Effects of Light Intensity on Plant Growth

Greetings, AFN members, OSP here. I’m a new AFN member moving in from another forum. After sneaking around a number of threads here looking for secret information, I’ve decided to start this thread. I want to evaluate the effects of light intensity on plant growth. More specifically, how lighting can be used to encourage or minimize plant stretch.
In the short time I’ve been a member here I’ve met a number of very knowledgeable growers, and I’m inviting each of you to participate or chime in as you see fit. Since I am new to AFN I’m sure I’ve missed a lot of interested parties. If you are reading this feel free to tag in anyone I’ve missed:
@fettled6 @912GreenSkell @bushmasterar15 @Waira @MedGrower @Son of Hobbes @Nosias @Screwauger @HemiSync @ChroToker @Need4Weed

I've grown photoperiods since forever under High Intensity Discharge (HID) lighting, and stretch has always been a thing to plan for. Several years ago I decided to experiment with an autoflower freebie, and since then I've completed (12) single-plant autoflower grows. To the point that I'm not doing photoperiods anymore. Maybe again one day. I have a Colombian Gold freebie that has brought back memories, but not today.
In the process of migrating from photoperiods to autoflowers, I also began a transition from HID to LED lighting. Over this period I began to see a pattern. With every one of my HID grows, all my autoflowers exhibited healthy stretch. It started quicker than photoperiods, but the overall effect was similar. Low Stress Training (LST) was effective, bud quality was very good and yield was very good to excellent. But with my LED grows, absolutely NONE of my autoflowers stretched. I had complete grows that never exceeded 10” in height.But with LED I can’t help but think much more is possible. Over 44+ years of growing I’ve seen well trained plants out-yield plants with no training every time. So I want the ability to encourage stretch in my plants.
For the sake of other AFN members, I believe the inverse of this stretch phenomena could be very beneficial to growers with a limited amount of grow space headroom. I want to prove or disprove, to some relative degree of certainty, that light intensity can be used to influence stretch when growing cannabis. But first I need to gather data on other growers’ experiences with plant stretch, and its association to light intensity during the plant’s lifecycle.

This is NOT an opinion piece of “is LED better than HID?” LED is certainly different, and in many respects (heat &efficiency) we all know it IS better. And this is NOT an attempt to compare LED lighting brands. There are numerous characteristics of LED lighting that determine light quality, and our most excellent site admin, @Son of Hobbes has started a thread on what parameters can be used to define those. His efforts may be reviewed here: https://www.autoflower.org/threads/what-should-be-on-a-grow-light-review.64857/ I’ve added a few well chosen thoughts on that topic - PAR watts, efficiency, most favored color spectrum, etc.. But I’m not smart enough to make that final differentiation so I’m happy to watch as SOH finishes that. The only facts I intend to present here are those I’ve experienced with my auto grows.

There are a number of other factors besides lighting that affect plant growth. In an effort to keep this thread focused on light intensity with no outside variables, I asked one of AFN’s most experienced members, MedGrower, for his input. His comments, and my follow up confirming those variables were addressed, can be found in his grow thread located at https://www.autoflower.org/threads/...-dwc-hs1-telos-0008.64718/page-2#post-1758834
In consideration to MedGrower, if you have any comments / questions, send them to me or post here. I don’t want to trash his grow thread with my conspiracy theory so I’m asking each of you to please share that consideration with me.

For the sake of this study I’d like to focus on the two main lighting factors that control intensity - light height throughout the grow cycle, and “power” of the light over the grow canopy; i.e. watts per sq.ft.. Light height is an easy factor to define as long as we document the variation during a plant’s growth cycle. Plant canopy area is an easy measure. Power consumption is an easy measure. I know, watts per sq.ft. is not the most meaningful measure of an LED’s efficiency. But until or if we ever reach consensus of an industry standard measure for all lighting types, I am using watts consumed at the wall, per square foot. No matter how much we insist this is not the best method (I agree), wattage consumed per square foot is the only readily available factor across all lighting types. And no matter how much we agree to disagree, it should provide a reasonable enough classification of small / medium / large lighting to support this study.

