OK, so the presumption is that more exposure (of otherwise leaf-shaded) buds to more direct light results in larger buds, more biomass and yields, not increased potency (THC concentration). But this is still just conjecture, with no explanation of how, what metabolic/physiologic mechanisms are involved; and negligible grower support, including little anecdotal evidence (yet supporting any specific hypothesis).
This presumption/hypothesis requires cannabis (and other plants) have a mechanism for flower tissue-specific localized, not primarily systemic, induction of growth of already rather well-established/well-differentitated tissues (buds) in response to light. Does such a mechanism exist in plants - is it auxin-driven or what? If this is the case, this suggests that localized administration of some yet-uncited bud growth-inducing substance could dramatically increase yields. Then why don't we have such direct-acting bud growth-inducing products (vs. indirect-acting plant nutrients, e.g., Bud Factor X)?
And so far from discussion, it seems that photosynthesis and sugars production and storage by leaves is far surpassed, even insignificant, such that direct light exposure of buds is way more important to crop yields than total light exposure to the plant, total sugars production and storage primarily leaves/foliage. Can this be right? For example, does plucking of leaves shading buds result in collective increase in cannabinoid production in the plant's buds (all we really care about); or does removal of leaves (solar panels and sugar storage tissues) lead ultimately to collective/plant-wide decrease in cannabinoid production in buds?
What about the negative case: What about buds that get no light or buds that leaves significantly shade-- do they secrete no or insignificant cannabinoids? Along these same lines, I recall one or more extremely productive growers (TaNg?) using angled/side lighting, pointing lights from the side at the lower body/mass of the plant foliage, not shining light from the top nor the sides lights shining on the top bud, to increase overall bud growth. Does this mean that the top bud will not grow, or will grow insignificantly compared to the lower buds with light shining on them? Or will the top bud continue to grow much the same, using the sugars/fuel stored in the lower leaves?
Bottom line for me: Is there strong localized induction/production of cannabinoids preferentially or primarily in buds in response to light (presumably, induced by wavelengths included with grow lights), with this more critical to cannabinoids production than collective exposure of leaves/foliage to light? What plant metabolic/physiologic mechanism(s) explain this?
This presumption/hypothesis requires cannabis (and other plants) have a mechanism for flower tissue-specific localized, not primarily systemic, induction of growth of already rather well-established/well-differentitated tissues (buds) in response to light. Does such a mechanism exist in plants - is it auxin-driven or what? If this is the case, this suggests that localized administration of some yet-uncited bud growth-inducing substance could dramatically increase yields. Then why don't we have such direct-acting bud growth-inducing products (vs. indirect-acting plant nutrients, e.g., Bud Factor X)?
And so far from discussion, it seems that photosynthesis and sugars production and storage by leaves is far surpassed, even insignificant, such that direct light exposure of buds is way more important to crop yields than total light exposure to the plant, total sugars production and storage primarily leaves/foliage. Can this be right? For example, does plucking of leaves shading buds result in collective increase in cannabinoid production in the plant's buds (all we really care about); or does removal of leaves (solar panels and sugar storage tissues) lead ultimately to collective/plant-wide decrease in cannabinoid production in buds?
What about the negative case: What about buds that get no light or buds that leaves significantly shade-- do they secrete no or insignificant cannabinoids? Along these same lines, I recall one or more extremely productive growers (TaNg?) using angled/side lighting, pointing lights from the side at the lower body/mass of the plant foliage, not shining light from the top nor the sides lights shining on the top bud, to increase overall bud growth. Does this mean that the top bud will not grow, or will grow insignificantly compared to the lower buds with light shining on them? Or will the top bud continue to grow much the same, using the sugars/fuel stored in the lower leaves?
Bottom line for me: Is there strong localized induction/production of cannabinoids preferentially or primarily in buds in response to light (presumably, induced by wavelengths included with grow lights), with this more critical to cannabinoids production than collective exposure of leaves/foliage to light? What plant metabolic/physiologic mechanism(s) explain this?
