Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Grow It! > Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science > daily light integral

Thread Title Search    
Advertise on ICMag - Click for more info
Post Reply
 daily light integral Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2011, 05:38 PM   #1
delta9nxs
No Jive Productions
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,148
delta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant future
Smile daily light integral

I have been studying the “daily light integral” lately and have a few questions that I hope someone can answer or provide a reference to answers.

Since our plant is a mole counter on a diurnal basis it follows that there is a “reset” mechanism. Is the mechanism reset by light or the absence of light? Or is it reset chemically or hormonally? Or maybe a combination of these things? People using a 24/0 veg cycle are not getting a “dark” cycle but is the production of photosynthate rolling off at some point, perhaps allowing the plant to reset?

Each species of plant has a maximum daily light integral beyond which photosynthesis ceases or slows down. What is this figure for cannabis?

We know that few greenhouses get more than about 30 moles/day. Dr Elsohly's research was done at 24/25 moles/day.

It has been mentioned by Spurr that 46-48 moles/day might be the maximum usable but I don't know where he got the figures.

I have been doing exhaustive searches on this subject and I am running into a wall trying to get more info.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Later, d9
delta9nxs jest offline   Quote


Old 04-21-2011, 09:06 PM   #2
grow101
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 107
grow101 is on a distinguished road
Far red (740nm) resets any red light exposure, which would inhibit flowering in short day plants when given as last light before the dark period. Red flashes at night will inhibit flowering, unless they are followed by far red light.

Ch25, p730ff, Plant Physiology, Taiz, Zeiger, 5th edition.

Last edited by grow101; 04-22-2011 at 03:23 PM.. Reason: Ch25, not 35...
grow101 jest offline   Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-21-2011, 10:27 PM   #3
mugenbao
śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ
 
mugenbao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Samadhi
Posts: 2,375
mugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivormugenbao is a survivor
Quote:
Originally Posted by itzaplant View Post
reallt guy is it that complicated
Well hell, man, if you got the answer let's hear it! Or are you just being a sarcastic troll? [Edit] Nevermind, I see you're just turbo-posting. Kinda lame, bud.

I wish I had something constructive to add to the conversation, but I am subscribed in hopes of learning more
mugenbao jest offline   Quote


Old 04-23-2011, 03:29 PM   #4
delta9nxs
No Jive Productions
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,148
delta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant future
Smile

hi, grow101, thank you for the link, every piece of the puzzle helps!

mugenbao, hey buddy, looks like one of the mod types got wind of mr itzaplant's trolling and yanked his stuff. thank you!

d9
delta9nxs jest offline   Quote


Old 06-04-2011, 05:13 AM   #5
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
I have been studying the “daily light integral” lately and have a few questions that I hope someone can answer or provide a reference to answers.

Since our plant is a mole counter on a diurnal basis it follows that there is a “reset” mechanism. Is the mechanism reset by light or the absence of light? Or is it reset chemically or hormonally? Or maybe a combination of these things?
What do you mean by "reset mechanism"? Resetting what? And resetting it when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
People using a 24/0 veg cycle are not getting a “dark” cycle but is the production of photosynthate rolling off at some point, perhaps allowing the plant to reset?
I am not sure what you mean by "reset", some so-called "dark reactions" are now more correctly called "light-independent reactions". So some functions that are at optimum under darkness can be carried out under light.

Of interest, plants can tell when it's 'midnight' when the plant is given a stable day/night schedule.

If by "reset" you mean "the point when the plant senses 24 hours have passed", in terms of plants grown under 24 hours of light (24/0), AFAIK it is due to the natural circadian rhythm (24 hours).

One point about growing 24/0, is the rate of photosynthesis will dip throughout the day; it won't stay high during light like it does when a night time is used.


Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Each species of plant has a maximum daily light integral beyond which photosynthesis ceases or slows down. What is this figure for cannabis?
I do not believe anyone knows, or that anyone has even studied. Most studies on cannabis and irradiance (brightness of light) relative to rate of photosynthesis (Pn) used red light and used 60 minute irradiation periods before finding rate of photosynthesis. No studies I am aware of, have looked at long term rate of photosynthesis over hours of irradiation for cannabis (Pnnet).

In cannabis "steady-state" Pn is achieved after about 30-40 minutes under bright light (within PAR range), IIRC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
We know that few greenhouses get more than about 30 moles/day. Dr Elsohly's research was done at 24/25 moles/day.
If you are referring to the DLI for Dr. Elsohly, from what I posted in another thread, it's an approximation, a best guess of mine. AFAIK Dr. Elsohly hasn't studied DLI, or has he and I am unaware?

Depending upon where the greenhouse is located, DLI (def: mol/meter^2/day) can exceed 30; ex., > 30 mol/area^2/day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
It has been mentioned by Spurr that 46-48 moles/day might be the maximum usable but I don't know where he got the figures.
I'll post an explanation with links and math, etc., tomorrow. It was formed using my best guess in some areas. I have been using my quantum sensor for much testing and found some (crude, incomplete) data/opinion about quantity of light (photons).


Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
I have been doing exhaustive searches on this subject and I am running into a wall trying to get more info.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
This info was presented in the 24 hour light thread, a link is in m sig. It's buried somewhere on page 10-20ish ...

I am planning on finding it tomorrow to post more.
spurr jest offline   Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-04-2011, 05:48 AM   #6
aggregatebuzz
self determined
 
aggregatebuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 350
aggregatebuzz has a spectacular aura aboutaggregatebuzz has a spectacular aura about
my control is last run was a progressive light watt increase from 500w(30dayveg/24-0) to 1000w, yielded 18oz finished 4 plants,5Gal. pots, in 2x4x8:Sunmaster MH/HPS...Quantum push
this time 400w veg 600w flower(30dayveg/24-0) Ushio Red M.H. Horti. HPS.. Next Gen push

all the rest same,seeds too(AK-48 and Ice)
see if this light level is better
aggregatebuzz jest offline   Quote


Old 06-04-2011, 07:47 PM   #7
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
---------------------
PPFD:

One point about PPFD as used below, the definition of PPFD is "Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density". That is a label for the number of photons (particles of light) that hit an area of a meter squared (three-feet squared) in one second; but only photons that are within a range that best drives rate of photosynthesis (Pn), called the PAR range (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) of 400-700 nanometers. However, when one measures PPFD one does not measure the instantaneous irradiance (as umol/area^2/second) over a whole meter squared, to find PPFD. To measure PPFD (i.e., instantaneous irradiance as micromoles per area squared per second) one uses a quantum sensor, but they are only about an inch squared.

