Keep Your Grow Room at Optimal TemperaturePrior to LED lights being used in indoor gardens, HPS light bulbs were the most common type of lighting systems. While they gave plants a source of light, they did so while emitting high heat levels and consuming high levels of electricity. HPS bulbs had to be placed far from the plant ́s leaves, as their excessive heat dried the air (increased transpiration) and could have burn any crop if placed in proximity. Once it was discovered that LEDs could produce a broad light spectrum without excessive heat emissions and significantly lower energy consumption, the choice was clear. While each plant has a slightly different optimal temperature, it is usually recommended to keep the grow room at a range between 82-85 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 28 to 30 degrees Celsius). This optimizes the metabolic processes of the plants and enables them to grow faster and stronger.
Place Your LEDs at an Appropriate DistanceMost LEDs carry no optics and pay less attention to distribution and uniformity what force growers to place them closer to the surface of their plants. However, Fotonica’s EVA 3 lighting system smart technology leaves ample room for growers to work and tend to their plants and still keep high intensity uniformly delivered with no heat effects on plant canopy. EVA 3’s smooth surface bars are designed to avoid any interference with airflow, dust and/or humidity allow for easy cleaning. The heat produced by the LED system is discharged through an active cooling system (fans) occupied with convertible filters to avoid any clogging. The system also includes integrated sensors monitoring the functionality and alert the growers in case of required maintenance (fans and burned diode).
Let Your Plants RestWhile some LED systems can be safely operated 24/7, plants require dark time as much as they need light. In nature, the day and night provide this necessary balance, which must be replicated with the help of timers or other intelligent systems. It is recommended to provide a constant period of light for 16-20 hours per day, although the optimal time varies from plant to plant and phenological stage.. Some plants (e.g. short day plants) in the process of flowering may require as little as 12 hours of light every day, in order to trigger their flowering biochemical processes. Traditional timers can provide some control but when scale is high and growers are busy, it becomes a bother and time consuming to run them manually. Fotonica offers Command & Control software which allows growers to effortlessly manage an unlimited amount of units across different geographies through wireless and BT connectivity via Tablet and/or Mobile application.
Initial results from Fotonica™, EVA3™ POC on cannabis, taken from around the US and Canada chosen cultivation companies are starting to appear and results are very positive, demonstrating very clearly the superiority of our technology. Our system gives the users full control over all light parameters inclusive of intensity, spectrum and other light parameters throughout all growth stages .
There are several benefits of having these flexibilities. In order to match the plant biological requirements an equation of three elements should be carefully created: Light intensity X Light spectrum X Light distribution. Only when the right combination of these three is created a guarantee for best cultivation results will be generated:
- Light intensity – Cannabis is known to be a plant with high light energy demand. Biomass yield increases linearly with light intensity up to at least 1500 μmol/s, yet one need to remember that this level of intensity is not necessarily economic (diminishing marginal utility) and the fact indoor conditions are accelerated to optimum (e.g. CO2 enrichment 700 – 750 ppm) reaching this high intensity may cause photosynthetic saturation. EVA3™ system is able to exceed 1,400 μmol/s and that is from 1.5 m high!
- Light spectrum – spectrum demand is changing along the growth. In practice it is known that at vegetative stage plant would favor higher portion of the blue wavelengths and during flowering the red wavelengths, however there is much more into it as the balance may influence the cannabinoids production, plant architecture and other plant functions. EVA3™ is occupied with 11 adjustable wavelengths including some unique ones like UVB, UVA, FR and IR.
- Light distribution – after building the right intensity with the right spectrum we need to make sure these precious photons will reach the right place. Lighting the walls and/or the pathways between the tables will not serve our plants. Our EVA3™ system guarantee 1,100 PPFD, thanks to special lenses to focus the light where it’s needed!
This flexibility is also beneficial in terms of cultivation practices: Reduction in energy consumption; better utilization of the growing space (possible dismissal of the two rooms practice); Reduction in human resources needs and overall higher biomass with higher cannabinoids content.
