First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"

Hi mother and Sal. I took a pic yesterday but I had to use my vid camera and then come home and pull the pic off the vid so the quality is just ok IMO. The plants have been flowering 4 weeks under a 400 hps 11 hours on 13 off and using martin nights for 3 weeks. During the martin night (light) they were under 4 red cfl's and 1 yellow cfl for the first two weeks of martin nights. First it started with a 15 min night break test then quickly moved to 1 hour then 6 hours then yes of course all 12 hours of what normally would be the plants dark period lol. Then he switched to 8 25w red incandescent party bulbs, 200w. The 25w red INC's party bulbs were also on the full 12 hours of the martin night for the last 5 days.

Yes mother and sal something is happening to the tops of some of the buds. It's not really shown in this pic sorry. I couldn't get good pics this time. I NEED to work on that. Next time :)

What is exactly happing to the tops of some of those buds? You ask ..

It looks to me like some of the buds are starting to crown over or what some might say (wipin up into cotton candy) lol. It could be re-vegging... but I don't know. This crowning usually only starts to happen at week 6 in flowering not week 4. IMO I think he put the gas pedal down too hard and too fast with all the red INC's at week 3 1/2. He defiantly needs to put more red cfl,s back in there (today he is going to). At some point during flowering it might be a good idea to put the ratio of red INC's to red CFL's higher but not at week 31/2. I think you and sal are right. I'm just not sure it's re-vegging. It might be ripening them tooooo fast and some of the hairs on those buds are also starting to turn amber. Not good at week 4 IMO. If it's starting to ripen at week 4 then he is going to lose out on a lot of yield. A higher ratio of red inc's to red cfl's might be worth looking into for the end of the flowering stage but I don't think it's a good idea to remove all of the red cfl's from the mix and go all red inc's like he did. Unfortunately with red cfl's party bulbs some are red and some are red-orange (you get what you get). Led's will be the way to go for martin nights for sure. Full control over the red 630,660 and far red. With party bulbs i'm sure we need to use both red cfl's and red inc's together to find the right martin night spectrum blend. More pics next week for sure.

On a side note. I've been reading on some other forums that UV-B is mostly responsible for the high amounts of trichomes on a flowering plant. With a standard 2K HPS and red martin nights added to the mix I think the trichomes are at least double IMO compared to natural darkness.

Sal or Mother what's you thoughts on martin RED nights and trich production compared to UV-B being responsible for the high amount?

Ok here is a another question for Mom or Sal...or both ...
Red 630, 660, and far red should not make the plant come out of flowering correct?
I would think red incandescent party bulbs would only have 630nm, 660nm, and fr in them.

Today I just got my new 3-D glasses in the mail :woohoo:and went over to my uncles house and had me a look see.

When taking a closer look at the filament inside the red inc party bulb at different angels using the blue filter I made. I noticed the filament looks a bluish-purple and at other angles it looks pinkish-purple. I think using a lot of red inc's having filaments inside is why the plant might try to come out of flowering. For me all the more reason to use separate LED's to control the
(630nm 660nm f r and UV-B) individually.

There was some good data IMO that we got out of the full 12 hour martin nights of 200w red inc's. I think it's the red 660nm spectrum that's so strong in the red inc party bulbs that's causing some of the buds to start ripening at 4 weeks. When looking at the tops of the buds real close it might be they are doing two different things at once. Slightly coming out of flowering and ripening at the same time. But the ripening seem to be more dominant for sure because I think there is only just a little (bluish light coming from the red inc party bulb filaments) and a lot more 660nm... Just my thoughts...

Sal... have you looked at any RED Incandescent party bulbs through your blue filter and seen what I'm seeing GE or Sylvana?

What about the red 660nm spectrum having a lot to do with bud ripening?

Hey Mother, and Dogznova and salmayo etal;

First, Mother thankyou for taking the plunge into this and trying to document what you have going on. You too, Dogznova, it's not the norm to go down this road.
Thanks also to Salmayo for sparking this interest in Martian Nights. I must admit when I first read this on the other thread I was amazed. I had to re-read it a second time, just to believe what I was reading was what I was reading. If you know what I mean.

I'm an old man and thought I had seen or at least heard it all.....guess not.

This whole process could make great use of LED technology...just like our friends in the aquarium hobby who have LED "moon light" modules, growers might be able to get LED "martian light nite light" modules to add to thier grows lights.