When the concept of measuring (quantifying) photons within the PAR range (per second; instantaneous) that best drives Pn, was being developed, it was (mostly) developed to be used for outdoor and greenhouse growing, when used for whole-plant application. AFAIK, the designers did not take irradiance foot-print of a horizontal lamp in a reflector into consideration, only an ideal situation of point-source light from the sun or greenhouse lamps far from the plants. Granted, the scientists who came up with PPFD used single leafs, at times, when measuring effect of irradiance on rate of photosynthesis.

The calculation of PPFD is based upon at least one big assumption: all spots (ex., plants) within the area of a meter squared get the same instantaneous irradiance. Ex., all the plants in a meter squared outside in a field the get the same 'amount' of sun light (photons; if they are no shaded); so one measurement in any spot within the meter^2 will show the PPFD of the meter^2. That means to find PPFD outdoor or in a greenhouse, one measurement is taken within a meter^2 with a quantum sensor and the assumption is made that all other areas within the meter^2 will have the same instantaneous irradiance as the original spot. Thus one measurement of a small area (about an inch or 2 squared) is used to find PPFD for a whole meter^2. But indoors under a reflector with a horizontal lamp, not all plants in a meter squared get the same 'amount' of lamp light (photons). That means using PPFD is not representative of the real-world irradiance per smaller-than-a-meter^2 area, within that meter squared. Also, the PPFD from a horizontal lamp in a reflector can't be found by just a single measurement, many measurements must be taken to account for un-even light distribution over the meter squared (and light side the meter^2).

Along with the reasons above, un-even irradiance over many areas of measurement within a meter^2 is another reason PPFD is not ideal for our use case; IMO anyway. By Definition PPFD is fixed at a meter squared, which works fine for outdoor and greenhouse growing, but indoors canopies are often smaller than 3'x3' or not shaped in a square, as well as the flaws/limits above.

What all the means, in my opinion, is using the term PPFD is not ideal, mostly because the area is fixed. I think it may be better if PPFD was not fixed in area, but required one to report the area measured for irradiance; no assumption made. So PPFD could mean umol/1"^2/second or umol/12"^2/second; as long as area is defined.

Anyway, in the post below when I write PPFD I mean "umol/any-area-^2/second"; not necessarily "umol/meter^2/second". Likewise, DLI means "mol/area^2/day"; not necessarily "mol/meter^2/day".
---------------------
spurr jest offline   Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-04-2011, 08:40 PM   #8
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
It has been mentioned by Spurr that 46-48 moles/day might be the maximum usable but I don't know where he got the figures.
DLI is rarely found much higher than 60 mol/m^2/day outside and in a natural greenhouse.

To find a possible goal DLI for flowering cannabis I tried to mimic what would happen in nature (re PPFD bell curve and DLI), using natural PPFD bell curve found in Hawaii that provided peak PPFD of ~1,500-1,800 (because that PPFD has been studied for cannabis). I did my best to create a goal flowering DLI of ~48, using the data from Hawaii and working backwards (ex. for 12 hours) to find PPFD that is both high enough to keep Ph in the 'high' range (ex., > 1,000), and high enough but not too high, to mimic a DLI naturally found during very bright and long days (re Hawaii).

If one used 1,500 PPFD all day (ex. 12 hours, 18 hours, etc) it could be too much DLI, and hinder rate of photosynthesis and cause photoinhibition (ex., midday depression of photosynthesis, (increased) photorespiration, etc.).

Using peak PPFD of 1,500 adjusted with an average PPFD bell-curve (over the whole daylength) from a high irradiance location (ex. Hawaii on relatively cloudless day maxing out at 1,500-2,000 PPFD) to find DLI is the best method I could think of at my disposal to easily guesstimate a possible goal DLI for flowering cannabis. That is, short of using PPFD per wavelength weighted with K.McCree's quantum yield.

1,500 PPFD fits into my DLI model because that irradiance level was found to provided near peak Pn in four different studies on cannabis, with variables such as temp, Co2, etc. And IIRC > 1,000 PPFD could be considered a benchmark for high(est) Pn. However, I didn't want to use 1,500 PPFD to find DLI because IMO 1,500 PPFD is too much instantaneous irradiance for every second over greater than 12 hours. Outside there is a PPFD bell curve, it starts low, gets high, ends low; and outside peak PPFD can be found about and just above 2,000.

I wanted to try and mimic the DLI a plant like cannabis (a 'sun loving' type) could experience outside, naturally, respective to the PPFD found to provide peak Pn for cannabis. So I found a long set of spectroradiometer graphs for PPFD every X minutes over a (nearly) cloudless day in Hawaii in summer; used to find DLI of that spot in Hawaii. I used Hawaii because (a) it has very high irradiance, a good example for what cannabis likes; and (b) I have grown cannabis in Hawaii (halfway up a big mountain, when I had my med card there) and saw first hand the effect of long days and high irradiance.

I think I am making it sound more complicated than it really is, it's quite simple but I think I may be over explaining in an attempt to explain enough.

Basically it's like this:

I used a natural PPFD bell curve from high irradiance location (Hawaii) that peaked at ~1,800 PPFD around noon; about the same PPFD that offers highest rate of photosynthesis for cannabis. Then I worked backward starting with the DLI from Hawaii, using 12 hour daylength (ex., for flowering) to find PPFD. And the PPFD was > 1,000, which is kind a benchmark for high(est) Pn.

My model for flowering (12 hour day) puts DLI at 46-48 (mol/area^2/day); that is achieved using ~1,000-1,100 umol/area^2/second (specifically ~1,065 to ~1,111 umol/area^2/second).

However, in reality most grow rooms will not provide over 1,000-1,100 umol/area^2/second to any plant; unless there is for example one small plant below a good lamp/reflector. For example, under a Blockbuster 8", with 1,000 watt Digilux HPS and Galaxy select-a-watt set to 'super lumens' (supposed to be 10% increase in radiance from 1,000 watt) -- with an Equalizer hot-spot diffuser -- the peak irradiance under about plumb center of lamp (while keeping irradiance high at the range of 3'x3') is ~920-975 umol/6"^2/second (10 second average to account for lamp flicker).