During 2019, Fotonica™ engaged with several leading cultivation facilities in north America in order to demonstrate its EVA3™ superiority over the current conventional lighting fixtures in use LED or bulb based (MH/HPS).
In Canada, Ontario site, several LED fixtures were compared to the EVA3™ system. We tested in demo plots our light recipes with and without the addition of UVB (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Dry weight flower per plant; Fotonica POC, Ontario. CA Oct. 2019
Results for the EVA3™ were higher than most fixtures and this is even more tremendous, when it supplied between 41.6 – 44.6% less intensity compared with the other fixtures (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Light intensity on area expressed by PPFD from 24”; Fotonica POC, Ontario, CA, Oct. 2019
Results demonstrated higher photon efficacy with the EVA3™ and better production than most of the other LED fixtures and that’s with roughly half of the intensity (Fig. 3). The results of efficacy support the claim of better light spectrum with the EVA3™ compared with the fixed spectrum of all other light fixtures. Measurements taken for the growing bed on similar density showed the EVA3™ generated better results through higher flowers biomass (Fig. 4). With the same density and rack position EVA3™showed up to 37.7% more yield per sqft.
Fig. 3. Light efficacy expressed by productivity per photon; Fotonica POC, Ontario. CA Oct. 2019
Fig. 4. Dry weight flower per sqft ; Fotonica POC, Ontario. CA Oct. 2019
On another site located in Washington State, USA, performance was evaluated for cannabinoids production in four different varieties characterized as high THC varieties. The EVA3™ technology was compared to the best practice used by this cultivator with MH/HPS lights. Results in this demo plot were evaluated for both biomass productivity and secondary metabolites content. Similar in this plot, flower biomass generated by the EVA3™ system using our adjusted light spectrum, generated in our favor higher biomass in all four varieties (Fig. 5). The more dramatic effect was seen on the content of secondary metabolites: THC and Terpenes that were tested in this trial.
Fig. 5. Dry weight flower differences on 4 high THC varieties between MH/HPS and EVA3™ light; Fotonica POC, Washington State. USA Oct. 2019
Almost all four varieties showed a dramatic increase on THC (Fig. 6 & 7) with the EVA3™ and increase in all four varieties for Terpenes (Fig. 8 & 9). In one of the varieties named ‘AS’ THC levels were inferior with our fixture yet what may have caused this was too early harvesting timing. CBGA levels were tested. CBGA being the “mother”molecule for THCA later on converted to Δ9-THC was found to be higher on our treatment by 7% with 1.37 % compared to 1.28 %. This may explain that a delayed harvesting timing could have contributed to generation of higher THC levels in our treatment.
Fig. 6. THC content in 4 high THC varieties as effected by different lighting fixtures; Fotonica POC, Washington State. USA Oct. 2019
Fig. 7. THC levels difference between different lighting fixtures in 4 high THC varieties; Fotonica POC, Washington State. USA Oct. 2019
Fig. 8. Terpenes content in 4 high THC varieties as effected by different lighting fixtures; Fotonica POC, Washington State. USA Oct. 2019
Fig. 9. Terpenes difference between different lighting fixtures in 4 high THC varieties; Fotonica POC, Washington State. USA Oct. 2019
Fotonica™ philosophy is wrapped in the term ‘Bio illumination™’. We aim to revolutionize the lighting market! this is leaning on profound knowledge of electronics, optics communication and IT technologies combined with deep know-how and understanding of plant biology.
If you aim to squeeze much more from your plant don’t compromise on less, ‘Unleash your plants potential’ maximize your profitability, join our revolution, the Fotonica revolution!
