What's new
By:
GrowWeedEasy.com
You're browsing as a guest. Sign up to join the conversation, share your grows, and get help from thousands of fellow growers — it's free and takes less than a minute.

Light to leaves--not necessarily to buds???

alltatup said:
DrPhoton This is about photosynthesis, not photomorphogenesis. Photomorphogenesis has to do with how different light spectrums affect veg phase versus flower phase, but the issue I raise is different:

If photosynthesis can take place in leaves in various places on the plant where light wouldn't reach unless we train the plant, then lower buds will develop better because the leaves exposed to light are feeding them better than leaves in shadow.

So my issue is not about what kind of light we're using, but how we expose leaves to light during indoor flowering.

Now onto a second issue:

I've seen on this grow something that didn't happen so much before because I wasn't defoliating the right way: What defoliation allowed in veg and in flower was for more bud sites to shoot up and fill in the canopy. They shot straight up towards the light all over three out of four plants (Afghan Kush has been the lagger all along, and smaller than the other three, though she looks good for her size). It's like they were rushing to fill in the space in the upper canopy before someone else got there first.

So instead of trying to keep all the focus on the main colas, I left all these "survival of the fittest" type smart buds who made it up to the top. They were wonderful to watch in their insistence on gettin up there with the big dogs. Watching them climb and stretch out their smaller leaves is what got me wondering about this topic.
Click to expand...

"So it's got me wondering about the whole "fattest buds in the light" debate: Is bud development based on the leaves surrounding that bud reaching the light as opposed to the bud reaching the light?"

My original reply was in response to your question on leaves vs bud response to light. Which i concluded for you that flowers, do not have any photosynthetic capacity. Not just an abscence of morphogenesis. If i have misunderstood your question here, please let me know.

Exposing different leaves only distributes the light to a different portion of the plant. This does not change the amount of total energy recieved by the plant, but how that energy is distributed. The notion that removing higher leaves because they are blocking light, is somewhat illogical. As the leaf you are intending to remove, is capturing and processing light. Not blocking it. Any additional light that is not utilized by the leaf, is transmitted down, deeper into the canopy.

This does not of course exclude the fact that providing a plant structure where light penetrates deeper is not going to be beneficial. I support the practice of applying training techniques that allow the grower to produce higher quality produce. But not yield. I go over many of the major theories in my article on defoliation relating to this particular aspect on the topic.
 
The storage and translocation of carbohydrates is very different between different species of plants. Which is highly influenced by their lifecycle characteristics. Such as annual, biannual, perennial etc. There are also different storage systems and purposes that can change how and what stored energy is used for. Such as daily, weekly and yearly resource storages. But most plants will typically have more starch stores in their roots and stems. With leaves typically having a small portion of this storage percentage.

Chlorophyll is only one small possible way to synthesize starches, which is not limited to leaves. Amyloplasts are also responsible for starch production such as in tubers. There are also other forms of energy storage, such as sucrose. Which is much more mobile than starches.

As previously said, the lifecycle characteristics of plants typically influence the nature in which energy loading and unloading behaves. Plants that typically live longer than a year, such as biannual and perennial, will typically have more long term stores than shorter living plants, such as annuals. As they benefit from the advantages of this extra energy to survive through dormant seasons.

Annual plants such as cannabis, typically have very little long term stored resources and usually upon the end of their lifecycle, translocate the rest of its energy in an effort to maximize successful reproduction. The only real stored energy is the starches that are manufactured and used daily by respiration. Which is practically completely used up right before the next day or light cycle.
 
Your using very poor sources of information, what i say is correct. This subject is too complex for simple internet based articles. If you wish to find the correct answers, i recommend a book on plant biology. Such as biology of plants by raven. Plant physiology by taiz. Or introduction to plant biology by stern bidlack. All very good books.

Here i break down the errors of the exact source you have cited. You really must try and avoid sources relating to cannabis, they are very unreliable. Inconsistant and the reason myths are started.
 
i just wanna say i agree with photon, energy itself is not stored in leaves, in fact the only living thing that actually holds energy are seeds.
its energy precursors that the leaves are filled with, chlorophyll, CO2 and water are the basic ones for photosynthesis so if you wanna call that "energy" its a little vague, actually biological energy is called ATP witch is what cells use as fuel.
here is the Royal Society of Chemistry's explanation
http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/Photosynthesis.htm
 
if theres is any "stored energy" inside the plant is the bunch of ATP ready to use moving trough the plants branches and roots, thats why any tree or plant you strip of leaves can grow new leaves. this is also why when cloning, fan leaves are removed
 
I’ll check that book out. I’m not saying I don’t believe you. Just finding it funny that so many individuals got the wrong idea. Passing it along like a virus. Lol
 
So I found this:
Don’t think the source will be questioned. (The ASPB)
“Generally, when sink activity is decreased by removing active sinks or introducing nutrient deficiency, carbohydrates accumulate in leaves and photosynthesis becomes inhibited (Moorby, 1977; Paul and Pellny, 2003)”
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/155/1/64
So this idea of carbohydrates existing inside the leaves is plausible.
 
Last edited:
Thats cool man, there are much of that sort of stuff happening. When i was looking at light physics, i was surprised to find huge misconceptions about light in the photography industry. Which was like the plague over there.

