Abstract
• C. sativa plants were shorter when exposed to LED light with a lower blue:red ratio. • The smallest leaf area was observed under the LED light with a lower blue:red ratio. • Inflorescence biomass increased under the LED light with a lower blue:red ratio. • The efficiency of PSII was altered under the LED light with a lower blue:red ratio. • The LED light with a lower blue:red ratio affected the cannabinoid profile. Changes in the light spectrum elicit responses in development and secondary metabolite biosynthesis and storage. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions. The non-psychoactive varieties Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Cauca were treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase. Under LED2, reductions in plant height (4%-26.7%), leaf area (21%-55%), and shoot dry mass (1.9%-30.3%) were observed; however, there was a higher distribution of biomass towards the inflorescences (40.1%-51.6%). No effect of the light type on the relative chlorophyll content was observed. In all three varieties grown under LED2, reductions in stomatal conductance (4.7%-27.4%), quantum efficiency of PSII (1%-11.7%), and electron transport rate (9.2%-15.8%) were observed compared to plants under LED1. There were no significant differences in dry flower yield between light types used or varieties. Under LED1, higher CBD contents (11.9%-13.4%) and CBD per gram of inflorescence (12.9 CBD g/inflorescence – 13.8 CBD g/inflorescence) were observed compared to LED2. Under LED2, the Calotoweed (0.5%) and Soucecauca (0.6%) varieties showed higher THC concentrations compared to plants under LED1. These results demonstrate that LED2 modified canopy architecture, resulting in more compact plants with greater biomass accumulation in the inflorescence; however, these plants exhibited limitations in photosynthetic performance, which decreased CBD production and increased THC production. In conclusion, the type of light not only modified plant architecture but also affected photosynthetic performance and the production of CBD and THC.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, plant height was reduced by 4%-26.7% compared with LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativa
Cannabis sativae1 - Material
- Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Caucae4
- Treatment
- LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)e2
- Outcome
- plant heighte3
- Direction
- reductionse3
- Value
- 4%-26.7%e3
- Comparator
- LED1(100% white)e2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase”
e3“Under LED2, reductions in plant height (4%-26.7%), leaf area (21%-55%), and shoot dry mass (1.9%-30.3%) were observed; however, there was a higher distribution of biomass towards the inflorescences (40.1%-51.6%)”
e4“The non-psychoactive varieties Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Cauca”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, leaf area was reduced by 21%-55% compared with LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Material
- Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Caucae4
- Treatment
- LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)e2
- Outcome
- leaf areae3
- Direction
- reductionse3
- Value
- 21%-55%e3
- Comparator
- LED1(100% white)e2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase”
e3“Under LED2, reductions in plant height (4%-26.7%), leaf area (21%-55%), and shoot dry mass (1.9%-30.3%) were observed; however, there was a higher distribution of biomass towards the inflorescences (40.1%-51.6%)”
e4“The non-psychoactive varieties Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Cauca”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, shoot dry mass was reduced by 1.9%-30.3% compared with LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Material
- Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Caucae4
- Treatment
- LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)e2
- Outcome
- shoot dry masse3
- Direction
- reductionse3
- Value
- 1.9%-30.3%e3
- Comparator
- LED1(100% white)e2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase”
e3“Under LED2, reductions in plant height (4%-26.7%), leaf area (21%-55%), and shoot dry mass (1.9%-30.3%) were observed; however, there was a higher distribution of biomass towards the inflorescences (40.1%-51.6%)”
e4“The non-psychoactive varieties Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Cauca”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, a higher share of biomass was distributed to the inflorescences (40.1%-51.6%) than under LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Material
- Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Caucae4
- Treatment
- LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)e2
- Outcome
- distribution of biomass towards the inflorescencese3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 40.1%-51.6%e3
- Comparator
- LED1(100% white)e2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase”
e3“Under LED2, reductions in plant height (4%-26.7%), leaf area (21%-55%), and shoot dry mass (1.9%-30.3%) were observed; however, there was a higher distribution of biomass towards the inflorescences (40.1%-51.6%)”
e4“The non-psychoactive varieties Calotoweed, Higthcol, and Souce Cauca”
Claim · model-written summary
There were no significant differences in dry flower yield between the light types or the varieties.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- light types usede5
- Outcome
- dry flower yielde5
- Direction
- no significant differencese5
