[olsmokey]

I see what you mean - though the shade buds don't get big, they will still get trichomes, just as if they were in the sun.

Originally Posted by VerdantGreen

olsmokey if you are talking about small shade buds then that is due to the lack of photosynthesis by the leaves that feed that bud. the leaf that is attached to the bud is what primarily feeds it, as well as a small amount of photosynthesis by the bud itself.

what i was theorising about is a defense mechanism being triggered across the whole plant by a proportion of the plant that recieved the stimulus - in this case UV light.

as for the definition of thought, that is a whole other philosophical discussion . as i said i can feel the comparison they have used due to the electronic nature of the message as opposed to hormonal. its a pretty amazing discovery imo whatever you want to call it. i just reproduced the tag line as it was already written.

[VerdantGreen]

yep that's the theory but the whole idea of UV increasing potency/trics is theoretical in itself afaik, and so really what i am talking about is doubly theoretical

VG

[*mistress*]

electro-magnetic-chemical stimuli

[Mr. Greengenes]

"'light' is only waves of electro-magnetic energy. similar to thought. "
Very cool. Speaking of time (light traveling) and thought, what about Paul the octopus? I mean...127 to 1 odds! Please don't burst my fantasy and tell me that story was rigged VG?

[VerdantGreen]

ah the octopus, im dubious.

here is a more detailed look at the plant research (which still hasnt been published)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...-bu-2010-07-16

[Mr. Greengenes]

"Karpinski thinks plants generate different electrical impulses when different wavelengths of light hit their leaves and that plants use these impulses to somehow regulate their immune defenses. "

This is getting into how UV light might affect the phenotype. I've often thought that blue-ish lights did more than just shorten internodes....

If you think about the differences between IR and UV light in the environment, IR sort of pervades throughout, while UV only comes directly from the sun and can be blocked easily by something small like another leaf. It would make sense that plants would pay more attention to the UV information to determine whether they were in full sun or not? A low UV content might signal to the plant that it was partially shaded and needs to stretch up high to grow over it's neighbor. All that stretching might cost the plant something and the result be lowered defenses? To me, the high UV in fluorescent lights seems to make plants more leathery and tougher, as well as shorter.

Cool stuff VG!

[englishrick]

i remember reading ages ago that long light cycles promote maleness in hemp..

[hoosierdaddy]

Ah but, Rick....haven't we been discussing that stress doesn't actually change the sex of a plant, but rather triggers self preservation hormones and mechanisms?
Maleness is decided at meiosis, and not after. Not to say that perhaps a stresser couldn't possibly effect the genetic recombination, but the recombination is what it is and will not change after it has happened.

Immersing seeds in blue light or UV is going to do nothing as far as the sexual orientation of the seed is concerned. Or the plant, for that matter.

[englishrick]

hay hooz....i feel like we have not spoken in ages,,,we just seem chat to other people while we both say similar things in the same threads,,,hows things man?

but, what about the monoceous specimines??,,,,consider cannabis using an x/autosome dosage system....imo,,the fact that we can reverse sex via chemical aplication shows us our plants are sexualy bipotant

this is what dutch passion said ages ago...

In an experiment done in 1999 we grew 15 varieties of "feminized" seeds. We started with 30 seeds per variety. The goals were: 1) to determine the percentages of female, male, and hermaphroditic plants. 2) to compare the uniformity (homogeneity) among plants from "feminized" seeds with those grown from "regular" seeds.

1. The results were excellent. Nine out of fifteen varieties had 100% female offspring. Percentages of female plants from the other 6 varieties were between 80 and 90%. These plants were all hermaphrodites, producing their male flowers at the end of their lifecycle. Seed-setting hardly took place. No males were found.

2. Approximately 70% of the plants of varieties grown from "feminized" seeds were far more uniform than plants grown from "regular" seeds of the same variety. About 20% of the varieties were a little more uniform, while in 10% of the varieties no difference in uniformity was seen.

From literature and our own findings it appears that the growth of a male or female plant from seed, except for the predisposition in the gender chromosomes, also depends on various environmental factors. The environmental factors that influence gender are:

1. a higher nitrogen concentration will give more females.
2. a higher potassium concentration will give more males.
3. a higher humidity will give more females.
4. a lower temperature will give more females.
5. more blue light will give more females.
6. Fewer hours of light will give more females. It is important to start these changes at the three-pairs-of-leaves stage and continue for two or three weeks, before reverting to standard conditions.

[3rdEye]

Excellent thread. A question someone might be able to answer. Has anyone done experiments with males with stress to see if they will produce female flowers?

I think everything has awareness and a consciousness on some level. Whether that consciousness is perceivable by most humans or organisms is a separate question and one that swings us back around to the problem that all of what we think is going on is still, apparently, beholden to our senses. Which are remarkably easy to confuse and fool.