde.[2]"
"The photorespiratory metabolic way is one of the most wasteful processes on earth"
"jedes vierte bis jedes zweite Molekül Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphat mit Sauerstoff anstatt Kohlenstoffdioxid umgesetzt."
"every 4th to second molecule "Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphat" will be reacted with oxygen instead of CO2"
"Da RuBisCO sowohl Kohlenstoffdioxid als auch Sauerstoff als Substrat verwenden kann, tritt die Oxygenasereaktion von RuBisCO umso häufiger auf, je höher die Sauerstoffkonzentration im Verhältnis zur Kohlenstoffdioxidkonzentration ist. Dieses Verhältnis steigt mit der Temperatur. Die Löslichkeit eines Gases fällt mit steigender Temperatur, bei CO2 jedoch stärker als bei O2 (vgl. Tabelle). Bei gleichem Verhältnis der Partialdrucke beider Gase verringert sich deshalb das Verhältnis von gelöstem CO2 zu gelöstem O2 mit steigender Temperatur. Für eine CO2-Fixierung wird es damit ungünstiger. Außerdem werden bei höheren Temperaturen die Spaltöffnungen des Blattes geschlossen, um den Wasserverlust der Pflanze zu verringern. Dies bedeutet, dass auch weniger CO2 in die Zelle gelangt, während der lokale O2-Gehalt durch Photolyse ansteigt.[20] Hohe Temperaturen begünstigen infolgedessen die Photorespiration."
"because RuBisCO can use CO and also O2 for a substrate, the oxygenic reaction from RuBisCO occurs more if the concentration of O2 is higher in relation to CO2. This increases with temperatur. The solveability of a gas falls with increased temperature, with CO2 its actually stronger than with O2. At the same relation of the partial pressure of both gases the relation of dissolved CO2 gets lower with increased temperature. The fixation of CO2 actually gets worse. Also the stomata are more closed at higher temperatures in order to mitigate the loss of water of the plant. That means that less CO2 gets inside the cell, although the locale rate of O2 rises through photolyticism(?). High temperatures therefore increase photorespiration"
"Die Photorespiration ist ein kostspieliger Prozess, in dem vermehrt ATP und Reduktionsmittel investiert werden. Ohne Photorespiration würden pro fixiertem mol CO2 3 mol ATP und 2 mol NADPH verstoffwechselt. Für den Fall, dass das Verhältnis von Carboxylierung zu Oxygenierung 1 zu 0,25 beträgt, erhöht sich der Verbrauch pro fixiertem mol CO2 auf 5,375 mol ATP und 3,5 mol NADPH."
Dieser Mehrverbrauch reduziert die Effizienz der Photosynthese. Nur unter ausreichend hohen CO2-Partialdrücken (z. B. 1 % CO2) findet keine Oxygenasereaktion und damit kein Effizienzverlust der Photosynthese statt. Somit stellt die Photorespiration per se eine energetisch ungünstige Mehrinvestition für die C3-Pflanze dar. Man schätzt, dass der Kohlenstoffgewinn im Calvin-Zyklus ohne Photorespiration um etwa 30 % höher sein könnte.[28]"
Both paragraphs are a little too hard for me to translate, but I can summarize.
The first paragraph actually informs you that with photorespiration a plant needs to invest around twice the amount of energetical compounds.
The second paragraphs says that only when CO2 is increased to 1% there's no lost efficiency in photosynthesis for C3 plants (Cannabis is C3), and that then photosynthesis is increased in efficiency by 30%.
"In C3-Pflanzen tritt die Photorespiration besonders unter warmen und trockenen Umweltbedingungen auf, was die Ernteerträge in jenen Regionen [...] mindert. "
"In C3 plants photorespiration especially occurs under warm and dry circumstances, which reduces the amount of harvest at these regions [...]"
The article also states that genetically engineered tobacco plants that saw a reduction in photorespiration by 17% increased harvest by 40%!