Continued good luck and keep us posted, I'm looking for a "Eureka" moment here.

Hey Dog,

In terms of UV B, I've read only one study on it regarding the cannabis plant and the results were equivocal. There seem to be a number of studies on it that I haven't had time to read, but you can get at quite a few of them if you go to scholar.google.com and type in UV-B cannabis. Some of the studies seems to say yes, higher UV-B is correlated with higher levels of THC, so there might be something to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by crowning or whippin' into cotton candy, but the buds on my HDF plant seem to be doing something odd, and that might be it. I can't describe it exactly, but there's something odd about them. Whatever it is, it definitely seems more vegetative than flowering. I'll see if I can get a picture tonight.

As for what is causing it, I'm not sure exactly. I have a hunch that the reason is that the night clock is moving too fast and the plant doesn't sense enough night time, so it's vegging, but as to what the exact cause of that may be, I'm not sure. I have a feeling it's too much Far Red light, and probably not in an absolute sense, just the ratio is probably off.

Keep in mind that I know basically the same amount about these effects as you do, so as much as I want to be able to tell you exactly what's wrong, I really don't know. :-) If I were your uncle and I wanted to optimize my current crop, I'd cut back the far red to probably 50W, throw in all the red CFL you've got (it sounds like it's 50W or less?), keep the HPS at 11on/13off and give the plants one hour of full and complete darkness at the end of the night cycle, before the daylights come on. Again, I really only know as much as you through experimentation, but that's my best guess.

As for the ratio of Far Red:Red in the RedInc bulbs, I think it's about 1.15:1, give or take. I just estimate that from spectral graphs, so your guess is as good as mine. It also depends on what is considered Red and what is considered Far Red (to the plant), because shifting those ranges can change the ratio considerably on the same spectral graph. As for your CFLs being more or less red or orange, I think they're fine. You were using yellow before without any trouble, right?

Here is some good reading on far red and red to promote flowering. Just found this. It's long sorry..


Photoinduction of floral determination and flower initiation

We have shown that the Nossen ecotype of Arabidopsis, like
the Columbia ecotype (Corbesier et al., 1996), can be induced
to flowering by one long day provided the red-to-far-red ratio
is sufficiently low. Under red-enriched (R) conditions, floral
determination required a total of 20-24 hours of continuous R
light, which is more than one 16-hour long-day. In contrast,
adding 4 hours of far-red-enriched (FR) light to the end of an
8-hour day of red-enriched light was sufficient for floral determination.
The greater effectiveness of the FR treatment
compared to the R treatment occurred despite a considerably
lower total irradiance, consistent with previous reports that far red
light is an effective promoter of flowering in Arabidopsis
(MartÃ*nez-Zapater and Somerville, 1990; Goto et al., 1991;
Bagnall, 1993; Lee and Amasino, 1995).

Control plants induced with continuous FR-light had fewer
leaves than plants that received the briefest FR treatment, of
only 4 hours. Similarly, floral determination occurred sooner
in control plants that were moved permanently to continuous
FR conditions compared to those placed permanently in continuous
R conditions. These differences can be explained in
one of two ways. One possibility is that there is a conversion
of the youngest existing primordia into flower primordia when
floral induction signals are sufficiently strong. This would
suggest that the fate of the emerging primordia or anlagen is
plastic until a certain stage, and that even primordia that have
already adopted a bias towards leaf/paraclade fate will assume
a floral fate if the inductive signal is potent enough (e.g., in the
continuous FR treatment). This first explanation is consistent
with evidence that in many plants, including Arabidopsis, primordium
fate is specified progressively during development
(Battey and Lyndon, 1990; Bradley, et al., 1996; Hempel,
1996). Alternatively, the production of a small number of
leaves may occur after the start of relatively weak inductive
conditions (e.g., in the 4 hour FR treatment and in the continuous
R treatment). Expression of floral regulatory genes during photoinduction

The higher effectiveness of the FR treatment, versus the R
treatment, in promoting a rapid switch from the production of
leaf/paraclade to flower primordia was not paralleled by pronounced
differences in AGL8::GUS and LFY::GUS activity
profiles. Accordingly, while the increase in LFY::GUS and
AGL8::GUS activity was concurrent with floral determination
in the FR treatment, the initial increase in LFY::GUS and
AGL8::GUS activity in the R treatment preceded floral determination
by 12 hours. A subsequent decrease in LFY::GUS
activity in the R treatment was clearly evident after 12 hours
of continuous photoinduction, suggesting a potential role for
circadian rhythms in the regulation of LFY.