Cannabis Sativa, constitute an important source of pharmaceuticals and other compounds of economic importance. These compounds are secondary metabolites (cannabinoids) and are species specific. Although the biosynthetic pathway of the major cannabinoids has been established (Mechoulam, 1970; Shoyama et al., 1984), the regulation of cannabinoid production remains unsolved. Some researchers claimed that cannabinoid production is genetically controlled and uninfluenced by environmental factors (Doorenbos et al., 1971; Fetterman et al., 1971) while other studies indicate that although the primary control appears to be genetic, cannabinoid production can be modified by environmental conditions (Haney and Kutscheid, 1973; Latta and Eaton, 1975; Turner et al., 1982).
It has been reported long ago that relationship exists between cannabinoid content and the
altitude at which C. sativa is grown. Mobark et al (1978) suggested that the high-altitude environment was responsible for an increased production of propyl cannabinoids in plants grown at 1300 m. Another report showed the average total cannabinoid content of wild, mature (flowering) Indian C. sativa from different elevations between 250 – 2000 m was decreased when grown at sea level in Mississippi, USA (Turner et al., 1979). A possible explanation is that high elevation means lesser atmosphere between the cannabis plants and the sun, leading to a higher exposure to UV rays.
One factor which appears in both high-altitude and tropical environments is relatively higher ultraviolet radiation. Wavelengths of light that are shorter than the PAR spectrum (<400 nm) radiation, have limited effect on photosynthesis; however, discrete photomorphogenic effects are observed when UV-B (290–315 nm) sensing systems are triggered (Frohnmeyer and Staiger, 2003; Folta and Carvalho, 2015). Measurements made in Utah showed that the biologically effective ultraviolet-B radiation flux UV-BBE (280-315 nm), showed an overall plant response functions greater by 32% at height of 3,350 m compared to 1500 m (Caldwell et al., 1980). Latitudinal variations of solar UV-B radiation are also considerable.
Figure 1. light wavelength spectrum
Although UV-B represents a threat to plant integrity in large quantities (Teramura, 1983), smaller quantities of UV-B have important benefits such as promoting pest resistance, increasing flavonoid accumulation, improving photosynthetic efficiency, and serving as an indicator of direct sunlight and sunflecks (Ballaré et al., 2012; Wargent and Jordan, 2013; Zoratti et al., 2014; Moriconi et al., 2018). Tolerance to UV-B radiation in some plants has been attributed to their ability to produce secondary metabolites, such as flavonoids, which absorb and prevent actinic UV-B radiation from penetrating plant tissues (Caldwell et al., 1983; Flint et al., 1985). Cannabinoids which are found in a fresh plant tissue appear in the form of acids (Doorenbos et al., 1971) and are found to strongly absorb UVB radiation, making these compounds likely candidates as solar screens.
Another support was given by Pate (1983) that found that C. sativa populations originating from high UV-B environments contained little or no cannabidiol (CBD) but high levels of Δ9 tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), and the opposite was found for populations from low UV-B environments, and proposed that the two distinct C. sativa chemotypes (drug and fiber) evolved as a result of selective pressures brought about by UV-B radiation. Other research found that in both leaf and floral tissues the concentration of Δ9-THC but not of other cannabinoids increased linearly with UV-B exposure in drug-type Cannabis sativa plants, but not in fiber type plants of the same species. UV-B light reportedly elicits THC accumulation in both leaves and buds (Pate, 1983; Lydon et al., 1987; Potter and Duncombe, 2012).
Figure 2. UV-B lamp emphasizing light appearance
- Recent research shows that plants sense UV-B radiation in at least four different ways:
Photogeneration of reactive oxygen species (ROS) – sensing is performed by the plant different photochemical processes – ROS are metabolic products that regulate plant growth, development and survival under fluctuating conditions (abiotic and biotic stress-related events). (A.-H.-Mackerness and coworkers, 2000).
- Photodamage to DNA (nucleotide dimer formation) – the damage starts a signaling pathway (Beggs et al. 1994) The UV effect is counteracted by visible light which allowed photo repair of DNA.