My light ratings are 62.5W/sq.ft. for HID and 65W.sq.ft. for LED. As to other influences on plant stretch, my grow techniques with HID and LED are as close to identical as one can get for environmental control and nutrient regimen. So enough intro, let’s kick this in the ass as I describe my experiences with autoflowers to date.

My starting system for HID is a 250W cooltube and batwing reflector with a metal halide bulb for veg and a high pressure sodium for bloom. The tent is a 4 sq. ft. system (2' X 2' X 5’3") by Secret Jardin. I configured it with (2) 4” 170CFM centrifugal fans, one for light cooling and the other for odor control through a 12” X 4” Phresh carbon filter). My nutrient regimen is General Hydroponics’ expert recirculating formula with some strength and slight ingredient tweaks. This regimen has not changed between HID and LED grows.
I grow hydroponically, and my system is configured for a single plant in a DIY 4 gallon Ebb ‘n Gro net pot with hydroton clay pebbles. The system floods automatically every two hours for 15 minutes. I call this DIY because I do not rely upon the complex valves and fittings normally associated with commercially available ebb and grow systems. Those systems rely upon multiple pumps, flow control valves and timers opening and closing with each flood cycle to deliver and recover nutrients to/from the plant. A strength of these commercial systems is they enable the reservoir to sit at the same height as the grow containers. Negatives are they are complex and expensive. My system relies upon a passive DIY manifold sitting on top of the reservoir, and the only moving part is an inexpensive and very reliable 170 gph hydro pump. Total ebb n’grow component cost with four net pot buckets was under $100. I bought four net pot buckets to simplify plant positioning changes throughout my grows, and to run parallel grows in separate tents. My DIY manifold does raise system height by the height of the reservoir, but the entire reservoir, tent and plant container system comes in under 7’ tall. It’s a quality system with all the right parts, and it fits in a closet if it has to (mine doesn’t).

I’m going to drift off topic for a moment as I’ve been known to do. I’ve used all types of hydro systems for many years and this is my favorite. It re-oxygenates the root zone after each flood every two hours. Supply to the net pot is positive pressure flow, while draining is passive / gravity, so aggressive root growth is pushed back into the net pot and will never cause a clog in the system’s hydro line. And even if a clog were to somehow mysteriously occur, overflow is not possible due to the design of the manifold. The system is fully automated - I recently took an eight day trip with no worries that the system would stay fully functional until I returned, and it did. A separate reservoir (I use 12 to 14 gallons) from the grow container makes nutrient changes and maintenance simple, and the added capacity gives me plenty of “headroom” in the nutrient mix as the plant drinks.
Here’s a pic of the original HID tent. The manifold is the white bucket to the left outside the tent. The ebb ‘n Gro bucket is slightly out of position on the shelf behind the tent:

IMG
 
@Olde School Player this thread from the start has me curious and thinking because I've questioned the same ideas almost, lots of variables but if u don't go to deep in to on specific I think there's a general answer at the end. I currently testing personally my new cobs against my old full spectrum LEDs, now mind you different strains and nutes but rest is the same, what I can input at the moment is: (previous run leds only)
2x4x5'6" tent, 8sqft floor space
Lights 2x -600w full spectrum LEDs total from wall 333w and 331w yes they were different. Same lights though.
3 plants autos- GDP-seedsman, 2 lemon haze-seedsman.
24" at veg
14" at bloom found 16" was sweet spot at 4weeks left.
5gal smart pots, ff farm trio,molasses,bud candy.
I could diffidently tell there was stretch when flower began, they were about 15" tall until flower started then all 3 jumped to about 23-26" after stretch and just started filling in nice lollipop buds, they had defoliation and light lst done to them, defoliation really helpef, I continue it today on my autos, works great if done right, final yields after 11weeks- gdp-2.84 oz, lemon#1 3.16oz, lemon#2 1.86oz (which was the tallest and least amount of anything done to her. I have more info I can add to this after I find my notes of them in the desk, now with my current run starting on same leds and switch to my cobs at flowering I could see great stretch like I've never had before, also the megaCrop may be the result factor along with the auto cobs, only thing different besides strains, royal Queen quick one auto, Barney's farm San tri bajo auto fem, which the San tri I will never run again ever ever ever, IU will add more to this and some of ur other posts on here if u don't mind.

