Preflower Q

seasmoke

seasmoke

Active Member
I understand that plants will show preflower if vegged long enough, how is it then that I can take a female plant full flower term, take virtually every bud off it except for two bottom branches, bring it back to vegg stage, regrow/sprout then clone it and it have no preflower? :confused:Why??


Also, when I sex out seedlings, the females usually all return to veg state with-out any further signs of sex. Why?:-?
 
figtree

figtree

Active Member
dont get what your saying.... you regenerated your plant then cloned from it and it wont flower?
 
seasmoke

seasmoke

Active Member
figtree said:
dont get what your saying.... you regenerated your plant then cloned from it and it wont flower?
Click to expand...
This question is about preflower and when it shows

There are stages to a plants life when you can tell its sex.
1) By flipping them when they have 4-6 nodes, they will then show.
2) If you leave a plant to veg for a long period of time it will mature and show "preflowers' and you can determine sex.

This question is about why doesn't the plant show preflower when its brought back into veg from a complete bud cycle?

A plant brought back from flowering is more mature than a plant thats been vegged for a long time from seed, why does the one from seed show preflower and the one thats being revegged doesn't?
 
Skateforlife6

Skateforlife6

Well-Known Member
i don't really understand what u wanna do here. Veg until pre flower then flower take all the buds off then put it back into veg for clones? If that can work it sounds like a great idea. Why don't you just try it experiment see what happens.
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
Skateforlife6 said:
i don't really understand what u wanna do here. Veg until pre flower then flower take all the buds off then put it back into veg for clones? If that can work it sounds like a great idea. Why don't you just try it experiment see what happens.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the question that was asked. Basically it was:
　
Once a plant shows pre-flowers, either by having been grown to harvest or put into flower early just to sex and then put back into veg for growth when the harvested plant is then re-vegged or the previously sexed females are then put back into flower the plants will not again show pre-flowers on new growth. Why is that?
　
That is what was being asked, not if you can re-veg a plant for clones or re-veg a plant in the first place because it is common knowledge that you can re-veg a plant it is just not the most common or most popular thing for people to do.
 
seasmoke

seasmoke

Active Member
Your very close Bricktop.
Again...

This question is about why doesn't the plant show preflower when its brought back into veg from a complete bud cycle?

A plant brought back from flowering is more mature than a plant thats been vegged for a long time from seed, why does the one from seed show preflower and the one thats being revegged doesn't?
i don't really understand what u wanna do here. Veg until pre flower then flower take all the buds off then put it back into veg for clones? If that can work it sounds like a great idea. Why don't you just try it experiment see what happens.
Click to expand...
I already do it Skate, when I find a pheno I really like I'll reveg it and clone it.
 
R

Redeflect

Well-Known Member
Seasmoke, I'd assume for the same reason they start growing smaller sets of leaves again. I'm assuming there are some chemicals in the plants that help it identify how healthy it is and how much growth it can support (how big it's rootmass is) that aren't necessary for flowering, but help it significantly (people have flowered horribly tiny and unhealthy plants, they just don't do well). My assumption is that since the pre-flowers are because the plant wants to bud, a plant that is unhealthy or has a small root mass knows it shouldn't be flowering and so it doesn't try to. I presume that by changing the light cycle it creates enough hormones to start flowering regardless of it's current situation(better to try to flower and die than to just die to winter anyway). Evolution and survival of the fittest at its finest. You can still force it to flower, it just doesn't try on its own because it knows better.
 
R

Redeflect

Well-Known Member
And then of course, from an evolutionary standpoint: The whole reason the plants can't flower in the first few weeks is for the same reason humans can't reproduce in the first few years. If we were capable of reproducing immediately, many birth defects and genetic disadvantages would be passed to offspring before it has a chance to kill the organism. Imagine all those children that die before the age of 10, and if they were capable of passing those diseases on to the rest of our species by reproducing with otherwise healthy people... before they die to the disease? We would be extinct. All organisms have a trial period where their genetic advantages are tested before they are allowed to reproduce, but not so late that the chances of dieing to other factors is greater than the odds of reproducing. For humans, this would be about 13 years. For marijuana, this is about 4 weeks. Long enough that they don't have a significant defect that is passed on and yet short enough that they usually still have enough time to reproduce.
 