However, both english and german versions state that photorespiration may serve some positive biological functions, one (out of 4) is actually to reduce the damage done by too much photonic influx (ie. if plants are CO2 capped, which is actually normal for C3 plants. The article also states that in the silurian-devonian times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher, so photorespiration may be seen as a positive evolutionairy mechanism of survival of C3 plants against abnormal low rates of CO2. Other plants developed different methods of dealing with this (C4 etc pp)
Last edited:
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
Photosynthesis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Photorespiration
As carbon dioxide concentrations rise, the rate at which sugars are made by the light-independent reactions increases until limited by other factors. RuBisCO, the enzyme that captures carbon dioxide in the light-independent reactions, has a binding affinity for both carbon dioxide and oxygen. When the concentration of carbon dioxide is high, RuBisCO will fix carbon dioxide. However, if the carbon dioxide concentration is low, RuBisCO will bind oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. This process, called photorespiration, uses energy, but does not produce sugars.
RuBisCO oxygenase activity is disadvantageous to plants for several reasons:
- One product of oxygenase activity is phosphoglycolate (2 carbon) instead of 3-phosphoglycerate (3 carbon). Phosphoglycolate cannot be metabolized by the Calvin-Benson cycle and represents carbon lost from the cycle. A high oxygenase activity, therefore, drains the sugars that are required to recycle ribulose 5-bisphosphate and for the continuation of the Calvin-Benson cycle.
- Phosphoglycolate is quickly metabolized to glycolate that is toxic to a plant at a high concentration; it inhibits photosynthesis.
- Salvaging glycolate is an energetically expensive process that uses the glycolate pathway, and only 75% of the carbon is returned to the Calvin-Benson cycle as 3-phosphoglycerate. The reactions also produce ammonia (NH3), which is able to diffuse out of the plant, leading to a loss of nitrogen.
Transpiration - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Water is necessary for plants but only a small amount of water taken up by the roots is used for growth and metabolism. The remaining 97–99.5% is lost by transpiration and guttation.[1]"
So basically what excess heat does is making the plant sweat which is a drag for photosynthesis and you just have to water them more often. More work for you and your plant.... which actually instead tries to do everything to hold its water in the first place:
"A waxy cuticle is relatively impermeable to water and water vapour and reduces evaporation from the plant surface except via the stomata. A reflective cuticle will reduce solar heating and temperature rise of the leaf, helping to reduce the rate of evaporation. Tiny hair-like structures called trichomes on the surface of leaves also can inhibit water loss by creating a high humidity environment at the surface of leaves. These are some examples of the adaptations of plants for conservation of water that may be found on many xerophytes."
"Temperature affects the rate in two ways:
1) An increased rate of evaporation due to a temperature rise will hasten the loss of water.
2) Decreased relative humidity outside the leaf will increase the water potential gradient."
"In still air, water lost due to transpiration can accumulate in the form of vapor close to the leaf surface. This will reduce the rate of water loss, as the water potential gradient from inside to outside of the leaf is then slightly less. Wind blows away much of this water vapor near the leaf surface, making the potential gradient steeper and speeding up the diffusion of water molecules into the surrounding air. Even in wind, though, there may be some accumulation of water vapor in a thin boundary layer of slower moving air next to the leaf surface. The stronger the wind, the thinner this layer will tend to be, and the steeper the water potential gradient."
The consequence of this is that if temps are high you need to lower rH so a plant can cool itself better, vice versa an LED setup can tolerate higher rH, and that a high rH will prevent that borderline insane 99.5% loss of water. Actually I know growers that reduce windchill during the vegetative phase to a maximum (no oscillating fan at all - which I personally find a bit too extreme. But to reduce windchill will also help reduce electricity cost, dust on plants, and fixcosts in fans...)
So my friend, I'm gonna take a nap. Please don't wreak havoc on the rabbits
edit:
TLDR:
high rH, less windchill but most of all low temps will trigger the plants stomata to open for maximum intake of CO2, supporting photosynthesis.
Do the opposite and stomatas are more closed supporting photorespiration.
Last edited:
lukio
Well-Known Member
kinda funny. tried tellin ya...
kmog33
Well-Known Member
It’s nice to see some respectful debate on here for once
I feel like most of both sides of the argument taking place are correct, each lighting type has its strengths and weaknesses. You can sort of solve this by mixing Or supplementing spectrums, light types, uv/ir , but really whatever works for anyone in their space is the best lighting imo.