The unexpected lack of correlation between specific levels
of LFY::GUS and AGL8::GUS activity and floral determination
may indicate that while FR and R treatments are similarly
effective in inducing LFY and AGL8, the R treatment was less
effective in promoting the competence to respond to these
floral regulators. Recent analyses have demonstrated that in
addition to absolute LFY levels, other â??competenceâ?? factors
modulate responses to LFY in the apex (Weigel and Nilsson,
1995; Blázquez et al., 1997). In this context, the slight decrease
in LFY::GUS activity after 12 hours of the R, but not the FR
treatment, suggests that one aspect of competence is the ability
to maintain levels of LFY expression after an early acute
response.

Additionally, since we assayed for determination at the
whole-plant level, it is possible that the first changes which
induced â??determinationâ?? in our experiments occurred in the
leaves (Zeevaart, 1958; Chailakhyan, 1968). If this is the case,
the level of LFY expressed in a shoot apex, even shortly after
determination has occurred, need not be sufficient for the production
of flowers. The low levels of LFY::GUS evident in the
apex around the time of determination, in our experiments,
may simply indicate that although the leaves were determined
to send signals sufficient to induce flowering (and floral
regulator function), the signals had not yet arrived in full. This
explanation fits with experiments on Lolium temulentum and
Ipomoea nil which indicate that determining changes in the
leaves precede those in the shoot apex by a few hours (Larkin
et al., 1990; McDaniel et al., 1991).

Diffuse patterns of LFY::GUS and AGL8::GUS were seen
during the first 2 days of photoinduction, and early AP1::GUS
expression was also somewhat diffuse and not strictly localized
to flower primordia. Likewise, the expression of LFY, AGL8
and AP1 RNAs was relatively diffuse during the first 2 days of
photoinduction, and qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding
reporter constructs. These initially diffuse expression
patterns might reflect that upstream regulators of flowermeristem-
identity genes are not strictly localized to emerging
floral primordia, but that once floral induction has taken place,
subsequent interactions among flower-meristem-identity genes
are required to sharpen their expression patterns, similar to that
observed in other developing primordia such as the Drosophila
wing (Rulifson et al., 1996).

In these experiments, AP1::GUS activity was a sensitive
marker for floral determination in both FR and R conditions.
Although AP1::GUS was expressed when flower primordia
were still morphologically indistinguishable from leaf
primordia, we detected AP1::GUS activity only after floral
determination. Thus, our results concur with a recent report
indicating that LFY expression precedes AP1 expression when
flowering is induced photoperiodically, as well as when it is
induced by ectopic expression of the flower-promoting gene
CONSTANS (Simon et al., 1996).

Quantitative aspects of floral induction

The photoinduction of flowering involves complex interactions
between the leaves and the shoot apex. Leaves perceive both
photoperiod and light quality (Knott, 1934; Bernier et al.,
1993) and send signals to the shoot apex, which is the site of
flower production. Floral induction signals from the leaves and
other regions of the plant (McDaniel et al., 1992; Kinet et al.,
1993), are integrated at the shoot apex, and in sufficient
quantity, they induce the initiation of flowers and the
expression of flowering genes.
The specific molecular processes which commit an Arabidopsis
plant to flower are yet to be defined, and our experiments
do not resolve the question of whether floral determination
is regulated in the leaves or at the shoot apex. However,
our results show that plants that are developing a flowering
bias, as indicated by transient increases in LFY::GUS and
AGL8::GUS expression, can remain vegetative if returned to
non-inductive conditions. This indicates that flower specification
is a quantitative process both with respect to the perception
of flower-promoting light signals in leaves and to the
activity of floral regulatory genes at the shoot apex (McDaniel
et al., 1991; Bowman et al., 1993; Schultz and Haughn, 1993;
Bradley et al., 1996; Blázquez et al., 1997).

didn't mean this post sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

Hey Dog,

---

I'm not sure what you mean by crowning or whippin' into cotton candy, but the buds on my HDF plant seem to be doing something odd, and that might be it. I can't describe it exactly, but there's something odd about them. Whatever it is, it definitely seems more vegetative than flowering. I'll see if I can get a picture tonight.

