Stumbled upon this article , which I found very interesting and am still reading it and trying to understand it. From what I gather and what we know and follow may not be exactly correct. Supplemental C02 over 1000 ppfd may not be needed. Apparently it’s the leaf temps that exceed 86° Fahrenheit would require supplemental C02. I think the reason why 1000ppfd was the staple is because HPS were burning plants and it wasn’t because of the ppfd it was the heat from them.
I may be wrong in what I’m reading and I’m really high right now😂 and am enthralled in this study.
Some of you folks may be interested. Maybe not lol. I know @Nicky has his DLI thread based on pushing 60 DLI and comparing grows with less. He may be on to something that could possibly coincide with this study.
Who knows. All of you may have already read it
Thx @The_Chef definitely gonna be a interesting read. However, after a quick scan I realized - I’m either way to high right now - or not nearly high enough!! LOL!
You know me man - I read it was all about the lights and took that shit to heart!
I have light burned plants before but they have to be about 4 inches from the light, but the veg growth from center tent of 40-55 dli vs the edges of 35-45 is very noticable,( almost doubled)
Supposedly they pushed plants up to 2000ppfd and found that it wasn’t the intensity. It didn’t affect the saturation of light. It was when they went beyond the surface temps of 86° on the leaves that they had to supplement C02. I think
I know @dbrn32 will or has read it and will dumb it down for someone like me.
Interesting study, I never thought about it. I’m new to this and just learning. I spend more time studying in college. A year ago I found a samples collection, I use https://studydriver.com/ for this. For me, this is a big relief. Because you don’t need to invent something yourself, I just redo it. I’ll be fully immersed in this topic soon.
I’ve read the first link at least four or five times already, & I don’t see where they talk about monitoring leaf temperatures, or enriching their CO2 levels, at least not beyond 400ppm. Am I missing it?
" Canopy-level air temperature, relative humidity (RH), and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration were monitored on 600-s intervals throughout the trial with a logger (Green Eye model 7788; AZ Instrument Corporation, Taiwan). The air temperature, RH, and CO2 concentrations were (mean ± SD) 25.3 ± 0.4°C, 60.5 ± 4.8%, and 437 ± 39 ppm during the day (i.e., lights on) and 25.2 ± 0.3°C, 53.1 ± 3.3%, and 479 ± 42 ppm during the night. "
Either way, there seems to be other evidence in that link to pour on the photons.
