Abstract
Abstract Hemp ( Cannabis sativa L .) was re‐legalized as an agricultural crop through the USDA 2018 Farm Bill, but cropping guidelines remain limited, especially for floral hemp grown for cannabinoid extraction. In this study, the response of direct‐seeded, field‐grown autoflower and full‐season hemp cultivars to varying rates of applied irrigation was compared over multiple years in a semi‐arid environment. Measurements included floral and total biomass, cannabinoid concentration, and cannabinoid yield. The primary flower size did not vary much regardless of irrigation amount, even for plants grown with no supplemental irrigation. As irrigation increased from very low levels up to 100% of the location's potential evapotranspiration (PEt) and beyond, leaf and stem biomass continued to increase as the plants also got taller. Secondary and tertiary flower biomass increased with irrigation, but only up to about 80% of PEt. Above that amount, floral biomass typically plateaued for both autoflower and full‐season types. Floral cannabinoid concentrations did not vary much regardless of irrigation amount. Irrigating at rates greater than about 80% of PEt does not generally increase cannabinoid yield. In contrast, under very dry conditions hemp can grow, reach maturity, and produce some flowers and associated cannabinoid yield even when receiving little or no rainfall or irrigation. Thus, growing hemp with low, moderate, or no irrigation in a semi‐arid climate may be economically feasible (despite the lower yield) in certain situations, depending on costs of irrigation water, other crop management decisions, and market valuation of end products.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Primary hemp flower size varied little across irrigation amounts.
- Treatment
- irrigation amounte0
- Outcome
- primary flower sizee0
- Direction
- did not vary muche0
- Comparator
- no supplemental irrigatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The primary flower size did not vary much regardless of irrigation amount, even for plants grown with no supplemental irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf and stem biomass increased as irrigation rose to and beyond 100% PEt.
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- leaf and stem biomasse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 100%e0
- Comparator
- very low levelse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“As irrigation increased from very low levels up to 100% of the location's potential evapotranspiration (PEt) and beyond, leaf and stem biomass continued to increase as the plants also got taller.”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant height increased with irrigation.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“As irrigation increased from very low levels up to 100% of the location's potential evapotranspiration (PEt) and beyond, leaf and stem biomass continued to increase as the plants also got taller.”
Claim · model-written summary
Secondary and tertiary flower biomass increased with irrigation to about 80% PEt.
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Secondary and tertiary flower biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- about 80% of PEte0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Secondary and tertiary flower biomass increased with irrigation, but only up to about 80% of PEt.”
Claim · model-written summary
Floral biomass plateaued above about 80% PEt for both cultivar types.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Above that amount, floral biomass typically plateaued for both autoflower and full‐season types.”
Claim · model-written summary
Floral cannabinoid concentrations varied little across irrigation amounts.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Floral cannabinoid concentrations did not vary much regardless of irrigation amount.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation above about 80% PEt generally did not increase cannabinoid yield.
- Treatment
- rates greater than about 80% of PEte0
- Outcome
- cannabinoid yielde0
- Direction
- does not generally increasee0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Irrigating at rates greater than about 80% of PEt does not generally increase cannabinoid yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Hemp matured and produced some flowers and cannabinoid yield with little or no rain or irrigation.
- Taxon
- hemp
Cannabis sativa subsp. sativae0 - Outcome
- produce some flowers and associated cannabinoid yielde0
- Qualifier
- little or no rainfall or irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under very dry conditions hemp can grow, reach maturity, and produce some flowers and associated cannabinoid yield even when receiving little or no rainfall or irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Low, moderate or no irrigation may be economically feasible in some semi-arid settings.
- Taxon
- hempCannabis sativa subsp. sativae0
- Outcome
- growing hemp with low, moderate, or no irrigatione0
- Qualifier
- in certain situationse0
- Setting
- semi‐arid climatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growing hemp with low, moderate, or no irrigation in a semi‐arid climate may be economically feasible (despite the lower yield) in certain situations, depending on costs of irrigation water, other crop management decisions, and market valuation of end products.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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.