- UVR8 – specific UV-B receptor with maximum absorption in the 280–290 nm range – requires a low fluence rate for signal transduction (Brown B. A, Jenkins G.I 2008). of at least 0.1 μmol m−2 s−1 for signal transduction
- Another specific UV-B receptor with maximum absorption in the 300–310 nm range – requires an approximately tenfold higher fluence rate than the previous receptor for signal transduction
UV-B responses can also be modulated by a UVR8-independent signal and UV-A radiation, since plants’ responses to UV-B light are regulated by both UVR8-dependent and -independent pathways (Morales et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015; Jenkins, 2017).
UVR8 – major photoreceptor
The UVR8 UV-B photoreceptor exists as a homodimer (combination of two mirror-image structural proteins) that instantly monomerizes (splits) upon UV-B absorption. The UVR8 monomer than reacts with other molecule (COP1) initiating a molecular signaling pathway that leads to gene expression changes. This signaling output leads to UVR8-dependent responses including UV-B-induced photomorphogenesis and the accumulation of UV-B-absorbing flavanols. Many suggestions on the pathway exist yet to be proved:
Secondary metabolites & Biosynthesis pathway
Secondary plant metabolites such as carotenoids, flavonoids, and anthocyanins accumulate in plant cells and leaves as light-screening compounds to limit damage caused by high light intensity and UV radiation (Takahashi and Badger, 2011; Darko et al., 2014). Secondary metabolites biological synthesis can be triggered by several environmental factors: as stress response to protect the plant from possible attack of herbivory or parasites in a wounded tissue; UV-B radiation as they may have a sun screening effect that protects cells from the radiation. This would be especially likely if the metabolites are concentrated in the epidermis or other superficial tissues. cannabinoids are synthesized in secretory cells inside glandular trichomes, which are highly concentrated in unfertilized female flowers before senescence (Potter, 2004, 2009). Lydon et al. (1987) reported increased THC concentrations in leaves and buds when cannabis plants were grown with supplemental UV-B radiation of 3 h daily, suggesting that cannabinoids may play some role in UV protection.
The biosynthetic pathway of cannabinoid synthesis is shown below. It is not known which enzyme or enzymes for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol biosynthesis are induced or stimulated by UV-B radiation, but one can speculate. The gene for polyketide synthase catalyzing the synthesis of olivetolic acid possesses strong sequence homology with chalcone synthase (CHS) and may have evolved from this. Chalcone synthase (CHS) is one of the classic UV-B-regulated enzymes.
Figure 3. Biosynthetic pathway of cannabinoids
Many other suggestions on the pathway exist yet to be proved:
- UV stress stimulates cannabis’ production of malonyl-CoA and phenylalanine via the phenylpropanoid pathway. Cannabis uses malonyl-CoA to make Olivtol, which is then used to produce THC.
- When UVR8 protein photoreceptor splits apart. It is attracted to the gene plastids in the leucoplasts of the glandular trichomes, there it stimulates production via the MEP pathway for terpene synthesis and the polyketide pathway, specifically malonyl-CoA. MEP pathway is used the synthesis of geranyl diphosphate (GPP) and malonyl-CoA in the polyketide pathway to make olivetolic acid (OLA). This reaction is catalyzed by polyketide synthase (PKS) enzyme and an olivetolic acid cyclase (OAC). The geranylpyrophosphate-olivetolate geranyltransferase catalyzes the alkylation of OLA with GPP leading to the formation of CBGA, the central precursor of various cannabinoids.
- Other claims are made stating UVB is the genetic activating frequency of light that stimulates the production of these compounds in the colorless, non-photosynthesis leucoplasts of the disc cells at the base of the trichome reservoir. This triggering create the chemical pathway for enzymatic conversion of acid forms into active forms (THCA to THC).