Have you seen your HDF plant all the way through it's flowering stage before? If you have, What I'm am talking about is the tops of the bud lose's it's white hairs and whips up so to speak. One could mistake it for re-vegging but my experience with re-vegging a bud is it starts to stretch out and grow a lot of leaves. These buds that I think are ripening to early are not stretching yet I don't think.

As for what is causing it, I'm not sure exactly. I have a hunch that the reason is that the night clock is moving too fast and the plant doesn't sense enough night time, so it's vegging, but as to what the exact cause of that may be, I'm not sure. I have a feeling it's too much Far Red light, and probably not in an absolute sense, just the ratio is probably off.

I don't think it's too much far red light IMO. You might want to try to lower your veg light time to 11 hours on (in your case the 6500K). You might be too close to the veg/flower line with it on for 12 hours for that strain.


As for the ratio of Far Red:Red in the RedInc bulbs, I think it's about 1.15:1, give or take. I just estimate that from spectral graphs, so your guess is as good as mine. It also depends on what is considered Red and what is considered Far Red (to the plant), because shifting those ranges can change the ratio considerably on the same spectral graph. As for your CFLs being more or less red or orange, I think they're fine. You were using yellow before without any trouble, right?

Yes we were using 1 yellow cfl for two weeks way in the back ground.
I think the key will be having the ability to play with the far red and red ratios (630nm 660nm 714nm) all individually. That's the problem with red cfl's and red inc's you get what you get.

Dog,
No, I actually haven't seen any of the plants all the way through yet. :-) I guess I'll have to post a picture of mine. I couldn't locate a camera last night...

In thinking and re-thinking about plant clock time, I realize my conception of Red and Far Red effects is off...

Thinking out loud...
I don't know the link between the plant's metabolism rate and the plant's clock sense. I would guess that they are positively related, meaning when metabolism rises, the clock runs faster. Maybe they are not related, and the clock is actually governed by light quality, not quantity. In that case, the key might be to balance the metabolic rate with the plant's clock in order to optimize production (of any number of factors, depending on the balance). Maybe it's both light quality and quantity that govern clock speed.

From slowest to fastest, this is how I understand the phytochrome conversion rates of Pfr to Pr under differing "night" conditions:
1. Solid Red LED light (660 nm. Very slow, allows little to no conversion of Pfr-Pr because the red light is constantly changing Pr back into Pfr)
2. Solid Red CFL light (mostly Red, probably shorter wavelength than 660 nm, and probably at least a trace of Far Red)
3. Red Incandescent (lots of Red but even more Far Red)
4. Natural indoor darkness (no light at all, Pfr converts to Pr naturally, with temperature being the main influence)
5. Far Red LEDs (Far Red only, so Pfr->Pr conversion is very rapid. This is in position 5 and not 6 because I'm assuming the intensity of the FR LEDs is rather low)
6. Natural outdoor darkness (which has relatively high levels of Far Red light after dusk and into the night)

Indoors, under current standard conditions, we need a solid 12 hours of complete darkness for the phytochrome conversion to take place to the extent that flowering occurs. Outdoors, (in the Northern hemisphere) the Autumnal Equinox doesn't occur until Sept. 22, which means the days are longer than 12 hours for most of the flowering period outside. And that only counts the sun being above the horizon, which means there's light before and after that still. I think the reason that outdoor plants can flower like this is the high levels of Far Red in both day and night, with the ratio of Red:Far Red decreasing over time until harvest.

This makes me wonder:
1. Are the day and night clocks interrelated?
2. What controls the plant's time-sensing clock during day and night?
2a. Is it the same factor(s) for each?
3. How can there be sufficient Pfr->Pr conversion with any significant amount of Red light at night without there also being a ton more Far Red light?
4. Are metabolism rate and phytochrome conversion rate directly related?

On question 1, I think they are, but I cannot assume this is so. I'm wondering how the balance of Red and Far Red during the day will affect both the day clock and the night clock. Maybe adding lots of FR during the day can "make up" for having "too much" Red at night?

On question 2, I feel this question is too general... but it comes back to my earlier pondering of whether it's light quality, or quantity, or both. Is light timing an independent variable here, or a dependent one? My guess is dependent, upon light quality/quantity and growing stage.
On question 2a, I lean towards yes. Although blue light is clearly a trigger for daytime, I don't think it significantly contributes to the plant's clock speed.

On question 3, I feel I'm asking the wrong question here, but I'm not sure why... If my list above on phytochrome conversion rates is (reasonably) accurate, I wonder how any nighttime combination of light sources 1, 2, and 3 can ever be fast enough to keep the plant in flowering.

On question 4, I believe metabolism rate is most influenced by light quantity (more available photons = more photosynthesis) whereas phytochrome conversion is most influenced by light quality (R:FR ratio controls Pfr:Pr ratio), but I can see how they can be limiting factors for each other.

Well that's all the pondering I have for now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

Dog,
No, I actually haven't seen any of the plants all the way through yet. :-) I guess I'll have to post a picture of mine. I couldn't locate a camera last night...

In thinking and re-thinking about plant clock time, I realize my conception of Red and Far Red effects is off...

Thinking out loud...
I don't know the link between the plant's metabolism rate and the plant's clock sense. I would guess that they are positively related, meaning when metabolism rises, the clock runs faster. Maybe they are not related, and the clock is actually governed by light quality, not quantity. In that case, the key might be to balance the metabolic rate with the plant's clock in order to optimize production (of any number of factors, depending on the balance). Maybe it's both light quality and quantity that govern clock speed.

From slowest to fastest, this is how I understand the phytochrome conversion rates of Pfr to Pr under differing "night" conditions:
1. Solid Red LED light (660 nm. Very slow, allows little to no conversion of Pfr-Pr because the red light is constantly changing Pr back into Pfr)
2. Solid Red CFL light (mostly Red, probably shorter wavelength than 660 nm, and probably at least a trace of Far Red)
3. Red Incandescent (lots of Red but even more Far Red)
4. Natural indoor darkness (no light at all, Pfr converts to Pr naturally, with temperature being the main influence)
5. Far Red LEDs (Far Red only, so Pfr->Pr conversion is very rapid. This is in position 5 and not 6 because I'm assuming the intensity of the FR LEDs is rather low)
6. Natural outdoor darkness (which has relatively high levels of Far Red light after dusk and into the night)

Indoors, under current standard conditions, we need a solid 12 hours of complete darkness for the phytochrome conversion to take place to the extent that flowering occurs. Outdoors, (in the Northern hemisphere) the Autumnal Equinox doesn't occur until Sept. 22, which means the days are longer than 12 hours for most of the flowering period outside. And that only counts the sun being above the horizon, which means there's light before and after that still. I think the reason that outdoor plants can flower like this is the high levels of Far Red in both day and night, with the ratio of Red:Far Red decreasing over time until harvest.

This makes me wonder:
1. Are the day and night clocks interrelated?
2. What controls the plant's time-sensing clock during day and night?
2a. Is it the same factor(s) for each?
3. How can there be sufficient Pfr->Pr conversion with any significant amount of Red light at night without there also being a ton more Far Red light?
4. Are metabolism rate and phytochrome conversion rate directly related?

On question 1, I think they are, but I cannot assume this is so. I'm wondering how the balance of Red and Far Red during the day will affect both the day clock and the night clock. Maybe adding lots of FR during the day can "make up" for having "too much" Red at night?

On question 2, I feel this question is too general... but it comes back to my earlier pondering of whether it's light quality, or quantity, or both. Is light timing an independent variable here, or a dependent one? My guess is dependent, upon light quality/quantity and growing stage.
On question 2a, I lean towards yes. Although blue light is clearly a trigger for daytime, I don't think it significantly contributes to the plant's clock speed.

On question 3, I feel I'm asking the wrong question here, but I'm not sure why... If my list above on phytochrome conversion rates is (reasonably) accurate, I wonder how any nighttime combination of light sources 1, 2, and 3 can ever be fast enough to keep the plant in flowering.

On question 4, I believe metabolism rate is most influenced by light quantity (more available photons = more photosynthesis) whereas phytochrome conversion is most influenced by light quality (R:FR ratio controls Pfr:Pr ratio), but I can see how they can be limiting factors for each other.

Well that's all the pondering I have for now...

---

Owie, owie, owie!
Pondered me to tears.
Head hurts now.
You owe me an aspirin.:D

Woozy
Weeze