Cannabis Yield Increased Proportionally With Light Intensity, but Additional Ultraviolet Radiation Did Not Affect Yield or Cannabinoid Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis (Cannabis Sativa L.) is now legally produced in many regions worldwide. Cannabis flourishes under high light intensities (LI); making it an expensive commodity to grow in controlled environments, despite its exceptionally high market value. It is commonly believed that cannabis secondary metabolite levels may be enhanced both by increasing LI and by exposing crops to ultraviolet radiation (UV). However, there is sparse scientific evidence to guide cultivators. Therefore, the impact of LI and UV on yield and quality must be elucidated to enable cultivators to optimize their lighting protocols. We explored the effects of LI, ranging from 350 to 1400 μmol m-2 s-1 and supplemental UV spectra on cannabis yield and potency. There were no spectrum effects on inflorescence yield, but harvest index under UVA+UVB was reduced slightly (1.6%) vs. the control. Inflorescence yield increased linearly from 19.4 to 57.4 g/plant and harvest index increased from 0.565 to 0.627, as LI increased from 350 to 1400 μmol m-2 s-1. Although there were no UV spectrum effects on total equivalent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (T-THC) content in leaves, the neutral form, THC, was 30% higher in UVA+UVB vs. control. While there were no LI effects on inflorescence T-THC content, the content of the acid form (THCA) increased by 20% and total terpenes content decreased by 20% as LI increased from 350 to 1400 μmol m-2 s-1. High LI can substantially increase cannabis yield and quality, but we found no commercially-relevant benefits of adding supplemental UV radiation to indoor cannabis production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".