Figure 4. Cannabinoids complete pathway
Some claims exist that the increase in THC levels after exposure to UV-B is contributed by the additional trichomes produced. The trichomes contain THC so increasing these structures will obviously lead indirectly to higher THC levels. Other claims the trichomes serve as physical barrier and can block harmful UV-B rays from reaching the sensitive photosynthetic tissues of the leaves. Trichomes are thought to function as “sunblock” for plants.
Figure 5. Cannabis glandular trichomes closeup
The glandular trichomes type produce and store large amounts of cannabis resin. Female plants are particularly rich in glandular trichomes. Within the glandular trichomes three types can be described:
- Bulbous trichomes – 15-30 µm, no production of cannabinoids or terpenes.
- Capitate-sessile trichomes – 25-100 µm, globular-shaped head, occur on stems, leaves, and bracts, produce relatively lower levels of cannabinoids throughout the plant’s life cycle.
- Capitate-stalked trichomes – 150-500 µm, tiny mushroom shape, primary source of the cannabinoids, terpenes, and other plants oils, develop only after flower formation, occur especially on the bracts subtending a flower and seed.
Some perspective: human hair is roughly 75 µm and red blood cell is approximately 5 µm.
High-THC strains also have larger glandular trichomes compared to low-THC strains (Small, E. & Naraine, S.G.U, 2016). The heads of glandular trichomes in high-THC strains are four times larger in diameter than that of low-THC strains (Small, E. & Naraine, S.G.U, 2016). In other plants (tomato) it was found that increase of the light intensity (Nihoul, P, 1993) and/or day length (Gianfagna, T. J. et al 1992) (mint) increases trichome head diameter and trichome density respectively. In other plants (olive, mustard), high levels of UV-B light were strongly correlated with trichome density and terpene content (Liakoura, V. et al. 1997; Yan, A. et al 2012).
We in Fotonica™ acknowledge and agree with the high importance of the complete range of light spectrum even those wavelengths which exceeds the PAR range, the above review is supporting the essence of providing the UV-B wavelength. The DLED™ system (Dynamic Light Emitting Diode) in our EVA3™ gives the decision makers the possibility to involve timely exposure to UV-B for the increase of THC levels with avoidance of the harmful effects of overexposure.
Unleashing plant’s potential means taking the productivity efficiency to its maximum cost-effective point, increasing the cultivator profitability through control and confidence. This can only be achieved through superior lighting technologies such as the EVA3™.
- Mechoulam, R. (1970) Marijuana chemistry. Science 168, 1159-1166.
- Shoyama, Y . , H. Hirano and I. Nishioka (1984) Biosynthesis of propyl cannabinoid acid and its biosynthetic relationship with phenyl and methyl cannabinoid acids. Phytochemistry 23, 1909- 1912
- Doorenbos, N. J., P. S. Fetterman, M. M. Quimby and C. E. Turner (1971) Cultivation, extraction and analysis of Cannabis sativa L. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 191, 3-12.
- Fetterman, P. S., E. S. Keith, C. W. Waller, 0. Guerrero, N. J. Doorenbos and M. M. Quimby (1971) Mississippi- grown Cannabis sariva L.: Preliminary observations on chemical definition of phenotype and variations in tetrahydrocannabinol content versus age, sex and plant part. J. Pharm. Sci. 60. 12461249.
- Haney, A. and B. B. Kutscheid (1973) Quantitative variations in the chemical constituents of marihuana from stands of naturalized Cannabis sativa L. in East central Illinois. Econ. Bot. 27, 193-203.
- Latta, R. P. and B. J. Eaton (1975) Season fluctuations in cannabinoid content of Kansas marijuana. Econ. Bot. 29, 153-166.
- Turner, C. E., H. N. Elsohly and G. S. Lewis (1982) Constituents of Cannabis sativa L., : The cannabinoid content of Mexican variants grown in Mexico and in Mississippi, United States of America. Bull. Narc. 34, 45-59.
- Mobark, Z . , D. Bieniek and F. Korte (1978) Some chromatographic aspects of hashish analysis. 11. Forensic Sci. 11, 189-193.
