Abstract
Cannabis sativa L. flowers are the main source of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) used in medicine. One of the most important growth factors in cannabis cultivation is light; light quality, light intensity, and photoperiod play a big role in a successful growth protocol. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of 3 different light sources on morphology and cannabinoid production. Cannabis clones were grown under 3 different light spectra, namely high-pressure sodium (HPS), AP673L (LED), and NS1 (LED). Light intensity was set to ∼450 µmol/m2/s measured from the canopy top. The photoperiod was 18L: 6D/21 days during the vegetative phase and 12L: 12D/46 days during the generative phase, respectively. At the end of the experiment, plant dry weight partition, plant height, and cannabinoid content (THC, cannabidiol [CBD], tetrahydrocannabivarin [THCV], cannabigerol [CBG]) were measured under different light treatments. The experiment was repeated twice. The 3 light treatments (HPS, NS1, AP673L) resulted in differences in cannabis plant morphology and in cannabinoid content, but not in total yield of cannabinoids. Plants under HPS treatment were taller and had more flower dry weight than those under treatments AP673L and NS1. Treatment NS1 had the highest CBG content. Treatments NS1 and AP673L had higher CBD and THC concentrations than the HPS treatment. Results were similar between experiments 1 and 2. Our results show that the plant morphology can be manipulated with the light spectrum. Furthermore, it is possible to affect the accumulation of different cannabinoids to increase the potential of medicinal grade cannabis. In conclusion, an optimized light spectrum improves the value and quality of cannabis. Current LED technology showed significant differences in growth habit and cannabinoid profile compared to the traditional HPS light source. Finally, no difference of flowering time was observed under different R:FR (i.e., the ratio between red and far-red light).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Light treatments differed in plant morphology and cannabinoid content.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.
Cannabis sativat0 - Treatment
- 3 light treatments (HPS, NS1, AP673L)e0
- Outcome
- cannabis plant morphology and in cannabinoid contente0
- Direction
- differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 3 light treatments (HPS, NS1, AP673L) resulted in differences in cannabis plant morphology and in cannabinoid content, but not in total yield of cannabinoids.”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Total cannabinoid yield did not differ across light treatments.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- 3 light treatments (HPS, NS1, AP673L)e0
- Outcome
- total yield of cannabinoidse0
- Direction
- not ine0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 3 light treatments (HPS, NS1, AP673L) resulted in differences in cannabis plant morphology and in cannabinoid content, but not in total yield of cannabinoids.”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS plants were taller than AP673L and NS1 plants.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- HPS treatmente0
- Outcome
- tallere0
- Direction
- tallere0
- Comparator
- treatments AP673L and NS1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants under HPS treatment were taller and had more flower dry weight than those under treatments AP673L and NS1.”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS plants had more flower dry weight than AP673L and NS1 plants.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- HPS treatmente0
- Outcome
- flower dry weighte0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- treatments AP673L and NS1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants under HPS treatment were taller and had more flower dry weight than those under treatments AP673L and NS1.”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
Claim · model-written summary
NS1 produced the highest CBG content.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- NS1e0
- Outcome
- CBG contente0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment NS1 had the highest CBG content.”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
Claim · model-written summary
NS1 and AP673L produced higher CBD and THC concentrations than HPS.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- NS1 and AP673Le0
- Outcome
- CBD and THC concentrationse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- HPS treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatments NS1 and AP673L had higher CBD and THC concentrations than the HPS treatment.”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering time did not differ under different red to far-red ratios.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- different R:FRe0
- Outcome
- flowering timee0
- Direction
- no differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no difference of flowering time was observed under different R:FR (i.e., the ratio between red and far-red light).”
t0“Cannabis sativa L.”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.