i wonder if, because you said you adjusted the umols at the plant the same, that the 90 got over stressed (from the extra non-measured light)The 80 CRI plant is definitely carrying more weight.
I'm not saying light stress is the cause of this un expected result...I'm just agreeing that the 90 got about 15% or so more photons than the 80. FYI...before the latest 90cri rage, many said 3000/80 was the sweet spot. Just saying.i wonder if, because you said you adjusted the umols at the plant the same, that the 90 got over stressed (from the extra non-measured light)
i wonder if, because you said you adjusted the umols at the plant the same, that the 90 got over stressed (from the extra non-measured light)
i notice my plants sometimes cower and hide from blurples because of the massive amount of red they throw down. red light packs a punch for sure
What were the canopy/ambient temps? My guess is the VPD was too high. 800 umoles isn't too much light at that stage in flower.
Pretty consistent low 80's at the canopy.
What about RH%?
No, not really. If we were harvesting oxygen from our plants that would absolutely be true, but we are harvesting THC. Plants are far more complex, with many light driven processes occurring that do not involve photosynthesis - many of these processes are not even yet understood at a biochemical level.It is all about about the amount of photosynthetic usable photons
I just added 50 watts of reds to my 550 watt 3000k 80 CRI QB vertical setup, 50/50 of XP-E2 630 nm and XP-E 660 nm. I'll be keeping a closer eye on that setup but I'm running that scrog around 500 umoles before adding the reds, need to take some new readings.
How did you end up attaching the stars to your rig?
Drilled and tapped holes for BJB solderless holders into a 80/20 1 1/2" square tube with 1/8" walls.