- Turner, C. E., P. C. Cheng, G. S. Lewis, M. H. Russell and G. K. Sharma (1979) Constituents of Cannabis sativa XV: Botanical and chemical profile of Indian variants. Planta Med. 37, 217-225
- Frohnmeyer, H., and Staiger, D. (2003). Ultraviolet-B radiation-mediated responses in plants. Balancing damage and protection. Plant Physiol. 133, 1420–1428. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.030049
- Folta, K. M., and Carvalho, S. D. (2015). Photoreceptors and control of horticultural plant traits. HortSci. 50, 1274–1280. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.50.9.1274
- Caldwell, M. M., R. Robberecht and W. D. Billings (1980) A steep latitudinal gradient of solar ultraviolet- B radiation in the arctic-alpine life zone. Ecology 61. 600-611.
- Teramura, A. H. (1983) Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth and yield of crop plants. Physiol. Plant. 58. 415427.
- Ballaré, C. L., Mazza, C. A., Austin, A. T., and Pierik, R. (2012). Canopy light and plant health. Plant Physiol. 160, 145–155. doi: 10.1104/pp.112.200733
- Wargent, J. J., and Jordan, B. R. (2013). From ozone depletion to agriculture: understanding the role of UV radiation in sustainable crop production. New Phytol. 197, 1058–1076. doi: 10.1111/nph.12132
- Zoratti, L., Karppinen, K., Luengo Escobar, A., Häggman, H., and Jaakola, L. (2014). Light-controlled flavonoid biosynthesis in fruits. Front. Plant Sci. 5:534. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00534
- Moriconi, V., Binkert, M., Rojas, M. C. C., Sellaro, R., Ulm, R., and Casal, J. J. (2018). Perception of sunflecks by the UV-B photoreceptor UV RESISTANCE LOCUS 8. Plant Physiol. 177, 75–81. doi: 10.1104/pp.18.00048
- Caldwell, M. M., R. Robberecht and D. Flint (1983) Internal filters: Prospects for UV-acclimation in higher plants. Physiol. Plant. 58, 445-450.
- Flint, S. D., P. W. Jordan and M. M. Caldwell (1985) Plant protective response to enhanced UV-B radiation under field conditions: Leaf optical properties and photosynthesis. Photochem. Photobiol. 41, 95-99.
- Pate, D. W. (1983). Possible role of ultraviolet radiation in evolution of Cannabis chemotypes. Econ. Bot. 37, 396. doi: 10.1007/BF02904200
- Lydon, J., Teramura, A. H., and Coffman, C. B. (1987). UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes. Photochem. Photobiol. 46, 201–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987. tb04757x.
- Potter, D. J., and Duncombe, P. (2012). The effect of electrical lighting power and irradiance on indoor-grown cannabis potency and yield. J. Forensic Sci. 57, 618–622. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011. 02024.x
- A.-H.-Mackerness (2000) S. Plant Growth Regul; 32:27.
- A.-H.-Mackerness S, Surplus SL, Blake P, John CF, Buchanan-Wollaston V, Jordan BR, et al. (1999) Plant Cell Environ ;22:1413.
- A.-H.-Mackerness S, John CF, Jordan B, Thomas B. (2001) FEBS Lett;489:237.
- Beggs CJ, Jehle AS, Wellmann E. (1985) Plant Physiol ;79:630.
- Beggs CJ, Wellmann E. (1994) Photocontrol of flavonoid biosynthesis. In: Kendrick KE, Kronenberg GHM, editors. Photomorphogenesis in Plants. 2nd ed. Kluwer Acad. Publ. p. 733.
- Brown BA, Jenkins GI. (2008) Plant Physiol; 146:576.
