# Study: Sugar demand, not auxin, is the initial regulator of apical dominance



## cannaculturalist (Apr 11, 2014)

I just came across this new research paper that was just published. Might be of interest you yall. Here is the abstract.



Sugar demand, not auxin, is the initial regulator of apical dominance

Michael G. Masona, John J. Rossb, Benjamin A. Babstc, Brittany N. Wienclawc, and Christine A. Beveridgea,

School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; School of Plant Science, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005, Australia; and Biosciences Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973-5000

Edited by Deborah P. Delmer, University of California, Davis, CA, and approved March 14, 2014 (received for review November 25, 2013)



> For almost a century the plant hormone auxin has been central to theories on apical dominance, whereby the growing shoot tip suppresses the growth of the axillary buds below. According to the classic model, the auxin indole-3-acetic acid is produced in the shoot tip and transported down the stem, where it inhibits bud growth. We report here that the initiation of bud growth after shoot tip loss cannot be dependent on apical auxin supply because we observe bud release up to 24 h before changes in auxin content in the adjacent stem. After the loss of the shoot tip, sugars are rapidly redistributed over large distances and accumulate in axillary buds within a timeframe that correlates with bud release. Moreover, artificially increasing sucrose levels in plants represses the expression of BRANCHED1 (BRC1), the key transcriptional reg- ulator responsible for maintaining bud dormancy, and results in rapid bud release. An enhancement in sugar supply is both neces- sary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance. Our data support a theory of apical dominance whereby the shoot tip’s strong demand for sugars inhibits axillary bud outgrowth by limiting the amount of sugar translocated to those buds.


----------



## budman111 (Apr 15, 2014)

I can hear UB's footsteps...


----------



## AlecTheGardener (Apr 15, 2014)

budman111 said:


> I can hear UB's footsteps...


Was about to say the same.


----------



## RL420 (Apr 16, 2014)

Good info, thanks for posting. Can you give me a link to the source? Can't seem to find it on my own for some reason


----------



## cannaculturalist (Apr 17, 2014)

Hi yall, sure thing http://www.filedropper.com/pnas-2014-mason-1322045111 to download the full pdf article


----------



## lax123 (May 18, 2014)

Hi,
I cant download the pdf, i get redirected to the main page of that filedropper site.
Does it work for others?


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 18, 2014)

Alright soldiers, let's break out those bags of sugar!

Interesting read but I'm not sure what the point is.

Like Hillary says.....


----------



## UncleReemis (May 18, 2014)

"An enhancement in sugar supply is both neces- sary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance."

So this study is saying that artificially increasing sucrose levels helps to quell the popcorn effect.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 18, 2014)

UncleReemis said:


> "An enhancement in sugar supply is both neces- sary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance."
> 
> So this study is saying that artificially increasing sucrose levels helps to quell the popcorn effect.


No, that's not what it's saying.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 18, 2014)

look at uncleben schooling us all with his grand knowledge of how to top plants in texas.


----------



## UncleReemis (May 18, 2014)

"Moreover, artificially increasing sucrose levels in plants represses the expression of BRANCHED1 (BRC1), the key transcriptional reg- ulator responsible for maintaining bud dormancy, and results in rapid bud release."

What is this saying UBen?


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 18, 2014)

UncleBuck said:


> look at uncleben schooling us all with his grand knowledge of how to top plants in texas.


How's your race baiting biz been doing lately?


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 18, 2014)

UncleReemis said:


> "Moreover, artificially increasing sucrose levels in plants represses the expression of BRANCHED1 (BRC1), the key transcriptional reg- ulator responsible for maintaining bud dormancy, and results in rapid bud release."
> 
> What is this saying UB?


I'll bite. If there's any merit to these "new" findings, it may change gardening as we know it, then again, it may not. Now, if sucrose was such a great product, it would be sold as fertilizer....or something like that.

I apply all kinds of chemicals. Sucrose would be one of them if warranted. Will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this for the commercial industry, and I'm not talking pot.

I have never known "an enhancement in sugar" to benefit anything except my cup of coffee.

"We found that upon decapitation of the plant, there is a rapid increase in sugar delivery to the buds, which promotes bud outgrowth,” Babst said. The sugars move about 100 times faster than auxin, a plant hormone previously believed to regulate bud growth. This finding supports the idea that sugar—not auxin—is the key signaling molecule for this immediate response to clipping. 

Auxin plays a secondary role later in the process,” Babst said"

Immediate response, secondary response. OK, so what.

Hormones including auxins are still at play here. Who cares if the signaling molecule is a sugar molecule or something else?

Again, interesting read but it doesn't do too much for me.

UB


----------



## UncleBuck (May 18, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I'll bite. If there's any merit to these "new" findings, it will change gardening as we know it. Now, if sucrose was such a great product, it would be sold as fertilizer....or something like that.
> 
> I apply all kinds of chemicals. Sucrose would be one of them if warranted. Will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this for the commercial industry, and I'm not talking pot.


good job on interpreting the findings of the study as requested and totally not dodging the question.


----------



## UncleReemis (May 18, 2014)

UncleReemis said:


> "An enhancement in sugar supply is both neces- sary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance."
> 
> So this study is saying that artificially increasing sucrose levels helps to quell the popcorn effect.





Uncle Ben said:


> No, that's not what it's saying.





