MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316662110 · doi:10.21273/hortsci16752-22

Light Spectra Have Minimal Effects on Rooting and Vegetative Growth Responses of Clonal Cannabis Cuttings

2023· article· en· W4316662110 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Moher, David Llewellyn, Scott Golem, Elizabeth Foley, Steve Dinka, Max Jones, Youbin Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsCuttingLight-emitting diodeHorticulturephotoperiodismBotanyVegetative reproductionFar-redFluorescenceChemistryBiologyMaterials scienceRed lightOptoelectronicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, most clonal cannabis ( Cannabis sativa ) has been propagated using fluorescent lights. Transitioning to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) may be a viable alternative to fluorescent lighting, enabling cultivators to provide specific spectrum treatments to enhance rooting while also saving energy. Vegetative stem cuttings of ‘Gelato-27’, ‘Grace’, and ‘Meridian’ were rooted for 15 days under various combinations of blue (B), red (R), ultraviolet-A (UVA) LEDs, phosphor-converted white (W) LEDs, and a fluorescent (F) control treatment, each with a canopy-level photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 200 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 and 16-hour photoperiod. The photon flux ratios of blue (B; 400–500 nm) and red (R; 600–700 nm) narrowband LED treatment combinations were (1) BR, fixed spectrum of B15:R85; (2) B, B75:R25 on day 0–2 followed by B15:R85 on day 2–14; (3) B+UVA, B75:R25 on day 0–2 followed by B15:R85 on day 2–14 plus 15 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 of UVA on day 7–14; (4) B50, B15:R85 on day 0–7 followed by B50:R50 on day 7–14. The W and F treatments both had static spectra. After the propagation period (i.e., plug stage), a portion of the cuttings under each treatment × cultivar combination were destructively harvested and the remainder were transplanted and grown vegetatively for an additional 21 days (i.e., transplant stage) under a PPFD of ≈275 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 from ceramic metal halide fixtures and then destructively harvested. Although there were no spectrum treatment effects on the percentage of cuttings that rooted, root index values were higher in cuttings grown under B+UVA vs. F. Further, relative root dry weights of plugs from the B, B+UVA, B50, and F treatments were higher than the W treatment. At the end of the plug stage, there were no spectrum treatment effects on the chlorophyll content index, cuttings grown under the B treatment had thicker stems compared with BR and W treatments, and cuttings grown under the F treatment exhibited the lowest percentage of new aboveground growth. None of the aforementioned spectrum treatment effects from the propagation stage persisted post-transplant. The use of LEDs is a promising, energy-efficient alternative to fluorescent lighting for cannabis propagation and B-enhanced spectrum treatments appear to enhance the rooting performance of clonal cannabis cuttings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207