- Jenkins, G. I. (2017). Photomorphogenic responses to ultraviolet-B light. Plant Cell Environ. 40, 2544–2557. doi: 10.1111/pce.12934
- Li, N., Teranishi, M., Yamaguchi, H., Matsushita, T., Watahiki, M. K., Tsuge, T., et al. (2015). UV-B-induced CPD photolyase gene expression is regulated by UVR8-dependent and-independent pathways in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 56, 2014–2023. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcv121
- Morales, L. O., Brosché, M., Vainonen, J., Jenkins, G. I., Wargent, J. J., Sipari, N., et al. (2013). Multiple roles for UV RESISTANCE LOCUS8 in regulating gene expression and metabolite accumulation in Arabidopsis under solar ultraviolet radiation. Plant Physiol. 161, 744–759. doi: 10.1104/pp.112.211375
- Takahashi, S., and Badger, M. R. (2011). Photoprotection in plants: a new light on photosystem II damage. Trends Plant Sci. 16, 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j. t plants.2010.10.001
- Darko, E., Heydarizadeh, P., Schoefs, B., and Sabzalian, M. R. (2014). Photosynthesis under artificial light: the shift in primary and secondary metabolism. Philos.Trans. R. Soc. B 369:20130243. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0243
- Potter, D. (2004). “Growth and morphology of medicinal cannabis” in the medicinal uses of Cannabis and cannabinoids. eds. G. Guy, B. A. Whittle and P. Robson (London: Pharmaceutical Press), 17–54.
- Potter, D. (2009). The propagation, characterisation and optimisation of Cannabis sativa L as a phytopharmaceutical. Ph.D. dissertation. King’s College London.
- Lydon, J., Teramura, A. H., and Coffman, C. B. (1987). UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes. Photochem. Photobiol. 46, 201–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987. tb04757.x
- Small, E. & Naraine, S. G. U. (2016) Size matters: evolution of large drug-secreting resin glands in elite pharmaceutical strains of Cannabis sativa (marijuana). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 63, 349–359.
- Nihoul, P. (1993) Do light intensity, temperature and photoperiod affect the entrapment of mites on glandular hairs of cultivated tomatoes? Exp. Appl. Acarol. 17, 709–718.
- Gianfagna, T. J. et al. (1992) Temperature and Photoperiod Influence Trichome Density and Sesquiterpene Content of Lycopersicon hirsutum f. hirsutum. 100, 1403–1405.
- Liakoura, V., Stefanou, M., Manetas, Y., Cholevas, C. & Karabourniotis, G. (1997) Trichome density and its UV-B protective potential are affected by shading and leaf position on the canopy.
- Yan, A., Pan, J., An, L., Gan, Y. & Feng, H. (2012) The responses of trichome mutants to enhanced ultraviolet-B radiation in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B B
Cultivating Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae) differs from other horticultural plants by the end product that is harvested. The total yield is inspected not only by its weight of the flowers but also by the chemical composition. Different cannabis chemotypes contain numerous chemical compounds, such as cannabinoids, which are known to exert various pharmacological effects.
Morphology and cannabinoid profile are dependent on genetic and environmental factors. For a medicinal cannabis producer, a consistent yield and production of a specific cannabinoid compounds or a ratio between the different cannabinoids throughout the canopy and between growth cycles is important. The solution lies in moving from greenhouses (outdoor) to indoors, controlled environments there, it is possible to adjust temperature, humidity, light intensity, light spectrum, air CO2 concentration and pest management improves as susceptibility is reduced. Indoor cultivation offers the ability to cultivate year-round with stable conditions that may result up to 6 harvests per year. This makes indoor cropping 15–30 times more productive than outdoor cultivation [UNODC: World Drug Report 2009]. In addition, indoor production minimizes the risk of cross-pollination and guarantee flowers without fertilization or seed maturation.