Most grow rooms will probably provide somewhere around 40-44 mol/area^2/day for flowering; those that are 'bright'. Very well designed rooms, esp. with respect to canopy size relative to size of reflector and light mover, can have over 50 mol/area^2/day for 12 hours.

(... nuts and bolts in next post ...)
spurr jest offline   Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-04-2011, 09:14 PM   #9
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
(much of below was taken from other posts I have made on this topic in the past)

We can use PPFD to find DLI (Daily Light Integral), and use DLI to find PPFD:
  • DLI (mol/area^2/day) = (PPFD*3,600*daylength)/1,000,000
  • PPFD (umol/area^2/second) = ((DLI*1,000,000)/daylength)/3,600

There are no studies looking at DLI for cannabis, AFAIK. DLI depends upon hours per day and PPFD. However, there are many studies looking at ideal PPFD* for cannabis. We could take the ideal PPFD for cannabis, ~1,500, and simply use that to find DLI for a plant providing 1,500 PPFD all day, but if we did that we would be over-saturating the plant with photons over the whole day, and in turn, cause photoinhibition.
* these studies used single leaf photosynthesis chambers, ex., from Li-cor, to study effect of red light irradiance (from a red LED from Li-cor) upon rate of photosynthesis (Pn), in some cases as effected by Co2 and temp increases. IIRC Pn was founder afer steady-state Pn was achieved, I believe Pn was found after 60 minutes of irradiation of leaf with red light at 1,500 umol/area^2**/second (in the case of peak Pn, that is).
** An area of maybe a couple of inches squared (a few dozen millimeters squared), the size of a not-very-large leaf. Regardless, the instantaneous irradiance was termed 1,500 PPFD (i.e., 1,500 umol/meter^2/second) because of reasons I wrote above, but it's really something like 1,500 umol/~30 mm^2/second)
Considering once PPFD (for cannabis) drops below ~1,000 the rate of photosynthesis (Pn) drops a bit, using at least ~1,000 PPFD all day seems to be a good (max?) goal. I think using ~1,000 to ~1,2000 PPFD all day is good (max?) goal. I plan to test that DLI on Pn and net rate of photosynthesis (Pnnet), etc., for cannabis this coming year.

I already wrote about how/why I found the 46-48 DLI (using natural PPFD bell curve data from HERE), for a 12 hour day. 48 DLI equals ~1,111 PPFD in 12 hours. In nature, DLI can be as high as 60, but that kinda seems high for flowing and I wouldn't use suggest it, until I or someone else had a chance to test it.

During veg and pre-flowering plants often have a higher rate of photosynthesis due to more and younger leafs. Younger leafs photosynthesize better than older leafs, and older leafs use blue light more efficiently for photosynthesis than younger leafs; in general IIRC. During flowering rate of photosynthesis is often reduced due to the changing needs of the plant, going from growth (veg/pre-flowering) to reproduction (flowering). Flowers themselves also photosynthesize, but not as well as leafs.

In the following example we can see that using ideal PPFD for cannabis (~1,500), all day, gives a very high total light (DLI). That is why I used a natural bell curve of daily PPFD found in nature (peaking at ~1,800 PPFD around noon) to come up with 48 DLI for flowering.

(DLI data is rounded):
  • 1,500 PPFD for 12 hour daylength = ~65 DLI
  • 1,500 PPFD for 18 hour daylength = ~97 DLI
  • 1,500 PPFD for 20 hour daylength = 108 DLI
  • 1,500 PPFD for 24 hour daylength (no dark period) = ~130 DLI

In the following example I work backwards from the highest DLI commonly found (~60), and from 48 DLI (my current-claim for cannabis in flowering) using various daylengths.

(PPFD data is rounded):
  • 60 DLI for 24 hour daylength (no dark period) = ~695 PPFD
  • 60 DLI for 20 hour daylength = ~833 PPFD
  • 60 DLI for 18 hour daylength = ~926 PPFD
  • 60 DLI for 12 hour daylength = ~1,389 PPFD
  • 48 DLI for 24 hour daylength (no dark period) = ~556 PPFD
  • 48 DLI for 20 hour daylength = ~667 PPFD
  • 48 DLI for 18 hour daylength = ~741 PPFD
  • 48 DLI for 12 hour daylength = ~1,111 PPFD


After looking at all those figures, it seems to me 1,000 to 1,200 PPFD is a good goal being that less than 1,000 PPFD can reduce Pn more than would be ideal. But as I noted above, I doubt most plants in most grow rooms are getting > 1,000-1,100 PPFD.
My current grow has very few plants getting > 900 umol/area^2/second, most are getting > 600 umol/area^2/second; and that annoys the crap out of me. I never used my current set-up before, it's all brand new and it's a Cadillac, configured using a quantum sensor. Yet even with everything 'ideal' I can't seem to get my canopy into the ideal range for all plants (not even for a majority of plants). My next grows will be back to a light mover and rectangle canopy with moveable reflective walls, to keep irradiance high for all plants, ex. > 900 umol/are^2/second ...
Below is some data for veg, mothers, etc. I have tested 16/8 and 17/7, and both worked very well when I kept PPFD high. Thus with 16/8 or 17/7 one can get the best of three worlds: high PPFD, high DLI and a dark period (with less electricity usage).

Looking back to the four studies on cannabis and PPFD, as well as PPFD bell curve under the sun, going over 1,300 PPFD for cannabis seems high, in my opinion. But that's not backed up by testing because I have yet to grow plants at higher than ~1,200 PPFD all day.
  • 1,300 PPFD for 16 hour daylength = ~75 DLI
  • 1,300 PPFD for 17 hour daylength = 80 DLI
  • 1,300 PPFD for 18 hour daylength = ~84 DLI
  • 1,300 PPFD for 20 hour daylength = ~94 DLI
  • 1,300 PPFD for 24 hour daylength (no dark period) = ~112 DLI
  • 1,000 PPFD for 16 hour daylength = ~58 DLI
  • 1,000 PPFD for 17 hour daylength = ~61 DLI
  • 1,000 PPFD for 18 hour daylength = ~65 DLI
  • 1,000 PPFD for 20 hour daylength = 72 DLI
  • 1,000 PPFD for 24 hour daylength (no dark period) = ~87 DLI

Looking the info above, I think ~65-70 DLI for veg (~1,300 PPFD for 16 hours and ~1,000 PPFD for 18 hours; respectively) are goals worth consideration.
spurr jest offline   Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-04-2011, 09:18 PM   #10
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
Here is a good web article on this topic, and the source of PPFD data from Hawaii I used above:
"A Different Look at Lighting: Effects of Prolonged Photoperiod, Spectral Quality, and Light Dosage"
Pomacanthus Publications, Inc.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/5/aafeature
spurr jest offline   Quote


Old 06-18-2011, 06:26 PM   #11
delta9nxs
No Jive Productions
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,148
delta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant futuredelta9nxs has a brilliant future
Smile

First, thank you for your time and effort. A lot of work went into your response.