I feel like most of both sides of the argument taking place are correct, each lighting type has its strengths and weaknesses. You can sort of solve this by mixing Or supplementing spectrums, light types, uv/ir , but really whatever works for anyone in their space is the best lighting imo.
Gond00s
Well-Known Member
shouldn't have gave the money to scammie @hybridway2 at one point you defended her a while ago wonder what happened from there
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
when I was comparing the wikipedia entries I also stumbled over this (which is lacking in the english article) which you may find interesting:
Photosynthese – Wikipedia
de.wikipedia.org
"Nachdem erkannt wurde, dass die Photosyntheserate mit einer Mischung verschiedener Lichtfarben höher ist als bei Bestrahlung mit monochromatischem Licht (Emerson-Effekt), also eine wechselseitige Beeinflussung gegeben ist, wurde 2009 vorgeschlagen, für die Ermittlung der photosynthetisch aktiven Strahlung die Quantenausbeute von zusätzlichem monochromatischen Licht unterschiedlicher Wellenlängen unter weißer Grundbeleuchtung zu messen. Das führte zur Erkenntnis, dass die photosynthetische Quantenausbeute bei grünem Licht etwa gleich der bei rotem Licht ist und größer als die bei blauem Licht.[82] Praktische Versuche führten bereits 2004 zu schnellerem Pflanzenwachstum und höherer Biomasseausbeute nach Zugabe von grünem Licht (500 bis 600 nm).[83] Zudem kann die Ausrichtung der Blätter (in Richtung der Lichtquelle) mithilfe von Grünlicht aufgrund der Photomorphogenese zu einer höheren Photosyntheserate führen, woraus mehr Biomasse resultiert.[84] "
That paragraph states that the quantum yield regarding photosynthesis of photons in the green spectrum actually matches that of the red spectrum and its greater than that of the blue spectrum. And that even in 2004 practical experiments already showed an increase in biomass when green light in the 500-600nm spectrum was added.
The article also states that there's more than just the 2 phytochrome A & B which are classically known to do photosynthesis, esp. carotinoids which absorb light at a very broad spectrum, and that's not even all of it.
I don't think that the process of photosynthesis is yet completely understood/researched.
And that also plants actually will turn their leaves more towards a lightsource if its containing greenlight and that will also additionally increase biomass because of this:
Photomorphogenesis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
it's not about size, but about age. an old plant can take a much higher EC than a young one (*). Therefore a clone, once it has established a new root system, can also take a higher EC, but actually the process of cloning will take the internal plant EC down because we stick them with an open wound right into pure water, so even a clone needs time to readapt to a hiher EC.
But I have to agree, it's quite normal to gradually increase EC as the plant grows bigger (to a certain point) and for maximum yield, I would suggest to do so. Although your plant will still be fine if you just stick to a somewhat mediocre fixed EC.
But what is actually deadly is to do an instant skyrocketing increase in EC like these "water, water, water, big time nutes" technique I occassionaly read on here (like you do with ordinairy household plants that can dwell for more than just one season...)
edit:
or maybe a better way to say it is that with an old plant you got more time to adapt to more nudes...
Last edited:
lukio
Well-Known Member
good info!
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
thanks
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
The internal workings of a leaf do not work on conductive and convective heat from air, this is merely part of the leaf budget and you and others with leds need to stop bending science with sheer will.I didn't write transpiration is inefficient, its just that lost water cannot be turned into biomatter anymore - thus, excessive transpiration causes lost opportunities.
And dissolved into that water are minerals - these do NOT evaporate. Ask yourself: what happens if you boil saltwater? Salt remains. The same happens inside a plant --> burned tips/ claws/ yellow toxic buildups, that is, plant tissue is damaged from remaining excessive mineralic content that couldn't been used up because the water was needed for cooling.
I thought it's common practice amongst growers to drive back on nutes if temps get too high. That's the reason why^^ and an add. reason why excessive heat is bad for photosynthesis.
Yes, I do agree, but if photoreceptors are already in a state of too much photonic influx I don't see how additional IR is helping that at all...? It just makes matters more worse.
That's irrelevant. The question in charge is if it's helpful or not under a specific condition.