One of the most important growth factors in cannabis cultivation is light. Light quality, light intensity, and photoperiod play a significant role in a successful growth. While in older technologies, such as HPS or fluorescent light, that has been originally developed for street or office lighting the spectrum is seldom adjusted according to the plants’ needs, we in Fotonica refer to the light like any other cultivation input. Plants with different biomass and/or different phenological stage are not treated the same, for example irrigation (volume, interval, timing etc.) or fertilization (concentration, composition etc.) same should capture for the light.
Plants have specific wavelength antennas (photoreceptors) which receives signals from the environment light, the major ones are:
- Phytochromes – red & far-red-sensing photoreceptors (regulates flowering, shade avoidance syndrome behavior, and germination in many species).
- Cryptochromes – blue & green wavelengths sensing
- Phototropins – blue & green wavelengths sensing
- UVR8 – responsible for UV-B-induced responses
It has been long known that one can manipulate plant morphology and metabolism with the light spectrum, for example:
- Blue – decreases internode length and enhance compactness of various species.
- Far-red & Green – induce shade avoidance syndrome symptoms, including stem and leaf elongation and premature flowering.
- Red & Blue – plants had shorter internodes and a smaller leaf area compared to a white light source.
In addition to morphological changes, light spectrum and irradiance level also have an impact on plant metabolism.
- Short wavelength irradiation has been shown to enhance the plant defense mechanism by inducing metabolic activity, such as phenolic compound synthesis. Phenolic compounds, including anthocyanins. Several cannabinoids have also been suggested to be involved in the plant defense mechanism and to have antioxidant properties, including Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (Hampson et al. NY Acad. Sci. 2000), as well as cannabigerol (CBG) (Giacoppo et al. Eur. J Histochem 2017).
- Increased concentrations of THC, were found with UV-B supply in both leaf and floral tissues of drug-type plants (Pate DW: Chem. Ecology of Cannabis. J Ind Hemp Assoc 1994). UV-B may be related to stress induction mechanism which is leading to different molecules production as a respond.
Fotonica EVA3 system is offering fully flexible integrated spectrum curve with 11 bands from UVB/UVA to Far Red/IR (DLED – Dynamic LED system). In addition, light modulation can be performed inclusive of adjustable duty cycle and other light parameters.
While light quality may influence the cannabinoid synthesis, cannabis yields are strongly correlated with increasing light intensity (Chandra et al. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2008). An increasing irradiance level is correlated positively with flower dry weight, which can result in higher total cannabinoid yield.
Fotonica EVA3 system is fed with power supply of >1,000 Watts enabling high accurate and uniform (special designed lenses) intensity exceeding 1,100 PPFD (1.5 M height over 4’X4’ area). Moreover, the EVA3 is converting the electrons current only to the right photons spectrum with the right intensity enabling electricity saving unlike other fixed spectrum and intensity fixtures.
It is all about Bio Illumination – Light conditions play an important role in plant morphology as well as in the accumulation of cannabinoids. During a long photoperiod, a low R:FR ratio is preferable to make more developed long cuttings, while during a short photoperiod a high proportion of blue irradiation is suitable to improve cannabinoid content (Gianmaria et al. Med. Cannabis Cannabinoids 2018). EVA3 spectrum manipulation is an advantage that offers better space utilization, human resources reduction, lesser energy consumption (less heat, better current/photon conversion), lower carbon footprint and above all higher biomass and higher cannabinoids content compared to traditional HPS and other LED non-controllable fixtures. Reported by Prof. David Meiri the EVA3 system “results showed cannabinoid concentration levels that were 20-50% higher (THC, CBG respectively) in comparison to traditional HPS bulbs that were used as control and to standard verity concentration received when grown commercially” (The Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Cannabinoid Research Faculty of biology Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, 2016). The EVA3 is offering different lighting strategies implementation through light recipes embedded in its command and control software which is communicating via Bt & wireless to single and/or endless number of units even on remote geographies. The know-how is accumulated, analyzed and improved through cloud-based data center which enables ‘Big Data’ by Fotonica biologists collected from our users community.
We in Fotonica “Unleashing Plant’s Potential” !