Quotes by Spurr.

“What do you mean by "reset mechanism"? Resetting what? And resetting it when?

I am not sure what you mean by "reset", some so-called "dark reactions" are now more correctly called "light-independent reactions". So some functions that are at optimum under darkness can be carried out under light.

Of interest, plants can tell when it's 'midnight' when the plant is given a stable day/night schedule.

If by "reset" you mean "the point when the plant senses 24 hours have passed", in terms of plants grown under 24 hours of light (24/0), AFAIK it is due to the natural circadian rhythm (24 hours).”


Since beginning this thread I have been studying the plant circadian clock and now see what you mean about my use of the term “reset”. The mechanism is more of an “on/off” than a reset. This on/off cycle is mostly entrained by light although other forces such as temperature can come into play. I also have a better understanding of how the “clock” translates external stimuli into internal reactions by use of the phytochrome and cryptochrome receptors and the oscillator.


“One point about growing 24/0, is the rate of photosynthesis will dip throughout the day; it won't stay high during light like it does when a night time is used.”


i've been using 8 on 4 off 8 on 4 off each 24 hours in veg and the plants are reaching the same size they reached under 24/0, 20/4, or 18/6. this is approx. 30-32” in 4 weeks using a bare vertically oriented 1k hortilux hps at 14” to the nearest part of the plant. I have a quantum meter and it shows 1500 umols at 14” so theoretically I am delivering 43.2 moles per period or 86.4 per day to at least the front of the plant.


“In cannabis "steady-state" Pn is achieved after about 30-40 minutes under bright light (within PAR range), IIRC.”


this I believe I have observed. The device i'm growing in now is fed in part by a sub-irrigation system that has a level controlled by a float valve. When the lights first come on there is virtually no drip occurring. At ten minutes there is a slow drip. At 20 it is faster. At 30 minutes even more volume. By the end of an hour it is dripping at over 100 drips per minute and stable. This is in flower with 8-9 large plants.


“If you are referring to the DLI for Dr. Elsohly, from what I posted in another thread, it's an approximation, a best guess of mine. AFAIK Dr. Elsohly hasn't studied DLI, or has he and I am unaware?”


in figure 1a on page 3 of Dr El Sohly's paper there is a graph and I think I misinterpreted part of it to mean that he used 25 moles per day. Upon rereading it I don't see moles/day clearly indicated anywhere. You might take a look and see what you think.


“Depending upon where the greenhouse is located, DLI (def: mol/meter^2/day) can exceed 30; ex., > 30 mol/area^2/day.”


yes, but rarely does in practice. Those giant hydroponic tomato greenhouses in arizona report 48 moles/day regularly. But they located there for that reason. I think specmeters bases their program on 30 moles/day. All their literature is geared towards this level. I have a set of the “dli 100 lightscout” light meters and you can peg them at 30 moles/day. They measure accumulation only.

I don't believe that 30 moles is the max that can be used, but i'm thinking of a light array that hits each side of the plant in flower with 30 moles at alternating times. 6 hours per side.


“PPFD:

One point about PPFD as used below, the definition of PPFD is "Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density". That is a label for the number of photons (particles of light) that hit an area of a meter squared (three-feet squared) in one second; but only photons that are within a range that best drives rate of photosynthesis (Pn), called the PAR range (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) of 400-700 nanometers. However, when one measures PPFD one does not measure the instantaneous irradiance (as umol/area^2/second) over a whole meter squared, to find PPFD. To measure PPFD (i.e., instantaneous irradiance as micromoles per area squared per second) one uses a quantum sensor, but they are only about an inch squared.

When the concept of measuring (quantifying) photons within the PAR range (per second; instantaneous) that best drives Pn, was being developed, it was (mostly) developed to be used for outdoor and greenhouse growing, when used for whole-plant application. AFAIK, the designers did not take irradiance foot-print of a horizontal lamp in a reflector into consideration, only an ideal situation of point-source light from the sun or greenhouse lamps far from the plants. Granted, the scientists who came up with PPFD used single leafs, at times, when measuring effect of irradiance on rate of photosynthesis.

The calculation of PPFD is based upon at least one big assumption: all spots (ex., plants) within the area of a meter squared get the same instantaneous irradiance. Ex., all the plants in a meter squared outside in a field the get the same 'amount' of sun light (photons; if they are no shaded); so one measurement in any spot within the meter^2 will show the PPFD of the meter^2. That means to find PPFD outdoor or in a greenhouse, one measurement is taken within a meter^2 with a quantum sensor and the assumption is made that all other areas within the meter^2 will have the same instantaneous irradiance as the original spot. Thus one measurement of a small area (about an inch or 2 squared) is used to find PPFD for a whole meter^2. But indoors under a reflector with a horizontal lamp, not all plants in a meter squared get the same 'amount' of lamp light (photons). That means using PPFD is not representative of the real-world irradiance per smaller-than-a-meter^2 area, within that meter squared. Also, the PPFD from a horizontal lamp in a reflector can't be found by just a single measurement, many measurements must be taken to account for un-even light distribution over the meter squared (and light side the meter^2).

Along with the reasons above, un-even irradiance over many areas of measurement within a meter^2 is another reason PPFD is not ideal for our use case; IMO anyway. By Definition PPFD is fixed at a meter squared, which works fine for outdoor and greenhouse growing, but indoors canopies are often smaller than 3'x3' or not shaped in a square, as well as the flaws/limits above.

What all the means, in my opinion, is using the term PPFD is not ideal, mostly because the area is fixed. I think it may be better if PPFD was not fixed in area, but required one to report the area measured for irradiance; no assumption made. So PPFD could mean umol/1"^2/second or umol/12"^2/second; as long as area is defined.