The introduction to plant biology is a good start, very easy to read.
 
I don’t know what biological energy is, but I was speaking about chemical energy. In the form of carbohydrates.
 
I don't know, DrP: What I described above about all the buds shooting up to get into the light: well, their leaves were quite agressive about getting into the light. I think everyone's looking for a place in the sun... I think it's been demonstrated too many times that opening up the middle areas through strategic and correct defoliation makes buds larger lower down.

I think it takes a special, deep knowledge to do it right. I really hope I'm learning. But I see entirely different growth patterns on this grow because I defoled differently--and quite a bit. Yet they are still covered with leaves.
 
please read the link i posted, those carbohydrates you talk about are simply chlorophyll ready to be converted into ATP, what i meant was in biology, chemical energy is called ATP and its used by all types of cells in living beings, plants and animals. just like the fat your body stores needs to be converted into actual energy, is not the energy itself.

just to oversimplify it imagine chlorophyll (Carbohydrate) turns into ATP (energy) which then is used to create more complex carbohydrates
"The Light dependent reactions, a light-dependent series of reactions which occur in the grana, and require the direct energy of light to make energy-carrier molecules that are used in the second process:"

The light-independent reactions, a light-independent series of reactions which occur in the stroma of the chloroplasts, when the products of the light reaction, ATP and NADPH, are used to make carbohydrates from carbon dioxide (reduction); initially glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (a 3-carbon atom molecule) is formed.

The first stable product of the Calvin Cycle is phosphoglycerate (PGA), a 3-C chemical. The energy from ATP and NADPH energy carriers generated by the photosystems is used to phosphorylate the PGA. Eventually there are 12 molecules of glyceraldehyde phosphate (also known as phosphoglyceraldehyde or PGAL, a 3-C), two of which are removed from the cycle to make a glucose. The remaining PGAL molecules are converted by ATP energy to reform six RuBP molecules, and thus start the cycle again. "

so basically not all carbohydrates are the same, some can hold energy and others cannot.
 
Last edited:
Those first three weeks of flower stretching are characteristics of photomorphogenesis, which is all explained through the principles of photobiology. Its the same during veg but more aggressive during the flowering stretch due to the genetic drive and lower light cycles.

I am happy if you feel it helps, i cant force anyone to believe otherwise what science suggests. But i am a man of science, which requires for a start, a solid scientific theory or better yet physical evidence.

Hope i dont seem to forward, i have already spent much time on the subject. So its less of a mystery to myself. But i do enjoy hearing others points of view, its undervalued how it makes people like me think in ways i might not have before.
 
Related to this subject is the fact that some plants grow very few fan leaves compared to most plants and make a whole lot of bud. So I tried one side by side with a different strain and defoliated it to look like the strain that had few fan leaves. Well it didnt work out the same way. It's still made less bud (the defoliated one) and even made less than my grow before. Now these were not clones so it is not scientific in any way. Plus there are lots of variables that could have been different. But I wanted to know. Lol
 
Yes, I read it..but, I don’t think chlorophyll is a carbohydrate. By definition carbohydrates can be broken down to provide energy. If this was the case here, then the leaves, filled with chlorophyll, would be a source of stored energy. That’s what I was theorizing in my first post. Seems like there may be evidence to the contrary. I saw the plant biology book by raven for a few bucks online. (Ordered and arrives this Tuesday) Looks like some more research might be necessary to continue this discussion.
Thanks for the input guys!! I really enjoyed this discussion.
 
Last edited:
@Toker1

The article of yours in question is about phloem loading and the complex regulatory systems that influence it. It also explains the effect that sink and other factors have on the photosynthetic rate in leaves. When certain factors prevent adequate loading of photosynthates, then this can accumulate in leaves. But this is very conditional, which would require factors that ultimately limit the plants performance. Not improve it.

This accululation and reduction in photosynthesis, is also likely the reason some plants negatively respond to continuous lighting. As the sink production cannot keep up with the source production, creating a reduced rate of photosynthesis.

There is also mention of how plants compensate to loss of leaves, where the remainder leaves pick up the photosynthetic load and increase their rate of photosynthesis.
 
thats alrite man, everyone can think whatever they want, we just like to dig tru opinions to get to the truth, carbohydrates are just chains of carbon hydrogen and oxygen, and like the article says "All chlorophylls have:

a lipid-soluble hydrocarbon tail (C20H39 -)
a flat hydrophilic head with a magnesium ion at its centre; different chlorophylls have different side-groups on the head

The tail and head are linked by an ester bond."
 
Right. I understand that is conditional...and not optimal. Just saying it’s not so far fetched to think these sugars can be stored in leaves. The article proves its possible, that it physically could happen. This might not be the case in the defoliation situation, I’m still on the fence. My book comes this Tuesday, so until then I’ll just have to wait impatiently. Lol
I’m still not following the cloryphill is a carbohydrate. Cloryphill is is more closely related to hemoglobin (chemically speaking) than it is to carbohydrates. Chlorophyll has 5 elements carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen all centered around a magnesium molecule. Carbohydrates have 3 elements only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Chlorophyll is responsible for synthesizing carbohydrates, but that doesn’t make it one by necessity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top