MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Improved with Long-Term Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation

2021· preprint· en· W3172410689 on OpenAlexafffund
Victoria Rodriguez-Morrison, David Llewellyn, Youbin Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsphotoperiodismInflorescenceChemistryAnimal scienceHorticultureBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is commonly believed that exposing Cannabis sativa (cannabis) plants to ultraviolet (UV) radiation can enhance Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) concentrations in female inflorescences and associated foliar tissues. However, a lack of published scientific studies has left knowledge-gaps in the effects of UV on cannabis that must be elucidated before UV can be utilized as a horticultural management tool in commercial cannabis production. In this study we investigated the effects of UV exposure level on photosynthesis, growth, inflorescence yield, and secondary metabolite composition of two indoor-grown cannabis cultivars: ‘Low Tide’ (LT) and ‘Breaking Wave’ (BW). After growing vegetatively for 2 weeks under a canopy-level photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of ≈225 μmol·m–2·s–1 in an 18-h light/6-h dark photoperiod, plants were grown for 9 weeks in a 12-h light/12-h dark “flowering” photoperiod under a canopy-level PPFD of ≈400 µmol·m–2·s–1 and 3.5 h·d–1 of supplemental UV radiation with UV photon flux densities (UV-PFD) ranging from 0.01 to 0.8 μmol·m–2·s–1 provided by light-emitting diodes (LEDs) with a peak wavelength of 287 nm (i.e., biologically-effective UV doses of 0.16 to 13 kJ·m–2·d–1). The severity of UV-induced morphology (e.g., whole-plant size and leaf size reductions, leaf malformations, and stigma browning) and physiology (e.g., reduced leaf photosynthetic rate and reduced Fv/Fm) symptoms worsened as UV exposure level increased. While the proportion of dry inflorescence yield that was derived from apical tissues decreased in both cultivars with increasing UV exposure level, total dry inflorescence yield only decreased in LT. The equivalent Δ9-THC and cannabidiol (CBD) concentrations also decreased in LT inflorescences with increasing UV exposure level. While the total terpene content in inflorescences decreased with increasing UV exposure level in both cultivars, the relative concentrations of individual terpenes varied by cultivar. The potential for using UV to enhance cannabis quality must still be confirmed before it can be used as a production tool for modern, indoor-grown cannabis cultivars.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207