As long as its on topic, feel free to post away, all input appreciated.
So to summarize & be sure I interpreted your notes correctly, you were running 664 watts total at the wall over a 2X4 / 8 sq.ft. grow area; that's 83 watts / sq.ft., which is greater than my 65 watts / sq ft.; and your light height was comparable to mine but your stretch was greater. That conflicts. Any chance the watts - at - wall figure is off? If not I'll have to put this one in the "I am crazy" column, heh heh heh.
But keep up with what the plants do on your next grow, both under the full spectrum system lights and as you transition to COB's. The answer's in here somewhere.
 
Thanks, IN, if you had a plant that went to 22" that could still help. Fill me in with the details of your light and plant canopy area - total wattage of the LED & canopy length & width would help. And was there any relation to the plant heights that were dead center under the light versus toward the side where intensity would naturally drop off?
And I'll be really interested what your 45" light height experience shows. Waiting & watching, thanks again.
:forward:
light and plant canopy area
Meizhi 900w 418w at the wall with bloom and veg switch on. Veg switch only on approx. 305 if i remember correctly
plant canopy area
3x3
plant heights that were dead center under the light versus toward the side where
Plants were rotated to all have a share under center
13" tall plant Dinafem industrial cbd...just got dry wgt. Prior to cure/2.575ozs.
20180416_190318.jpg
 
Time for an update, albeit only a half-assed one. I've received a few replies from a couple of growers who listed their light heights & specs, but for the most part I'm lacking the data I really think I'll need to work through this teaser. So all you members out there, get on the ball & send me your data.
In the meantime, my next grow is underway. On 4/28 I transplanted a new TH Seeds' Auto Original BubbleGum to my Mars-700. This will be the third grow of this strain and she has never failed to impress. Stretched beautifully under HID, stayed at 10-12" under LED, but yielded a personal-best 11.76 oz from a single-plant grow. So I'm anxious to test one theory, that light intensity controlled by distance from the plant (moving it further away) will encourage stretch. Hoping....
Here she is on transplant day. That's a 12" net pot 3 gallon capacity of hydrocorn:

2mh7m8x.jpg


So today is day 9 since transplant, and she is looking healthy, but she's just too damned short for me to feel comfortable with her talking dirty to me. Three inches tall. She's widening beautifully, but unless she shows me some stretch I may have to resort to other measures. I just don't know what to do with a girl that's wider than she is tall.
Here she is today:

jv4pi8.jpg


In the meantime, I looked back through all my grow journals, and facts proved suspicion correctly, I should have seen some stretch by now. Past HID grows showed from transplant:
16" in 14 days
16" in 15 days
20" in 11 days
18" in 17 days
"LOTS" in 26 days (must have been high when I made that entry)
26" after 30 days of growth AND LST DONE. Early grow, yet to be determined what measures I wanted to keep. And I was high.
So nine days, no stretch, I pretty much decided fook this chit. I hung my 250W HID with metal halide bulb, the same system that generated all this wonderful stretch.

Now for the puzzling part, and to my half-assed comment at the beginning of this post. When I transplanted this little girl, I hung the MARS-700 almost to the top of the tent; 39" from the top of the plant. Now, I have to go back through this thread where one of our fine members commented on the proper formula for light dispersion based upon distance - something to the square of something. My head hurts just thinking about it, but I got to figure this out. If raising the light that high to start, did not reduce light intensity enough to induce stretch, then how high do I have to go??? Or am I just smoking something (Yes, I am - Blue Auto Mazar to be exact) and it's another spec like light spectrum that's causing my LED plants to not stretch.
Or do I need to plan on veg under HID and bloom under LED? I can do that, if it works. I'll tell you in about two weeks.

In the meantime, forecast for tomorrow is sunny and warm, light winds, and a 5 pound bass in the canoe before sundown. Screw you guys (and Gals), I'm going fishing!!!
 
Your example about horsepower/distance/light strength is not correct. Light intensity does NOT obey the linear rule, it is subject to the inverse square rule...doubling the distance, decreases the intensity by the SQUARE of the distance (ie 4 times less ) and so on.