Anyway, in the post below when I write PPFD I mean "umol/any-area-^2/second"; not necessarily "umol/meter^2/second". Likewise, DLI means "mol/area^2/day"; not necessarily "mol/meter^2/day".”


so, with sunlight, because of the great distance from the sun to the earth, the photon stream must appear almost as paralell and therefore nearly equal. indoors using fixed emitters close to the plant the stream must appear more like spokes of a wheel and therefore will be unequal applied to a flat surface. My meter shows that just 2” further from the light, for example, means the difference between 1500 umols and 1200 umols in free air. To me this means that foliage “penetration” indoors is all but nonexistant. We are really growing premium bud only on the periphery of the plant canopy.


“DLI is rarely found much higher than 60 mol/m^2/day outside and in a natural greenhouse.

To find a possible goal DLI for flowering cannabis I tried to mimic what would happen in nature (re PPFD bell curve and DLI), using natural PPFD bell curve found in Hawaii that provided peak PPFD of ~1,500-1,800 (because that PPFD has been studied for cannabis). I did my best to create a goal flowering DLI of ~48, using the data from Hawaii and working backwards (ex. for 12 hours) to find PPFD that is both high enough to keep Ph in the 'high' range (ex., > 1,000), and high enough but not too high, to mimic a DLI naturally found during very bright and long days (re Hawaii).

If one used 1,500 PPFD all day (ex. 12 hours, 18 hours, etc) it could be too much DLI, and hinder rate of photosynthesis and cause photoinhibition (ex., midday depression of photosynthesis, (increased) photorespiration, etc.).

Using peak PPFD of 1,500 adjusted with an average PPFD bell-curve (over the whole daylength) from a high irradiance location (ex. Hawaii on relatively cloudless day maxing out at 1,500-2,000 PPFD) to find DLI is the best method I could think of at my disposal to easily guesstimate a possible goal DLI for flowering cannabis. That is, short of using PPFD per wavelength weighted with K.McCree's quantum yield.

1,500 PPFD fits into my DLI model because that irradiance level was found to provided near peak Pn in four different studies on cannabis, with variables such as temp, Co2, etc. And IIRC > 1,000 PPFD could be considered a benchmark for high(est) Pn. However, I didn't want to use 1,500 PPFD to find DLI because IMO 1,500 PPFD is too much instantaneous irradiance for every second over greater than 12 hours. Outside there is a PPFD bell curve, it starts low, gets high, ends low; and outside peak PPFD can be found about and just above 2,000.

I wanted to try and mimic the DLI a plant like cannabis (a 'sun loving' type) could experience outside, naturally, respective to the PPFD found to provide peak Pn for cannabis. So I found a long set of spectroradiometer graphs for PPFD every X minutes over a (nearly) cloudless day in Hawaii in summer; used to find DLI of that spot in Hawaii. I used Hawaii because (a) it has very high irradiance, a good example for what cannabis likes; and (b) I have grown cannabis in Hawaii (halfway up a big mountain, when I had my med card there) and saw first hand the effect of long days and high irradiance.

I think I am making it sound more complicated than it really is, it's quite simple but I think I may be over explaining in an attempt to explain enough.

Basically it's like this:

I used a natural PPFD bell curve from high irradiance location (Hawaii) that peaked at ~1,800 PPFD around noon; about the same PPFD that offers highest rate of photosynthesis for cannabis. Then I worked backward starting with the DLI from Hawaii, using 12 hour daylength (ex., for flowering) to find PPFD. And the PPFD was > 1,000, which is kind a benchmark for high(est) Pn.

My model for flowering (12 hour day) puts DLI at 46-48 (mol/area^2/day); that is achieved using ~1,000-1,100 umol/area^2/second (specifically ~1,065 to ~1,111 umol/area^2/second).

However, in reality most grow rooms will not provide over 1,000-1,100 umol/area^2/second to any plant; unless there is for example one small plant below a good lamp/reflector. For example, under a Blockbuster 8", with 1,000 watt Digilux HPS and Galaxy select-a-watt set to 'super lumens' (supposed to be 10% increase in radiance from 1,000 watt) -- with an Equalizer hot-spot diffuser -- the peak irradiance under about plumb center of lamp (while keeping irradiance high at the range of 3'x3') is ~920-975 umol/6"^2/second (10 second average to account for lamp flicker).

Most grow rooms will probably provide somewhere around 40-44 mol/area^2/day for flowering; those that are 'bright'. Very well designed rooms, esp. with respect to canopy size relative to size of reflector and light mover, can have over 50 mol/area^2/day for 12 hours.”


I gotcha. I use my lights in flower with cooltubes and I can get 1500 umols at 12” but of course that is only part of the plant.



“There are no studies looking at DLI for cannabis, AFAIK. DLI depends upon hours per day and PPFD. However, there are many studies looking at ideal PPFD* for cannabis. We could take the ideal PPFD for cannabis, ~1,500, and simply use that to find DLI for a plant providing 1,500 PPFD all day, but if we did that we would be over-saturating the plant with photons over the whole day, and in turn, cause photoinhibition.”

my thinking exactly. I'm wondering whether the 30 moles per side at the closest point of foliage that I described above can deliver 60 moles/day to the whole plant without causing inhibition. This also has me thinking about how photosynthate partitioning will work in this scenario. I'm wondering whether there is a threshold of light that turns a plant part into a producer instead of a sink. Say 2-300 umols or more. Could you provide links to the studies showing ideal ppfd? I have dr el sohly's.

“Considering once PPFD (for cannabis) drops below ~1,000 the rate of photosynthesis (Pn) drops a bit, using at least ~1,000 PPFD all day seems to be a good (max?) goal. I think using ~1,000 to ~1,200 PPFD all day is good (max?) goal. I plan to test that DLI on Pn and net rate of photosynthesis (Pnnet), etc., for cannabis this coming year.”

I think I can determine the approx max dli relative to my own light and plant arrangement by using the drip rate of my system. As photosynthesis rolls off I should get a noticeable decrease in drip rate. I'll have a test plant set up for this soon.
Thank you for your thoughts and all the number crunching, it all helps.

d9
delta9nxs jest offline   Quote


Old 06-23-2011, 05:38 PM   #12
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
What do you mean by "reset mechanism"? Resetting what? And resetting it when?

I am not sure what you mean by "reset", some so-called "dark reactions" are now more correctly called "light-independent reactions". So some functions that are at optimum under darkness can be carried out under light.

Of interest, plants can tell when it's 'midnight' when the plant is given a stable day/night schedule.

