Cargando…

Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content

Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) flourishes under high light intensities (LI); making it an expensive commodity to grow in controlled environments, despite its high market value. It is commonly believed that cannabis secondary metabolite levels may be enhanced both by increasing LI and exposure to ultravi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Llewellyn, David, Golem, Scott, Foley, Elizabeth, Dinka, Steve, Jones, A. Maxwell P., Zheng, Youbin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36237501
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.974018
_version_ 1784806151279345664
author Llewellyn, David
Golem, Scott
Foley, Elizabeth
Dinka, Steve
Jones, A. Maxwell P.
Zheng, Youbin
author_facet Llewellyn, David
Golem, Scott
Foley, Elizabeth
Dinka, Steve
Jones, A. Maxwell P.
Zheng, Youbin
author_sort Llewellyn, David
collection PubMed
description Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) flourishes under high light intensities (LI); making it an expensive commodity to grow in controlled environments, despite its high market value. It is commonly believed that cannabis secondary metabolite levels may be enhanced both by increasing LI and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UV). However, the sparse scientific evidence is insufficient to guide cultivators for optimizing their lighting protocols. We explored the effects of LI and UV exposure on yield and secondary metabolite composition of a high Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabis cultivar ‘Meridian’. Plants were grown under short day conditions for 45 days under average canopy photosynthetic photon flux densities (PPFD, 400–700 nm) of 600, 800, and 1,000 μmol m(–2) s(–1), provided by light emitting diodes (LEDs). Plants exposed to UV had PPFD of 600 μmol m(–2) s(–1) plus either (1) UVA; 50 μmol m(–2) s(–1) of UVA (315–400 nm) from 385 nm peak LEDs from 06:30 to 18:30 HR for 45 days or (2) UVA + UVB; a photon flux ratio of ≈1:1 of UVA and UVB (280–315 nm) from a fluorescent source at a photon flux density of 3.0 μmol m(–2) s(–1), provided daily from 13:30 to 18:30 HR during the last 20 days of the trial. All aboveground biomass metrics were 1.3–1.5 times higher in the highest vs. lowest PPFD treatments, except inflorescence dry weight – the most economically relevant parameter – which was 1.6 times higher. Plants in the highest vs. lowest PPFD treatment also allocated relatively more biomass to inflorescence tissues with a 7% higher harvest index. There were no UV treatment effects on aboveground biomass metrics. There were also no intensity or UV treatment effects on inflorescence cannabinoid concentrations. Sugar leaves (i.e., small leaves associated with inflorescences) of plants in the UVA + UVB treatment had ≈30% higher THC concentrations; however, UV did not have any effect on the total THC in thesefoliar tissues. Overall, high PPFD levels can substantially increase cannabis yield, but we found no commercially relevant benefits of adding UV to indoor cannabis production.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9551646
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95516462022-10-12 Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content Llewellyn, David Golem, Scott Foley, Elizabeth Dinka, Steve Jones, A. Maxwell P. Zheng, Youbin Front Plant Sci Plant Science Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) flourishes under high light intensities (LI); making it an expensive commodity to grow in controlled environments, despite its high market value. It is commonly believed that cannabis secondary metabolite levels may be enhanced both by increasing LI and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UV). However, the sparse scientific evidence is insufficient to guide cultivators for optimizing their lighting protocols. We explored the effects of LI and UV exposure on yield and secondary metabolite composition of a high Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabis cultivar ‘Meridian’. Plants were grown under short day conditions for 45 days under average canopy photosynthetic photon flux densities (PPFD, 400–700 nm) of 600, 800, and 1,000 μmol m(–2) s(–1), provided by light emitting diodes (LEDs). Plants exposed to UV had PPFD of 600 μmol m(–2) s(–1) plus either (1) UVA; 50 μmol m(–2) s(–1) of UVA (315–400 nm) from 385 nm peak LEDs from 06:30 to 18:30 HR for 45 days or (2) UVA + UVB; a photon flux ratio of ≈1:1 of UVA and UVB (280–315 nm) from a fluorescent source at a photon flux density of 3.0 μmol m(–2) s(–1), provided daily from 13:30 to 18:30 HR during the last 20 days of the trial. All aboveground biomass metrics were 1.3–1.5 times higher in the highest vs. lowest PPFD treatments, except inflorescence dry weight – the most economically relevant parameter – which was 1.6 times higher. Plants in the highest vs. lowest PPFD treatment also allocated relatively more biomass to inflorescence tissues with a 7% higher harvest index. There were no UV treatment effects on aboveground biomass metrics. There were also no intensity or UV treatment effects on inflorescence cannabinoid concentrations. Sugar leaves (i.e., small leaves associated with inflorescences) of plants in the UVA + UVB treatment had ≈30% higher THC concentrations; however, UV did not have any effect on the total THC in thesefoliar tissues. Overall, high PPFD levels can substantially increase cannabis yield, but we found no commercially relevant benefits of adding UV to indoor cannabis production. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9551646/ /pubmed/36237501 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.974018 Text en Copyright © 2022 Llewellyn, Golem, Foley, Dinka, Jones and Zheng. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Plant Science
Llewellyn, David
Golem, Scott
Foley, Elizabeth
Dinka, Steve
Jones, A. Maxwell P.
Zheng, Youbin
Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
title Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
title_full Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
title_fullStr Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
title_full_unstemmed Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
title_short Indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
title_sort indoor grown cannabis yield increased proportionally with light intensity, but ultraviolet radiation did not affect yield or cannabinoid content
topic Plant Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36237501
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.974018
work_keys_str_mv AT llewellyndavid indoorgrowncannabisyieldincreasedproportionallywithlightintensitybutultravioletradiationdidnotaffectyieldorcannabinoidcontent
AT golemscott indoorgrowncannabisyieldincreasedproportionallywithlightintensitybutultravioletradiationdidnotaffectyieldorcannabinoidcontent
AT foleyelizabeth indoorgrowncannabisyieldincreasedproportionallywithlightintensitybutultravioletradiationdidnotaffectyieldorcannabinoidcontent
AT dinkasteve indoorgrowncannabisyieldincreasedproportionallywithlightintensitybutultravioletradiationdidnotaffectyieldorcannabinoidcontent
AT jonesamaxwellp indoorgrowncannabisyieldincreasedproportionallywithlightintensitybutultravioletradiationdidnotaffectyieldorcannabinoidcontent
AT zhengyoubin indoorgrowncannabisyieldincreasedproportionallywithlightintensitybutultravioletradiationdidnotaffectyieldorcannabinoidcontent