@Heliman when you first posted this I recalled a math headache & never gave it the thought it deserved. But I've kept thinking about this and I believe I'm at a point where I'll need to understand how the math works. So if I go from 20" to 40", or 18" to 36", or 12" to 24", that would decrease intensity by a factor of four. Or even as crazy as going from 2" to 4", same rule? Assuming intensity at 2" is a shit-ton more than the same light at 20", it kind of still makes sense.
So for an increment of 50% added distance, like going from 20" to 30", would that decrease intensity by a factor of two? This is where the math headache developed the first time I read your post, but I gotta get past that. Is there a simpler formula that calculates less incremental changes?

And is there a strain of weed that makes math less fuzzy??? Straight A's in Geometry, failed Algebra. Be easy on me! :shrug:
 
@Olde School Player

Yep, you just about got the principal right !!!

Check this simple video to get a bit more clarity on the Inverse Square Law.

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=KARCOGT95W0

The weed itself has no part to play in this issue, it is purely the physics of light transmission.
Obviously, evolution has equipped each plant species to grow to optimum at a specific light intensity, our question mark is how flexible this number is...hence my "fixation " on DLI.

Now you are a full bottle :bow::bow:
 
@Olde School Player

To go a bit further.......

It is not easy to do the Math on small incremental distance changes vs Inverse Square Intensity....because we end up with a number to a fractional Inverse Power ( ie...say 4/2.654 Power...and that is bloody hard to calculate !!!!)
When we use DLI, we already have a formula for measuring this change by any number we choose and will give us a direct comparison of Light/Duration and effect on any scenario we choose.....once again, hence my "fixation"

DLI is manageable, easy to calculate and comprehensive. but like most data in our growing environment is not really well understood........but I'm working on it :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
@Heliman I'd never read about DLI so I did a few searches and found a fairly explanatory article regarding Daily Light Integral measurements in greenhouse grows. If I understand what I just read, DLI is the cumulative effect of light on the plant, over a day, including night hours when no light is present. The article I read was biased to greenhouse grows under natural light, where light intensity changes throughout the time of day, from cloud cover, and seasons. They mentioned the use of supplemental lighting to compensate for weak DLI periods from any cause. And one part I found especially meaningful was that for each 1% increase in DLI you would receive a 1% increase in "production". All told, makes sense, and in my mind
I'm trying to draw a comparison of this to PAR watts - usable energy available to the plant. Sadly, for the sake of my study on this thread, the ability to measure DLI is not going to be there for almost all growers. So I'm going to have to step down to more anecdotal measures. But I appreciate the input & follow up data, it was an interesting read.
And as you stated in your original post # 39, ppfd becomes the key driver as it accounts for light intensity and coverage over our given grow area. So we only need to agree on how many measurements over what area at what distance from the light. That becomes harder to "fake" if those parameters are agreed upon.
This brings me back to my original study on light intensity Vs plant stretch. While I'm not convinced to abandon this in its entirety, I am leaning more toward light spectrum being the cause of my LED grows' plants' lack of stretch. In my 20 hour grow period since I swapped out my 325W LED for my 250W HID, my plant grew a full inch. AND it has opened up more, and just generally looks better in all respects.
I'm going to give her a few more days before posting another pic, but for now I'm leaning toward a couple of full spectrum COB's for my next phase to see if that will encourage more stretch. We'll see. Thanks again for the good data.
 
@Olde School Player

Maybe we are now getting down to the real hard core over plant light requirements....

Hippy_BiotabsF70 is right...all the peripheral data concerning PPFD, PAR, Watts etc etc etc are worthless if the spectrum is wrong. You can have a mountain of output from a yellow light but your plant will die !!!

So we start to get into the realm of Liebig's minimum Law and the Redfield Theory.

Broadly speaking, any plant needs a range of conditions to reach its genetic potential. These will be light, water, nutes, trace elements, temperature, to name a few.