If by "reset" you mean "the point when the plant senses 24 hours have passed", in terms of plants grown under 24 hours of light (24/0), AFAIK it is due to the natural circadian rhythm (24 hours).
Since beginning this thread I have been studying the plant circadian clock and now see what you mean about my use of the term “reset”. The mechanism is more of an “on/off” than a reset. This on/off cycle is mostly entrained by light although other forces such as temperature can come into play. I also have a better understanding of how the “clock” translates external stimuli into internal reactions by use of the phytochrome and cryptochrome receptors and the oscillator.
Yup, sound like you understand it well

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
One point about growing 24/0, is the rate of photosynthesis will dip throughout the day; it won't stay high during light like it does when a night time is used.
i've been using 8 on 4 off 8 on 4 off each 24 hours in veg and the plants are reaching the same size they reached under 24/0, 20/4, or 18/6. this is approx. 30-32” in 4 weeks using a bare vertically oriented 1k hortilux hps at 14” to the nearest part of the plant. I have a quantum meter and it shows 1500 umols at 14” so theoretically I am delivering 43.2 moles per period or 86.4 per day to at least the front of the plant.
Interesting. It's neat how plants aren't fixed to 24 hour circadian period. It can take a little as a couple of days for "photo-adaptation" to take place. I have flowered with a light regime of 16/12, and plan to further test flowering with 16 hours on (as well as 18 hours on) and 12 hours off (as well as 10 hours off).

I like flowering for longer daylengths to increase DLI, yields increase when I increase daylength; but some does time to harvest.

Do you notice any loss of chlorophyll (Chl A or Chl B) from leafs at ~1,500 umols? I notice loss of Chl once instantaneous irradiance exceeds ~1,000 umols for > 12 hours (I haven't tested shorter than 12 hours yet); but that's with a HPS (SPD rich in yellow/orange).

I would find it very interesting, if you do not see loss of Chl at 1,500 umols. I assume the shorter and more frequent daylengths may be the reason for no loss of Chl, re much less DLI at 8 hours of light vs 18 hours of light.

I have been testing a lamp with high green lately, the Digilux MH (1,000 watt). The higher green should mean higher daily net rate of photosynthesis for plants grown with high irradiance, after many hours each day. I notice (much) reduced loss of Chl when using a lamp with high green vs high yellow/orange; when both are near 1,000 umols.

What brand and model quantum sensor do you use?

FWIW, I recently came across a few uber great advanced lab experiments for finding Pn of plants, as well as Co2 fixation, etc. Finding Pn is very useful, even though the methodology is less than perfect. So one could test 8/4 vs 18/6 vs 20/4 vs 24/0 in terms of tracking Pn, Pnnet, irradiance and DLI, for less than ~$3,000-5,000. The lab and tools are from Qubit Systems, out of Canda. At time of writing, the lab (for a Unvierity in Canada) setup cost was ~$3,000 total. Today I assume the cost has gone up, as well product quality. Quibit Systems specializes in environmental, plant and animal science studies for Universities at an affordable price.

If I (or a group of us) could get good sized donations/grants, or rent the needed equipment, there would serous science on cannabis taking place ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
In cannabis "steady-state" Pn is achieved after about 30-40 minutes under bright light (within PAR range), IIRC.
this I believe I have observed. The device i'm growing in now is fed in part by a sub-irrigation system that has a level controlled by a float valve. When the lights first come on there is virtually no drip occurring. At ten minutes there is a slow drip. At 20 it is faster. At 30 minutes even more volume. By the end of an hour it is dripping at over 100 drips per minute and stable. This is in flower with 8-9 large plants.
Interesting thanks. One can also watch the movement of leafs for ~45 minutes after daylight with time-lapse camera, to see the 'wake up' time for plants. In fact, I have a "Plant Cam" time-lapse camera I bought to use for my grow, but it's hard to focus so I haven't used it (and HID glare ruins pics). I bet I can make a time-lapse video of leaf movement over the day, or at least the first 45 minutes of the day. I could note DLI a certain points if making a video of the whole day, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
If you are referring to the DLI for Dr. Elsohly, from what I posted in another thread, it's an approximation, a best guess of mine. AFAIK Dr. Elsohly hasn't studied DLI, or has he and I am unaware?
in figure 1a on page 3 of Dr El Sohly's paper there is a graph and I think I misinterpreted part of it to mean that he used 25 moles per day. Upon rereading it I don't see moles/day clearly indicated anywhere. You might take a look and see what you think.
Will do, which paper should I read?


Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
Depending upon where the greenhouse is located, DLI (def: mol/meter^2/day) can exceed 30; ex., > 30 mol/area^2/day.
yes, but rarely does in practice. Those giant hydroponic tomato greenhouses in arizona report 48 moles/day regularly. But they located there for that reason. I think specmeters bases their program on 30 moles/day. All their literature is geared towards this level. I have a set of the “dli 100 lightscout” light meters and you can peg them at 30 moles/day. They measure accumulation only.
Yes, ~30 mols/day is the common average in the U.S.

You use a Light Scout? From SpecMeter? Not to knock your quantum sensor, but the quantum response is pretty far from ideal. That means the data you present is useful, but is not very accurate, sorry to say.

The quantum response of the Light Scout (and Field Scout) is pretty much like that of the Lux meter (which is weighted to green/yellow), albeit the Light Scout is more like an inaccurate quantum yield curve. A PAR range quantum sensor for plants should try to not weight photons in PAR range.

Below is the quantum response of your meter, and here is a post I made about this topic with good info about ideal quantum response, plant usage of wavelengths within PAR range, etc:


Quantum Reponse of all FieldSout models:
http://www.specmeters.com/pdf/3415F%...t%20Meters.pdf








Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
I don't believe that 30 moles is the max that can be used, but i'm thinking of a light array that hits each side of the plant in flower with 30 moles at alternating times. 6 hours per side.
Sounds interesting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
PPFD:

One point about PPFD as used below, the definition of PPFD is "Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density". That is a label for the number of photons (particles of light) that hit an area of a meter squared (three-feet squared) in one second; but only photons that are within a range that best drives rate of photosynthesis (Pn), called the PAR range (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) of 400-700 nanometers. However, when one measures PPFD one does not measure the instantaneous irradiance (as umol/area^2/second) over a whole meter squared, to find PPFD. To measure PPFD (i.e., instantaneous irradiance as micromoles per area squared per second) one uses a quantum sensor, but they are only about an inch squared.