ganjman

ganjman

New Member
In my experience, if you reveg a plant after flowering it, the flowers that are left will fall off, it'll go back into producting leaves and branches and then when you flower it again, it WILL preflower if you like, as theres no bud without pistills [2 pistills per calyx]

Really dont get the point of this question/thread
 
R

Redeflect

Well-Known Member
Just like most intelligent people, he wants to know why. He knows you can reflower them but he wants to know WHY after revegging, the plants don't have preflowers on the new growth. Preflowers BEFORE you induce flowering.
 
georgi345

georgi345

Active Member
Redeflect said:
And then of course, from an evolutionary standpoint: The whole reason the plants can't flower in the first few weeks is for the same reason humans can't reproduce in the first few years. If we were capable of reproducing immediately, many birth defects and genetic disadvantages would be passed to offspring before it has a chance to kill the organism. Imagine all those children that die before the age of 10, and if they were capable of passing those diseases on to the rest of our species by reproducing with otherwise healthy people... before they die to the disease? We would be extinct. All organisms have a trial period where their genetic advantages are tested before they are allowed to reproduce, but not so late that the chances of dieing to other factors is greater than the odds of reproducing. For humans, this would be about 13 years. For marijuana, this is about 4 weeks. Long enough that they don't have a significant defect that is passed on and yet short enough that they usually still have enough time to reproduce.
Click to expand...

this intuitively makes a lot of sense and certainly is well-reasoned, but i wonder if you have a particular source for this contention? i studied some evolutionary biology way back as an undergrad and don't remember coming across anything like that... 'not saying it's not so, 'just would like to find out more!

cheers
-g
:peace:
 
stoner1984

stoner1984

Active Member
Its not something i have experiance of but at a guess i would say, and i expect to be corrected, that the pre flower is a sign of a change of infancy to maturty, a change in the makeup of the hormones at a certain age causing the preflower, like pubity in humans, if the plant survived the winter in the wild, it would expect to flower again however it doesnt have the change in hormones this time around so doesnt pre flower.

Any body got a better theory?
 
R

Redeflect

Well-Known Member
No particular source, there was a lecture from a well known gentleman that touched the subject of evolution and I think mentioned something along the same lines (or at least many things similar). That was my own logic... but honestly evolution ALWAYS makes sense, when thought is put into it and the right reason is found. It doesn't matter who finds the reason, the reason is always there. If I had a PhD in evolutionary science, it wouldn't make the reasoning any less founded.

A few weeks ago after smoking a little... I kept looking reading about capsaicin online(what makes spicey things spicey) and from an evolutionary perspective it makes profound sense.

I'll try to find the Youtube video of the lecture, it was a highly thought invoking one.
 
R

Redeflect

Well-Known Member
The flaw in that logic stoner 1984 is that after "puberty" the plant doesn't go into pre-puberty after being re-vegetated. It can always be forced to flower. It isn't the change of hormones that makes preflowers, it's the change to hormones that promote the growth of flowers. Preflowers start to form again but the flowering hormones were always there... which leads to the conclusion that there would be other sorts of hormones/regulators that determine when the plant SHOULD flower aside from the basic ones which make the plant capable of flowering. After the initial seedling stage, the plant is always capable of flowering, but doesn't always contain the hormones in significant amounts that make it try to.
 
georgi345

georgi345

Active Member
Redeflect said:
I'll try to find the Youtube video of the lecture, it was a highly thought invoking one.
Click to expand...
that'd be awesome, thanks!!
being the perpetual student, i love evolutionary history and am always eager to learn something new!

'gotta be careful though: while it's undoubtedly true that "evolution always makes sense", that doesn't necessarily mean then that the reasoning we might apply to it a priori is in fact the actual "reasoning" behind mother nature's mechanisms...

again, i'm not disputing your claim [!], but would just like to get a little more info as well as some understanding as to how it jives with current evolutionary research.

:joint:

cheers
-g
:peace:
 
R

Redeflect

Well-Known Member
I agree, our interpretation of evolution may not always be accurate, but even the most confusing evolutionary development has some sort of comprehensible cause. I presume that since the pre-maturity phase helps to prevent genetic diseases from spreading throughout the population and early extinction... it'd probably be one of the (if not the main) causes of puberty. Especially since it is evident in almost every species (generally the only organisms I can think of that do not have a puberty phase, are asexual and as such wouldn't have to worry about early death spreading throughout the population, only the offspring of the first organism to develop it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top