Light Spectra Have Minimal Effects on Rooting and Vegetative Growth Responses of Clonal Cannabis Cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".