When the concept of measuring (quantifying) photons within the PAR range (per second; instantaneous) that best drives Pn, was being developed, it was (mostly) developed to be used for outdoor and greenhouse growing, when used for whole-plant application. AFAIK, the designers did not take irradiance foot-print of a horizontal lamp in a reflector into consideration, only an ideal situation of point-source light from the sun or greenhouse lamps far from the plants. Granted, the scientists who came up with PPFD used single leafs, at times, when measuring effect of irradiance on rate of photosynthesis.

The calculation of PPFD is based upon at least one big assumption: all spots (ex., plants) within the area of a meter squared get the same instantaneous irradiance. Ex., all the plants in a meter squared outside in a field the get the same 'amount' of sun light (photons; if they are no shaded); so one measurement in any spot within the meter^2 will show the PPFD of the meter^2. That means to find PPFD outdoor or in a greenhouse, one measurement is taken within a meter^2 with a quantum sensor and the assumption is made that all other areas within the meter^2 will have the same instantaneous irradiance as the original spot. Thus one measurement of a small area (about an inch or 2 squared) is used to find PPFD for a whole meter^2. But indoors under a reflector with a horizontal lamp, not all plants in a meter squared get the same 'amount' of lamp light (photons). That means using PPFD is not representative of the real-world irradiance per smaller-than-a-meter^2 area, within that meter squared. Also, the PPFD from a horizontal lamp in a reflector can't be found by just a single measurement, many measurements must be taken to account for un-even light distribution over the meter squared (and light side the meter^2).

Along with the reasons above, un-even irradiance over many areas of measurement within a meter^2 is another reason PPFD is not ideal for our use case; IMO anyway. By Definition PPFD is fixed at a meter squared, which works fine for outdoor and greenhouse growing, but indoors canopies are often smaller than 3'x3' or not shaped in a square, as well as the flaws/limits above.

What all the means, in my opinion, is using the term PPFD is not ideal, mostly because the area is fixed. I think it may be better if PPFD was not fixed in area, but required one to report the area measured for irradiance; no assumption made. So PPFD could mean umol/1"^2/second or umol/12"^2/second; as long as area is defined.

Anyway, in the post below when I write PPFD I mean "umol/any-area-^2/second"; not necessarily "umol/meter^2/second". Likewise, DLI means "mol/area^2/day"; not necessarily "mol/meter^2/day".
so, with sunlight, because of the great distance from the sun to the earth, the photon stream must appear almost as paralell and therefore nearly equal. indoors using fixed emitters close to the plant the stream must appear more like spokes of a wheel and therefore will be unequal applied to a flat surface. My meter shows that just 2” further from the light, for example, means the difference between 1500 umols and 1200 umols in free air. To me this means that foliage “penetration” indoors is all but nonexistant. We are really growing premium bud only on the periphery of the plant canopy.
Yes, agree completely. That is why I grow in a stadium style horizontal garden with big plants for a full canopy that is not deep (~12-18"). I also like to use HID with sufficient green for various reasons, one being greater reflectance into canopy for higher irradiance lower and intra-canopy. That is also why I prefer to use strong air movement and a light mover, to increase "sunfleck".

In terms of lower and intra-canopy light, blue and red have highest rate of absorptance by leafs and lowest reflection, also low transmittance. That means blue and red photons get 'used' by the top leafs (or lost a heat) and not many blue and red photons make into the lower intra-canopy (besides from sunfleck). Green photons, when top leafs are not near blue and red light saturation, are reflected at the rate of about 50% by leafs; transmittance is lower than far-red but higher than blue and red, so the other ~50% is mostly absorptance. That means lower and intra-canopy has more green photons than blue and red. Far-red light has a high degree of transmittance through leafs, and very low absorptance as well as low reflectance, so lower and intra-canopy photons (in shade) is comprised of mostly far-red photons.

Here are spectroradiometer graphs of sunlight and under-canopy sunlight:






Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
DLI is rarely found much higher than 60 mol/m^2/day outside and in a natural greenhouse.

To find a possible goal DLI for flowering cannabis I tried to mimic what would happen in nature (re PPFD bell curve and DLI), using natural PPFD bell curve found in Hawaii that provided peak PPFD of ~1,500-1,800 (because that PPFD has been studied for cannabis). I did my best to create a goal flowering DLI of ~48, using the data from Hawaii and working backwards (ex. for 12 hours) to find PPFD that is both high enough to keep Ph in the 'high' range (ex., > 1,000), and high enough but not too high, to mimic a DLI naturally found during very bright and long days (re Hawaii).

If one used 1,500 PPFD all day (ex. 12 hours, 18 hours, etc) it could be too much DLI, and hinder rate of photosynthesis and cause photoinhibition (ex., midday depression of photosynthesis, (increased) photorespiration, etc.).

Using peak PPFD of 1,500 adjusted with an average PPFD bell-curve (over the whole daylength) from a high irradiance location (ex. Hawaii on relatively cloudless day maxing out at 1,500-2,000 PPFD) to find DLI is the best method I could think of at my disposal to easily guesstimate a possible goal DLI for flowering cannabis. That is, short of using PPFD per wavelength weighted with K.McCree's quantum yield.

1,500 PPFD fits into my DLI model because that irradiance level was found to provided near peak Pn in four different studies on cannabis, with variables such as temp, Co2, etc. And IIRC > 1,000 PPFD could be considered a benchmark for high(est) Pn. However, I didn't want to use 1,500 PPFD to find DLI because IMO 1,500 PPFD is too much instantaneous irradiance for every second over greater than 12 hours. Outside there is a PPFD bell curve, it starts low, gets high, ends low; and outside peak PPFD can be found about and just above 2,000.

I wanted to try and mimic the DLI a plant like cannabis (a 'sun loving' type) could experience outside, naturally, respective to the PPFD found to provide peak Pn for cannabis. So I found a long set of spectroradiometer graphs for PPFD every X minutes over a (nearly) cloudless day in Hawaii in summer; used to find DLI of that spot in Hawaii. I used Hawaii because (a) it has very high irradiance, a good example for what cannabis likes; and (b) I have grown cannabis in Hawaii (halfway up a big mountain, when I had my med card there) and saw first hand the effect of long days and high irradiance.

I think I am making it sound more complicated than it really is, it's quite simple but I think I may be over explaining in an attempt to explain enough.

