Abstract
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) can be used as an energy efficient alternative to high-pressure sodium (HPS), which have historically been the standard for supplemental lighting in cannabis cultivation. However, there is a lack of scientific understanding in the cannabis industry regarding plant physiology, which has resulted in the adoption of cannabis cultivation methods based on hearsay rather than scientific research. The goals of this study were to 1) compare LED lighting options that are commonly used in the cannabis industry and 2) compare the top performing LED light with an industry standard HPS light. Specifically, three LED lights were compared (California Light Works ((SolarSystem 1100), BIOS Lighting (Icarus Gi2), and Fluence Bioengineering (now Fluence by Osram) (SPYDR xPLUS)), based on light distribution, leaf temperature, and photosynthetic performance indices. The LED versus HPS comparison was based on light response curves measured at photosynthetic photon flux densities (PPFD) of (0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750 and 2000 μmol∙m−2∙s−1), carbon assimilation rates (A) μmol CO2 m−2∙s−1 using a LiCor-6800 and resulting cannabinoid potency (THCA). The SPYDR xPLUS-Fluence by Osram had the highest performing LED light used in the LED comparison. At the suggested distance from bulb to canopy in the HPS versus LED comparison (6 inches for LEDs and 4 ft for HPS), carbon assimilation rates displayed a 142% percent increase in plants grown under LED vs. HPS with average photon flux densities of 795 and 298 μmol∙m−2∙s−1 for LED and HPS, respectively. All cultivars of Cannabis sativa L. showed increased cannabinoid potency when grown under LED illumination. The results of this study provide further insight regarding the selection of supplemental light to achieve maximum productivity of Cannabis sativa L.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
SPYDR xPLUS-Fluence by Osram was the highest performing LED in the LED comparison.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativat0 - Treatment
- SPYDR xPLUS-Fluence by Osrame0
- Outcome
- highest performing LED lighte0
- Direction
- highest performinge0
Not reportedMaterial
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SPYDR xPLUS-Fluence by Osram had the highest performing LED light used in the LED comparison.”
t0“Cannabis sativa”
Claim · model-written summary
Cannabis under LED showed a 142% increase in carbon assimilation compared with HPS at the suggested lamp distances.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDe0
- Outcome
- carbon assimilation ratese0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 142%e0
- Qualifier
- 6 inches for LEDs and 4 ft for HPSe0
- Comparator
- HPSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the suggested distance from bulb to canopy in the HPS versus LED comparison (6 inches for LEDs and 4 ft for HPS), carbon assimilation rates displayed a 142% percent increase in plants grown under LED vs. HPS with average photon flux densities of 795 and 298 μmol∙m−2∙s−1 for LED and HPS, respectively.”
t0“Cannabis sativa”
Claim · model-written summary
All cannabis cultivars had increased cannabinoid potency under LED illumination.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa L.Cannabis sativae0
- Material
- All cultivarse0
- Treatment
- LED illuminatione0
- Outcome
- cannabinoid potencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All cultivars of Cannabis sativa L. showed increased cannabinoid potency when grown under LED illumination.”
The same questions in other papers
light · physiology: photosynthesis · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · molecular: metabolites · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.