If ANY of these requirements are badly out of skew then the plant cannot produce its genetic potential. Leibigs Minimum Law seeks to steadily chip away at the values of each and every element until non-viability is reached.
If you get everything right, but have no water...death. If you get everything right but have wrong light...death and so on and so on.
So any definition of plant health MUST include the conditionality that all (or most) of the key elements must be within the genetic energy budget of the target plant. The key head- scratcher is how far you can go below the optimum before you get into danger....and they are all co-dependent variables. Light intensity and spectrum are only 2 of these co-dependent variables.........probably thousands of them in a complete biotope !!!!
For instance, can I pick a ridiculous element...gold, what percentage of gold must be in the soil to satisfy the Liebig Number, if you get my drift.

Biology is complex yes ????

Cheers...Heliman
 
@Heliman Absolutely true, growing is a complex science. We should constantly seek to improve our skills. But for me, I find myself reaching a point that won't be fun anymore if I'm not careful. I want to learn enough of the science to better understand what I'm doing, but the science is not my end game.
Since I started this thread I have had to constantly remind myself of my base assumptions, and to stay focused on what I wanted to research. My assumption was that
I have done very successful single plant grows under both HID and LED lighting, using the same metrics for each. So I chose not to try to define all the things that COULD mess up a grow because I was comfortable my grow techniques addressed them all. I felt safe to concentrate only on the effect that light intensity has on plant stretch.
Fact: my HID grows have ALWAYS stretched.
Fact: My LED grows have NEVER stretched.
Fact: my current grow started with lighting at 39 - 40" above the plant, and stayed there. Of the two ways to influence light intensity - power & distance - this covered distance. And the plant did not stretch AT ALL. None. 3" tall, healthy as she could be, but vertically challenged.
Fact: in two days, under HID lighting, she has almost doubled in height to 5.5", and even healthier than before if that is possible.
I have reviewed others' grow threads, and asked for input. I have seen some small indicators that SOME growers have seen SOME stretch under weaker LED lighting. But nothing to the extent of my experience with HID lighting.

I think most of us already understand that light intensity has a large role in bud density. And to a much lesser extent than I originally believed, intensity will result in a more lush, compact growth characteristic. But it's not going to keep a plant with 24-30" growth genetics at 10".
So after some interesting twists and turns, I find myself reaching a decision point.
I believe the answer is that light intensity IS NOT preventing my plants' stretch.
I intend to continue this data gathering for a bit, but I believe it's time to start looking at other causes.
Is my problem that my LED's are not full spectrum? @Hippy_BiotabsF70 thinks so, and based upon what I've seen since starting this thread, I have to concur.
Should I buy a couple or four full spectrum COB's to continue this research? Hmmmm, it seems when I bought a couple of LED system lights it was because of their claims of superiority. I think I'll continue research before pouring more money into a technology that might not deliver what I want. Just exactly WHAT spectrum will be needed to accomplish what I want - healthy plant stretch during vegetative, transitional and early bloom plant growth cycles.
So findings for now -
  • A strong light intensity does not seem to keep plants from stretching. I've covered this with strength and distance tests (except no weaker strength yet
  • MARS II - 700 and Mars PRO Cree-128 lighting grows great weed - nice dense buds, heavy yields, and PLANTS THAT STAY AROUND 10 - 12" with minimal training. Please don't interpret this as an ad for Mars. Although I have no problems with their product, I'm sure there will be other LED lighting vendors whose products perform similarly to keep plant stretch from happening. The real takeaway from this finding is that "these" types of LED lighting should be of use to anyone with limited headroom in their grow area. I'll be shocked if that is unique to Mars, and I'd be interested in others' results.
So my next steps are to continue my BubbleGum under HID. As she stretches and shows preflowers, I'll switch from metal halide to high pressure sodium, and continue the grow through LST. When that is done, I'm switching back to LED for the healthy, dense buds I've seen under my other grows. I'll keep you posted on this thread with regular updates & pics. At the end of the grow, I will be onto something if I can beat my previous 11.76 oz yield with this TH Seeds BubbleGum strain.
And somewhere along the way I may see what I can learn about the "best" plant spectrums for inducing plant stretch. And try to figure out why "The Industry" has insisted on getting away from PAR Watts and Degrees Kelvin as ways to rate lighting systems that perform quite admirably.
 
Last edited:

Test

Test
Back
Top