Basically it's like this:

I used a natural PPFD bell curve from high irradiance location (Hawaii) that peaked at ~1,800 PPFD around noon; about the same PPFD that offers highest rate of photosynthesis for cannabis. Then I worked backward starting with the DLI from Hawaii, using 12 hour daylength (ex., for flowering) to find PPFD. And the PPFD was > 1,000, which is kind a benchmark for high(est) Pn.

My model for flowering (12 hour day) puts DLI at 46-48 (mol/area^2/day); that is achieved using ~1,000-1,100 umol/area^2/second (specifically ~1,065 to ~1,111 umol/area^2/second).

However, in reality most grow rooms will not provide over 1,000-1,100 umol/area^2/second to any plant; unless there is for example one small plant below a good lamp/reflector. For example, under a Blockbuster 8", with 1,000 watt Digilux HPS and Galaxy select-a-watt set to 'super lumens' (supposed to be 10% increase in radiance from 1,000 watt) -- with an Equalizer hot-spot diffuser -- the peak irradiance under about plumb center of lamp (while keeping irradiance high at the range of 3'x3') is ~920-975 umol/6"^2/second (10 second average to account for lamp flicker).

Most grow rooms will probably provide somewhere around 40-44 mol/area^2/day for flowering; those that are 'bright'. Very well designed rooms, esp. with respect to canopy size relative to size of reflector and light mover, can have over 50 mol/area^2/day for 12 hours.
I gotcha. I use my lights in flower with cooltubes and I can get 1500 umols at 12” but of course that is only part of the plant.
Yea, same here. But if I want to irradiate a larger canopy area I need to use lower peak irradiance.



Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
There are no studies looking at DLI for cannabis, AFAIK. DLI depends upon hours per day and PPFD. However, there are many studies looking at ideal PPFD* for cannabis. We could take the ideal PPFD for cannabis, ~1,500, and simply use that to find DLI for a plant providing 1,500 PPFD all day, but if we did that we would be over-saturating the plant with photons over the whole day, and in turn, cause photoinhibition.
my thinking exactly. I'm wondering whether the 30 moles per side at the closest point of foliage that I described above can deliver 60 moles/day to the whole plant without causing inhibition. This also has me thinking about how photosynthate partitioning will work in this scenario. I'm wondering whether there is a threshold of light that turns a plant part into a producer instead of a sink. Say 2-300 umols or more. Could you provide links to the studies showing ideal ppfd? I have dr el sohly's.
Yea, I have posted them in the 24 light thread, I'll find the post and put it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurr
Considering once PPFD (for cannabis) drops below ~1,000 the rate of photosynthesis (Pn) drops a bit, using at least ~1,000 PPFD all day seems to be a good (max?) goal. I think using ~1,000 to ~1,200 PPFD all day is good (max?) goal. I plan to test that DLI on Pn and net rate of photosynthesis (Pnnet), etc., for cannabis this coming year.
I think I can determine the approx max dli relative to my own light and plant arrangement by using the drip rate of my system. As photosynthesis rolls off I should get a noticeable decrease in drip rate. I'll have a test plant set up for this soon.
Thank you for your thoughts and all the number crunching, it all helps.

d9
No worries, you have an interesting game plan, keep us updated.

Last edited by spurr; 06-23-2011 at 06:07 PM.. Reason: typo: meant "photo-adaptation", not "photo-adaption"
spurr jest offline   Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-23-2011, 07:19 PM   #13
Phaeton
Member
 
Phaeton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Interior Alaska
Posts: 631
Phaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud of
Wink

I do not have the background to work numbers correctly, but have an intuitive grasp of what is going on, I think.

Even light over the canopy is attempted by using 7 HID's in a hex pattern. 23" lowbay white reflectors spaced 26" apart (3" between edges). Plants are 16" from lights. HPS was killing my chlorophyll and got banned six years ago, red HID (3), blue HID (2), and ceramic HID (2). All 400 watt inside a reflectix cyllinder 7' across.


I found green HID's but do not have room to hang them, since the lower leaves are the ones to normally get green light, would bottom lighting with green be a silly idea or might it help?
Phaeton jest offline   Quote


Old 06-23-2011, 08:09 PM   #14
spurr
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: http://www.scirus.com/ & http://www.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Posts: 2,430
spurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant futurespurr has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaeton View Post
I do not have the background to work numbers correctly, but have an intuitive grasp of what is going on, I think.

Even light over the canopy is attempted by using 7 HID's in a hex pattern. 23" lowbay white reflectors spaced 26" apart (3" between edges). Plants are 16" from lights. HPS was killing my chlorophyll and got banned six years ago, red HID (3), blue HID (2), and ceramic HID (2). All 400 watt inside a reflectix cyllinder 7' across.


I found green HID's but do not have room to hang them, since the lower leaves are the ones to normally get green light, would bottom lighting with green be a silly idea or might it help?
Bottom lighting of green light would help, but bottom lighting of red and blue light would probably help more.

I'm curious what you mean by "since the lower leaves are the ones to normally get green light". Why do you suggest lower leafs get more green light?

I suggested red light to increase the red:far-red ratio intra-canopy closer to 1 than 0.1. I suggested blue light beuase old leafs tend to use blue light as well, or better than red light, for photosynthesis.

I am also curious what you mean by 'red, blue and green HID', I assume you mean with respect to SPD. Correct?
spurr jest offline   Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-24-2011, 08:41 PM   #15
Phaeton
Member
 
Phaeton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Interior Alaska
Posts: 631
Phaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud of
Wink

All my HID have that blue mercury streak, but otherwise:

red is 590 nm, looks pinkish than red. EDIT: PlusRite put violet in with 590 YELLOW so it looks pink to my eye and they called it red, 590 is yellow, prisms don't lie, no actual red, the blue HID's have more red than the red ones. Darn.
blue is 450 nm, very similar to 420/460 nm T5 aquarium lights I also have.
green is available at 535 nm.
rated for 5000 hours, have only reached 2300 hours, so far so good.

I did say the inner leaves normally got more green light, that was an assumption on my part. My green sensitive eyes see the green bouncing all through the plant when I stick my head inside the canopy, I took the answer I would like to work 'cause I'm itching to get some green HID but need some justification.

And since my red has some blue it is the logical choice from the information I now have, the green will wait for another time. Thanks for the input.

Last edited by Phaeton; 06-30-2011 at 12:01 AM.. Reason: see above
Phaeton jest offline   Quote


Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Click for Weed Seed Shop

This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.