- Comparator
- LED1(100% white)e2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase”
e5“There were no significant differences in dry flower yield between light types used or varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Light type had no effect on the relative chlorophyll content.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- light typee6
- Outcome
- relative chlorophyll contente6
- Direction
- No effecte6
- Comparator
- LED1(100% white)e2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“treated with two light sources [LED1(100% white) and LED2 (90% red, 8% blue, <1% far red)] during the vegetative phase”
e6“No effect of the light type on the relative chlorophyll content was observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, stomatal conductance was reduced by 4.7%-27.4% compared with LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- LED2e7
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee7
- Direction
- reductionse7
- Value
- 4.7%-27.4%e7
- Comparator
- plants under LED1e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e7“In all three varieties grown under LED2, reductions in stomatal conductance (4.7%-27.4%), quantum efficiency of PSII (1%-11.7%), and electron transport rate (9.2%-15.8%) were observed compared to plants under LED1”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, quantum efficiency of PSII was reduced by 1%-11.7% compared with LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- LED2e7
- Outcome
- quantum efficiency of PSIIe7
- Direction
- reductionse7
- Value
- 1%-11.7%e7
- Comparator
- plants under LED1e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e7“In all three varieties grown under LED2, reductions in stomatal conductance (4.7%-27.4%), quantum efficiency of PSII (1%-11.7%), and electron transport rate (9.2%-15.8%) were observed compared to plants under LED1”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, electron transport rate was reduced by 9.2%-15.8% compared with LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- LED2e7
- Outcome
- electron transport ratee7
- Direction
- reductionse7
- Value
- 9.2%-15.8%e7
- Comparator
- plants under LED1e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e7“In all three varieties grown under LED2, reductions in stomatal conductance (4.7%-27.4%), quantum efficiency of PSII (1%-11.7%), and electron transport rate (9.2%-15.8%) were observed compared to plants under LED1”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED1, CBD content was 11.9%-13.4% higher than under LED2.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- LED1e2
- Outcome
- CBD contentse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 11.9%-13.4%e2
- Comparator
- LED2e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“Under LED1, higher CBD contents (11.9%-13.4%) and CBD per gram of inflorescence (12.9 CBD g/inflorescence – 13.8 CBD g/inflorescence) were observed compared to LED2”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED1, CBD per gram of inflorescence was 12.9–13.8 CBD g, higher than under LED2.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- LED1e2
- Outcome
- CBD per gram of inflorescencee2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 12.9 CBD g/inflorescence – 13.8 CBD g/inflorescencee2
- Comparator
- LED2e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“Under LED1, higher CBD contents (11.9%-13.4%) and CBD per gram of inflorescence (12.9 CBD g/inflorescence – 13.8 CBD g/inflorescence) were observed compared to LED2”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, Calotoweed showed higher THC concentration (0.5%) than under LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Material
- Calotoweede2
- Treatment
- LED2e2
- Outcome
- THC concentrationse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.5%e2
- Comparator
- plants under LED1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“Under LED2, the Calotoweed (0.5%) and Soucecauca (0.6%) varieties showed higher THC concentrations compared to plants under LED1”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED2, Soucecauca showed higher THC concentration (0.6%) than under LED1.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Material
- Soucecaucae2
- Treatment
- LED2e2
- Outcome
- THC concentrationse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.6%e2
- Comparator
- plants under LED1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“Under LED2, the Calotoweed (0.5%) and Soucecauca (0.6%) varieties showed higher THC concentrations compared to plants under LED1”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited photosynthetic performance under LED2 is asserted to have decreased CBD production.
- Taxon
- C. sativaCannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- LED2e3
- Outcome
- CBD productione2
- Qualifier
- limitations in photosynthetic performancee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The aim of this study was to determine the effect of two light sources on the physiological and yield parameters of three varieties of C. sativa cultivated under greenhouse conditions”
e2“these plants exhibited limitations in photosynthetic performance, which decreased CBD production and increased THC production”
e3“These results demonstrate that LED2 modified canopy architecture”
The same questions in other papers
light · physiology: pigments · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
light · yield · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- 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.