It's because heat drives chemical reactions/encymatic processes, or, in a broader sense, biological metabolism. Once 25°C are reached, Cannabis is fine and you gain no further profit from additionally transpiring water. Let the water stay in that place where it's needed to form biomatter. Everytime that happens new molecules instantly fill that spot. Over 30°C leave temperatur the rate of photosynthesis will shrink and completely decline at 50°C.
Furthermore, it's common knowledge among growers to keep rH high during vegetation. This is because a high rH will increase the amount of photosynthesis. And it would even be beneficial to have a high rH in flower but mold is too much of a risk. I'm gonna illustrate a few points by citing wikipedia in order to proof these points. (and if you still disbelief that you can just dive into that referenced-article/book/study and do some homework on your own)
The first article isn't available in english but I can translate the important parts easily in your language:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserhaushalt_der_Pflanzen (Watermanagements_of_plants):
"Weil Pflanzen über die Spaltöffnungen nicht nur transpirieren, sondern auch CO2 aufnehmen...[...]"
"Because plants not only transpire through their stomata, but also take in Co2[...]"
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassertransport_in_Pflanzen (Watertransport_in_plants)
" Da Kohlendioxid in der Luft nur in Spuren vorhanden ist (0,037 %), verliert die Pflanze für jedes aufgenommene CO2-Molekül mehrere hundert Wassermoleküle.[5]"
"Because Co2 is only found in traces in air (0,037%) the plant looses several hundred molecules of water just for a single molecule of CO2"
"Jedoch zeigten Pflanzen in Experimenten auch bei 15-fach verringerter Transpiration keine Wachstumsprobleme."
"However even when transpiration is reduced by factor 15 plants won't show any growthproblems in experiments"
"Somit dient die Transpiration wohl nicht in erster Linie dem Transport, sondern ist schlicht unvermeidlich, speziell durch die unumgängliche Aufnahme von Kohlenstoffdioxid.[8] Auch ohne Transpiration existiert ein interner Wasserstrom, der als Ionentransport vollständig ausreicht. Dieser kommt zustande durch den Wurzeldruck, Wachstumswasser und den internen Wasserkreislauf in Phloem und Xylem sowie Guttation in speziellen Fällen. Wachstumswasser ist Wasser, das der Volumenvergrößerung der Pflanze dient"
"Therefore transpiration doesn't serve the transport [of water] in the first place, but is instead simply unavoidable, specially due to the unavoidable takein of CO2.[8] Even without transpiration there exists an inner waterstream, which is enough to transport ions. This transport is realized by the root pressure, growthwater and the inner watercycles in the phloem & xylem as well as guttation in special cases. Growthwater is water which serves the volumeincrease of plants"
In other words, water lost by transpiration is not the same water than the water which plants reserve for photosynthesis.
You can actually read more indepth about these mechanism in your language here
Xylem - Wikipedia
Kushash
Well-Known Member
Yeah!
This thread took a very nice turn.
Regardless of what direction the thread takes next.
Talking about light without talking about the plant is boring for some while probably fun for others.
When things like photorespiration, photomorphogenesis and shiny leaves are added to the conversation it becomes much more interesting IMO.
Thanks for the posts @Kassiopeija!
This thread took a very nice turn.
Regardless of what direction the thread takes next.
Talking about light without talking about the plant is boring for some while probably fun for others.
When things like photorespiration, photomorphogenesis and shiny leaves are added to the conversation it becomes much more interesting IMO.
Thanks for the posts @Kassiopeija!
hybridway2
Amare Shill
Long story, i was lied too repeatedly by Scammie/HydroGrow.
As for defending her or promoting the product, ill adk you the same i asked everyone else falsely accusing these actions to pls quote me???
Where oh Where did i defend that Nut case?
