Abstract
Light is one of the most crucial parameters for enclosed cannabis (Cannabis sativa) production, as it highly influences growth, secondary metabolite production, and operational costs. The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles. The light spectra evaluated included blue (430 nm), red (630 nm), rose (430 + 630 nm, ratio 1:10), purple (430 + 630 nm, ratio 2:1), and amber (595 nm) LED treatments, in addition to a high-pressure sodium (HPS, amber-rich light) treatment as a control. All the LED light treatments had lower fresh mean inflorescence mass than the control (HPS, 133.59 g plant−1), and monochromatic blue light yielded the least fresh inflorescence mass (76.39 g plant−1). Measurement of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration (%) and total yield (g plant−1) showed how inflorescence mass and THC concentration need to be analyzed conjointly. Blue treatment resulted in the highest THC concentration (10.17% m/m), yet the lowest THC concentration per plant (1.44 g plant−1). The highest THC concentration per plant was achieved with HPS (2.54 g plant−1). As with THC, blue light increased cannabigerol (CBG) and terpene concentration. Conversely, blue light had a lesser impact on cannabidiol (CBD) biosynthesis in this C. sativa chemotype. As the combined effects of the light spectrum on both growth traits and secondary metabolites have important ramifications for the industry, the inappropriate spectral design could cause a reduction in cannabinoid production (20–40%). These findings show promise in helping producers choose spectral designs that meet specific C. sativa production goals.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
All LED treatments reduced fresh inflorescence mass relative to HPS.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativat0 - Treatment
- LED light treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fresh mean inflorescence masse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- control (HPS, 133.59 g plant−1)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the LED light treatments had lower fresh mean inflorescence mass than the control (HPS, 133.59 g plant−1)”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light yielded the least fresh inflorescence mass, 76.39 g per plant.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- monochromatic blue lighte0
- Outcome
- fresh inflorescence masse0
- Direction
- leaste0
- Value
- 76.39 g plant−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“monochromatic blue light yielded the least fresh inflorescence mass (76.39 g plant−1)”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light produced the highest THC concentration, 10.17% m/m.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- Blue treatmente0
- Outcome
- THC concentratione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 10.17% m/me0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Blue treatment resulted in the highest THC concentration (10.17% m/m)”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light produced the lowest THC yield per plant, 1.44 g.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- Blue treatmente0
- Outcome
- THC concentration per plante0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 1.44 g plant−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Blue treatment resulted in the highest THC concentration (10.17% m/m), yet the lowest THC concentration per plant (1.44 g plant−1)”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS produced the highest THC yield per plant, 2.54 g.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- HPSe0
- Outcome
- THC concentration per plante0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 2.54 g plant−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest THC concentration per plant was achieved with HPS (2.54 g plant−1)”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light increased CBG and terpene concentrations.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- blue lighte0
- Outcome
- cannabigerol (CBG) and terpene concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“blue light increased cannabigerol (CBG) and terpene concentration”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light had less impact on CBD biosynthesis.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- blue lighte0
- Outcome
- cannabidiol (CBD) biosynthesise0
- Direction
- lessere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“blue light had a lesser impact on cannabidiol (CBD) biosynthesis”
t0“Light Quality Impacts Vertical Growth Rate, Phytochemical Yield and Cannabinoid Production Efficiency in Cannabis sativa”
e1“The objective of this study was to investigate and evaluate the impact of six light spectra on C. sativa (‘Babbas Erkle Cookies’ accession) growth traits and secondary metabolite (cannabinoid and terpene) profiles.”
The same questions in other papers
light · molecular: metabolites · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.