Abstract
Cannabinoid uniformity plays an important role in the quality and marketability of cannabis products. Light is an important environmental factor determining increased yield and improved secondary compound production, while energy consumption is a primary concern as lighting is one of the main input costs for controlled environment cannabis production systems. The objective of this study was to evaluate lighting strategies and compare these to commercial cultivation methods that maximize yield and uniformity of cannabinoids in cannabis plants. Four lighting treatments were investigated, including high pressure sodium (HPS) toplight, light-emitting diodes (LED) toplight, HPS toplight + interlight and LED toplight + interlight. Plants grown under HPS toplight displayed increased plant height. LED treatments significantly increased dry inflorescence mass compared to HPS treatments. The addition of interlighting increased biomass produced in the lower canopy, resulting in a significant increase in biomass produced per cannabis plant. When comparing light use efficiency (grams per mol), HPS toplight significantly increased inflorescence mass produced per mol of light received. However, analysis of power use efficiency expressed in grams per kilowatt-hour (kWh) revealed that LEDs provided increased yield at lower energy cost. LED toplight led to a 7 % improvement over HPS, with a 2 % increase in secondary metabolite production for Δ- 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) ( p < 0.05). Interlighting did not significantly impact the lower canopy inflorescence THC values. LED treatments were more energy efficient at producing grams THC when analyzing THC power use efficiency. Cannabigerol concentrations significantly increased with LED treatments compared to HPS. Major terpenes showed no significant differences between treatments. This study has demonstrated the added benefit of implementing interlighting and LED toplighting in an indoor controlled environment cannabis production system. Importantly, LED toplight and interlight strategies show potential in competing with conventional HPS lighting strategies.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
HPS toplighting increased cannabis plant height.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativat0 - Treatment
- HPS toplighte0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“Plants grown under HPS toplight displayed increased plant height.”
Claim · model-written summary
LED lighting increased dry inflorescence mass versus HPS.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LED treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry inflorescence masse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- HPS treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“LED treatments significantly increased dry inflorescence mass compared to HPS treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Interlighting increased lower canopy biomass.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- interlightinge0
- Outcome
- biomass produced in the lower canopye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“The addition of interlighting increased biomass produced in the lower canopy, resulting in a significant increase in biomass produced per cannabis plant.”
Claim · model-written summary
Interlighting significantly increased biomass per plant.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- interlightinge0
- Outcome
- biomass produced per cannabis plante0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“The addition of interlighting increased biomass produced in the lower canopy, resulting in a significant increase in biomass produced per cannabis plant.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS toplighting significantly increased inflorescence mass per mol of light.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- HPS toplighte0
- Outcome
- inflorescence mass produced per mol of light receivede0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“HPS toplight significantly increased inflorescence mass produced per mol of light received.”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDs increased yield per energy cost.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDse0
- Outcome
- yield at lower energy coste0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“LEDs provided increased yield at lower energy cost.”
Claim · model-written summary
LED toplighting improved yield by 7% over HPS.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LED toplighte0
- Outcome
- improvemente0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Value
- 7 %e0
- Comparator
- HPSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“LED toplight led to a 7 % improvement over HPS”
Claim · model-written summary
LED toplighting increased THC production by 2%.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LED toplighte1
- Outcome
- secondary metabolite production for Δ- 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)e0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 2 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“a 2 % increase in secondary metabolite production for Δ- 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) ( p < 0.05)”
e1“LED toplight led to a 7 % improvement over HPS”
Claim · model-written summary
Interlighting had no significant effect on lower canopy THC values.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- Interlightinge0
- Outcome
- lower canopy inflorescence THC valuese0
- Direction
- did not significantly impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“Interlighting did not significantly impact the lower canopy inflorescence THC values.”
Claim · model-written summary
LED treatments improved THC energy efficiency.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LED treatmentse0
- Outcome
- producing grams THCe0
- Direction
- more energy efficiente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“LED treatments were more energy efficient at producing grams THC”
Claim · model-written summary
LED treatments significantly increased cannabigerol concentrations versus HPS.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LED treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Cannabigerol concentrationse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- HPSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“Cannabigerol concentrations significantly increased with LED treatments compared to HPS.”
Claim · model-written summary
Major terpenes did not differ significantly among treatments.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Outcome
- Major terpenese0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e0“Major terpenes showed no significant differences between treatments.”
The same questions in other papers
light · quality: phytochemicals · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
light · yield · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →light · molecular: metabolites · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- 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.