Gond00s
Well-Known Member
well you did spend almost a grand on blurples so idk her scam worked on u
Gond00s
Well-Known Member
all your stuff is in here I don't think I have to quote it
HLG vs HGL Side By Side
Well. I guess if I had been paying attention to the Kentucky Derby, I would have caught that one. that's why i like @a mongo frog posts, sometimes he goes off on a pretty funny tangent that catches people off guard. i got my simple syrup made and the mint ready to go for the juleps. need to...
www.rollitup.org
hybridway2
Amare Shill
Thank you! Great info you shared.when I was comparing the wikipedia entries I also stumbled over this (which is lacking in the english article) which you may find interesting:
Photosynthese – Wikipedia
"Nachdem erkannt wurde, dass die Photosyntheserate mit einer Mischung verschiedener Lichtfarben höher ist als bei Bestrahlung mit monochromatischem Licht (Emerson-Effekt), also eine wechselseitige Beeinflussung gegeben ist, wurde 2009 vorgeschlagen, für die Ermittlung der photosynthetisch aktiven Strahlung die Quantenausbeute von zusätzlichem monochromatischen Licht unterschiedlicher Wellenlängen unter weißer Grundbeleuchtung zu messen. Das führte zur Erkenntnis, dass die photosynthetische Quantenausbeute bei grünem Licht etwa gleich der bei rotem Licht ist und größer als die bei blauem Licht.[82] Praktische Versuche führten bereits 2004 zu schnellerem Pflanzenwachstum und höherer Biomasseausbeute nach Zugabe von grünem Licht (500 bis 600 nm).[83] Zudem kann die Ausrichtung der Blätter (in Richtung der Lichtquelle) mithilfe von Grünlicht aufgrund der Photomorphogenese zu einer höheren Photosyntheserate führen, woraus mehr Biomasse resultiert.[84] "
That paragraph states that the quantum yield regarding photosynthesis of photons in the green spectrum actually matches that of the red spectrum and its greater than that of the blue spectrum. And that even in 2004 practical experiments already showed an increase in biomass when green light in the 500-600nm spectrum was added.
The article also states that there's more than just the 2 phytochrome A & B which are classically known to do photosynthesis, esp. carotinoids which absorb light at a very broad spectrum, and that's not even all of it.
I don't think that the process of photosynthesis is yet completely understood/researched.
And that also plants actually will turn their leaves more towards a lightsource if its containing greenlight and that will also additionally increase biomass because of this:
Photomorphogenesis - Wikipedia
I agree about lower temps being beneficial under led. I like 76-82• / 60-65%. I do not feel that raising ambient temps is the key to raising leaf temps. You are not discussing leaf temps or its incorporated in the reading? Im no scholar! Lol!
I am well aware of this last one where green is just as useful as red + blue.
The led company i use taught me this stuff when i first bought one. Thats when burple was fading out & i was buying the closest to the sun i could get at the time, called the "Equetorial Spectrum" .
My theory is not that green or any specific nm's are useless, each play their role.
I'm suggesting that simply because it is artificial light , that there is an over abundance in full wavelengths of 400-700nm. White leds. I feel the plant would bennifit from reducing any overabundances as well as adding some nm's outside the McCree curve to touch the plant everywhere we can. Some do great though. Its just not simple overnight learning.
If you knew the whole story youd better understand. But yes, i did get Scammed but not by means from my thinking the product was superior to anything i own already.
I was promised the ability to return i not satisfied (planned on from day 1 after showing evryone here the truth about the XB boards that were whipped up).
After exposing all the lies through having the product in my hands, over a par-meter & minor experiments on extra plants for the community, i was then going to send them back. Needed enough to cover a 4x4 to show the difference in output compared to HLG & AMARE.
Thats the Trolling thread for the real thread btw which is an unbiased SBS. If unbiased means defending then you got some re-thinking to do bud.
Once HydroGrow realized the inferiority of their product they boogied. Those who played their cards right & held back the truth were able to get refunded their returns after a month or 2 of careful wording or just vanishing .
Part of the Scam was promising me the upgrades to the Protos (which were sold as regular, working lights). Thats why i did it too, then i could show the lies & inferiorities of the Gen2 model as well before return.
After my purchase & complaining i wanted to return, HydroGrow then added & revised all smallprint in regards to returns to deviate me from doing so.
Guy, you have NO idea what kind of Sub-Human I'm talking about here.
Then, to top it off i was threatened with a lawsuit for defaminizing & made clear that Dime Dropping was not out of their realm of normalcy.
Disagree with It & you're stealing apparently.
Last edited: