I agree. Great point.A plant must use energy to develop roots just the same as branches. An environment that discourages root growth may allow the plant to dedicate a greater percentage of overall resources to flower production. In this setting, the plant will continue to grow roots, no matter what, because it knows that the RDWC environment is root friendly. In turn, the plant will constantly use a large portion of energy to grow roots. The plant thinks it will benefit from root production. If the root environment allows for just enough root production to sustain the plant, while avoiding continuous overproduction, then the plant can dedicate all growth in a given day to flowers and branches and all parts above the root zone. I think the key is to find out how to get the plant to understand that it has plenty of roots and can now focus solely on flower production. One would need to create an environment that encourages root growth during veg or until there is sufficient growth but is not so perfect the plant chooses to create pounds of roots. This is just my THEORY. Haha, just a joke. Peace
well said.first, it's called a "hypothesis"...not a "theory". Capulator's hypothesis is that yield is NOT proportional to root mass. nmeeks makes a good argument that the yield won't be proportionately lower. i think a better question is: what's the minimum root mass for best yield? the other question is what impact it has on quality?
two plants is NOT an 'experiment' in any way. i'm an engineer, and learned to design proper experiments and draw logical conclusions. you first need consistent results with a large enough population, and then change one variable at a time. i'm with nmeeks that pruning roots is an added stress (i.e. a second variable). an experiment needs to be repeatable.
a true experiment would be 16 plants in 6" cubes on one table, and 16 plants in 4" cubes on another table, all other conditions being the same, for a several cycles (drip emitters or e&f with air pruning). if Capulator's hypothesis is correct, the 4" cube (with 30% the root mass) will yield proportionately better than the 6" cube. graph the results, eliminate wonky numbers, find your average yield and standard deviation (which should be small). the plant mass has to be the same at the time of flowering (possibly different timelines). i think the results would be surprising.
even better said. lolEasy tiger.
If I chop 7/8's of the roots off of one plant, that is the same size and consistency as the others (of which there are a few more than 1), AND it yields the same... then it warrants further looking in to. That's why its a theory. This is not a full fledged lab experiment, and that is why there is no hypothesis. Too lazy for that shit. I would rather fuck with things, make observations, and speculate.
You definitely sound critical, and if that is your goal (being a dick).... maybe you should take 5 and come back when you feel more chipper.
I have to agree, my experience has always been bigger roots=bigger fruits. I don't doubt u can yield w smaller roots, but given ur methods(chopping rather than restricting) there's a high chance of u getting root rot/yielding less, also ime its easier to have a lockout. My hypothesis is ur wasting there energy/nutes forming roots that r getting cut rather than restriction(smaller dwc) With that said I wish u the best of luck. I hope u can pull ur yield w/o sacrificing quality. IMO quality>quantityA plant must use energy to develop roots just the same as branches. An environment that discourages root growth may allow the plant to dedicate a greater percentage of overall resources to flower production. In this setting, the plant will continue to grow roots, no matter what, because it knows that the RDWC environment is root friendly. In turn, the plant will constantly use a large portion of energy to grow roots. The plant thinks it will benefit from root production. If the root environment allows for just enough root production to sustain the plant, while avoiding continuous overproduction, then the plant can dedicate all growth in a given day to flowers and branches and all parts above the root zone. I think the key is to find out how to get the plant to understand that it has plenty of roots and can now focus solely on flower production. One would need to create an environment that encourages root growth during veg or until there is sufficient growth but is not so perfect the plant chooses to create pounds of roots. This is just my THEORY. Haha, just a joke. Peace
I 100% agree, very ballsy and very respectable experiment Cap, I hope this thread continues to be a respectful debate, and it doesn't just become a bunch of people making bullshit claims they have never tested side by side with another option. Roots = Shoots is a concept I think was originally extrapolated from the idea that if you look at a plant in nature (say a tree) and you see that it is about 2 stories high and 20-25 ft across the canopy, theoretically, unless the root space was constricted by concrete (other something else) the root mass and size below ground should be about equal to the foliage and trunk above ground. This created the idea that root size and space should be about equal to the plant size you hope to achieve up top. Then we took that one step further and started claiming more roots = more shoots. Like TF said, I am very happy to see that you are not taking that as fact and are putting it to the test. I hope that if your results show that the plant with cut roots is not doing as well, people do not automatically assume this disproves your hypothesis. More testing should be done if there is even a comparable yield in my opinion, since you stated the root mass with be around 1/8th the size, if the yield is even half, to me that merits more testing.I like you Cap. Not afraid to stir it up a bit. Question the most common conceptions. Good going man. Don't know if the theory will pan out, but I commend you nonetheless for attacking such an idea, and presenting it here for open debate that will most obviously make people question some of their core values when it comes to growing.
Love it. Carry on,
This seems like a true statement for Soil and Soilless mediums besides oxygenated water. But i think the original point Cap was trying to articulate was that his system has water and nutrients constantly swirling around his roots. If you take a moment, and picture roots suspended in soil, the root doesn't move and the nutrients and water don't move (or barely at all through capillary effect), so when the root intakes all the water and nutrients around it, thats it, no more for that root, so more roots means more contact with more nutrients and more water. So this completely makes sense when you add more light, the plant roots need to be bigger so than can be in contact with more nutrients and more water. BUT, with a water culture medium, the water and nutrients are constantly moving around and always in contact with the roots, even after the roots take in what is directly around them, more instantly replaces it (very different than soil or regular soilless mediums). I think in RDWC or other comparable systems, Cap may really be onto something here, that does't have to follow the rules as your presented them.The roots will only be a limiting factor if the light source is greater than the plant can process. The plant will maximize each area of growth until it exceeds what the environment will be able to sustain.
In other words a plant under a 1000w light will produce "x" number of roots which will eventually equal a shoot from the main stem until it reaches the maximum (for a thousand watts of power).
A plant under a 2000w light would "attempt" to grow more roots to handle the amount of light it is receiving until the maximum is reached.
A plant under a 3000w light would attempt to grow more roots to handle the amount of light it was receiving until the maximum is reached.
+rep, well put.This progression would continue as well going the other way meaning down in power instead of up in power.
Everything the plant does including root growth is in response to its environment and the environments resources, i.e. water, air, light.
This is why we are all always trying to "maximize" our environment for the plants (not a great term to use here really). Making sure that the maximum is available, i.e. ALL the water is present, ALL the air, ALL the nutrition, ALL the C02, ALL the root space, ect...
If this maximized environment is present for the plant, the idea is the plant will in return maximize its growth potential as far as the genetics/nature would allow.
Maybe you can clear up how increased light source would affect the roots ability to process nutrients the way they always do? more light means more photosynthesis. As long as the roots are in contact with enough water and nutrition (which they will be) the plant should have no problem keeping up with the light. The limiting factor when you increase the light that much becomes the plants ability to successfully photosynthesis instead of performing photorespiration (which is a waste of energy and caused by the plant grabbing an O2 molecule instead of a CO2 molecule.) This seems to me, to show that the limiting factor when you increase the light, will really only be the presence of CO2 in your room. And they have been doing studies in Canada to show that you can basically keep adding light infinitely as long as you exponentially increase your CO2 ppm.Like I mentioned, the roots would ONLY be a limiting factor if the light source exceeded what the plant could process.