7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Investigating how nitrogen nutrition and pruning impacts on CBD and THC concentration and plant biomass of Cannabis sativa

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Precise crop fertilization requires an in-depth understanding of plant uptake and utilisation to optimise sustainable production. This study investigated the influence of nitrogen (N) nutrition and pruning on the cannabinoid concentrations and biomass of a commercial cannabis cultivar; the rationale for this study is how N supply and pruning affect cannabinoid yields and concentration in a commercial setting. Clones of a Cannabis sativa L. (CBD-type) were grown in a controlled-environment glasshouse in pots with coarse sand. After five weeks of vegetative growth under 210 mg/L N and an 18 h light regime, rates of 30, 60, 210, and 500 mg/L N were applied to plants for twelve weeks and a light regime set at 12 h. Double stem pruning was applied as an additional treatment to investigate efficacy on biomass increase. Biomass, N concentrations, and cannabinoid concentrations were measured after the final harvest. Pruning treatment did not increase cannabinoid concentrations or affect biomass. It was coincidentally found that plants on the glasshouse edge with higher exposure to sunlight developed more biomass and higher cannabinoid concentrations. Only biomass in leaves was increased significantly via higher nitrogen nutrition. Cannabinoid concentration, as well as cannabinoid yield per plant were decreased with the increase in N supply. High rates of fertilizer are not recommended because of reduced cannabinoid concentration and biomass yield: the ideal N supply is likely to be between 60 and 210 mg/L. This research will benefit growers and advisors in understanding the complexity of effects of nitrogen fertiliser and pruning practices on plant biomass and secondary metabolite production in medicinal cannabis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Dilemma of Plants: To Grow or Defend

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses.

            Several hypotheses, mainly Optimal Defense (OD), Carbon: Nutrient Balance (CNB), Growth Rate (GR), and Growth-Differentiation Balance (GDB), have individually served as frameworks for investigating the patterns of plant defense against herbivores, in particular the pattern of constitutive defense. The predictions and tests of these hypotheses have been problematic for a variety of reasons and have led to considerable confusion about the state of the "theory of plant defense." The primary contribution of the OD hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of genotypic expression of plant defense, with the emphasis on allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the CNB hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of how resources affect phenotypic expression of plant defense, often with studies concerned about allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the GR hypothesis is that it explains how intrinsic growth rate of plants shaped evolutionarily by resource availability affects defensive patterns. The primary contribution of the expanded GDB hypothesis is that it recognizes the constant physiological tradeoff between growth and differentiation at the cellular and tissue levels relative to the selective pressures of resource availability, including explicitly taking into account plant tolerance of damage by enemies. A clearer understanding of these hypotheses and what we have learned from investigations that use them can facilitate development of well-designed experiments that address the gaps in our knowledge of plant defense.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited.

              The case for preferring analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to the simple analysis of change scores (SACS) has often been made. Nevertheless, claims continue to be made that analysis of covariance is biased if the groups are not equal at baseline. If the required equality were in expectation only, this would permit the use of ANCOVA in randomized clinical trials but not in observational studies. The discussion is related to Lord's paradox. In this note, it is shown, however that it is not a necessary condition for groups to be equal at baseline, not even in expectation, for ANCOVA to provide unbiased estimates of treatment effects. It is also shown that although many situations can be envisaged where ANCOVA is biased it is very difficult to imagine circumstances under which SACS would then be unbiased and a causal interpretation could be made. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                enrico.dilena@utas.edu.au
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                9 November 2023
                9 November 2023
                2023
                : 13
                : 19533
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture (TIA), University of Tasmania, ( https://ror.org/01nfmeh72) Life Sciences Building, Level 2, College Rd, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005 Australia
                [2 ]Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, ( https://ror.org/01nfmeh72) Private Bag 1375, Prospect, TAS 7250 Australia
                Article
                46369
                10.1038/s41598-023-46369-5
                10636206
                37945596
                a5376ee8-ab47-4f52-924e-b9f7ad41528b
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 4 April 2023
                : 31 October 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001249, University of Tasmania;
                Funded by: Martha Jane Medical
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Limited 2023

                Uncategorized
                plant sciences,chemistry
                Uncategorized
                plant sciences, chemistry

                Comments

                Comment on this article