T
TheHydroChronic
- 18
- 1
subbed, my guess is smaller yield,
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
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.
Easy 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.
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
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,
-TF
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.
Like I mentioned, the roots would ONLY be a limiting factor if the light source exceeded what the plant could process.