Uncle Ben said:


> I'll bite. If there's any merit to these "new" findings, it will change gardening as we know it. Now, if sucrose was such a great product, it would be sold as fertilizer....or something like that.
> 
> I apply all kinds of chemicals. Sucrose would be one of them if warranted. Will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this for the commercial industry, and I'm not talking pot.


You don't even know what you're biting on.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 18, 2014)

Fellas, this is not supposed to be about me. I appreciate all the attention. Suggests I have a lot of power over some of you guys.

Stay sugar sweet........ and Buck, you give your thuggery buddy thar a slap on the ass for me before you two give it up for the night, ya hear?


----------



## cannaculturalist (May 18, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I'll bite. If there's any merit to these "new" findings, it may change gardening as we know it, then again, it may not. Now, if sucrose was such a great product, it would be sold as fertilizer....or something like that.
> 
> I apply all kinds of chemicals. Sucrose would be one of them if warranted. Will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this for the commercial industry, and I'm not talking pot.
> 
> ...


I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. This study shows a difference in our understanding of a metabolic process - a difference which could help or not make any difference to horticultural practices. The notion that in order for this to be valid science, it must already be well established with a retail product to back it up, is daft. Plenty of products out there claiming things with little or no scientific evidence.

This is still early research, the first time this seems to have been seen, and yet to be shown in other species (an important point in all this). To derride this entirely as just not being useful to you or fitting into your existing practices is to look against better understanding


----------



## UncleBuck (May 18, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I have a lot of power over some of you guys.


.


----------



## waterdawg (May 19, 2014)

So speaking as an uneducated newb adding molasses to my outdoor plants is possibly a good thing?


----------



## rory420420 (May 19, 2014)

yes.but may attract bugs.


----------



## rory420420 (May 19, 2014)

goddamn,i just realized im having a family reunionon r.i.u...all the uncles and a crazy cousin on this page...


----------



## waterdawg (May 19, 2014)

Are there not lots of additives available that contain sucrose? Just curious, after a long retirement from doing the outdoor thing I was planning on doing an auto run to quickly fill the jars this summer after a disastrous last hydro run. Knowing that auto's can be finicky (never did a true auto run)I would like to make up some tea's to help them along. Also i can't hit them very often so thinking a more natural approach may be warranted.


----------



## cannaculturalist (May 19, 2014)

Molasses has trace elements and will feed the soil organisms. Not sure about the rest of the theory behind sugars helping the plants grow - haven't looked into that stuff. I'd just like to focus on setting the plant up right rather than trying to pimp it too hard


----------



## Thorhax (May 19, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Fellas, this is not supposed to be about me. I appreciate all the attention. Suggests I have a lot of power over some of you guys.
> 
> Stay sugar sweet........ and Buck, you give your thuggery buddy thar a slap on the ass for me before you two give it up for the night, ya hear?


I've been scanning RIU for your posts and it seams like with every post there is someone trolling.. 

what is the point of trolling when we are all here to do the same thing...grow awesome bud. 

AS FAR AS THIS STUDY GOES, it makes sense that a plant who just lost its strongest/fastest part would rush sugar to feed the other shoots to compensate.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 19, 2014)

Thorhax said:


> I've been scanning RIU for your posts and it seams like with every post there is someone trolling.


Aint it the truth. In fact, this thread may have been started to bait me and the usual trolls into another shitfest. I could be wrong and his heart may be in the right place. If it is/was, I apologize. Like I said, I see no relevance to anything that's important to growing canabis when my suspicions tell me it was a link to the issue of popcorn buds, or me using auxins at will. Really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, at least not to me. 

Like I said, I don't care if it's sucrose, auxin or Cuervo Gold that causes the redistribution of whatever, I'm a pro when it comes to topping and training trees, plants, shrubs, grapevines, and yes...... cannabis. I can predict with almost 100% certainly what I'll get BEFORE I make my cut.


----------



## chuck estevez (May 19, 2014)

I must be crazy, But I really thought the plant makes it's own sugars(photosynthesis) and anything in the soil must be first broken down into ions.

SO, adding sugar or sugar products won't help the plant, but will feed microbes. RIGHT?


----------



## killemsoftly (May 19, 2014)

FRIN


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> I must be crazy, But I really thought the plant makes it's own sugars(photosynthesis) and anything in the soil must be first broken down into ions.
> 
> SO, adding sugar or sugar products won't help the plant, but will feed microbes. RIGHT?


Makes me wonder if they artificially introduced the sucrose directly into plant tissue instead of directly at the roots, that's the only way I see this working...

Adding molasses etc to soil is solely feeding microbes in soil.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

Also brings to mind a conversation of sink/source.

If a set of fan leaves is no longer an adequate source, then it must not be producing more sugar than it uses. If this is the case, then removal of this set of leaves will cause the sugars that would've gone into this set to continue up the plumbing to the next set of leaves/buds at the apex of the branch. This surplus of sugars may JumpStart dormant bud production. 

Does this sound plausible?


----------



## chuck estevez (May 19, 2014)

a senile fungus said:


> Makes me wonder if they artificially introduced the sucrose directly into plant tissue instead of directly at the roots, that's the only way I see this working...
> 
> Adding molasses etc to soil is solely feeding microbes in soil.


I highly doubt this study has anything to do with the amount of sugars in the plant. It simply takes the theory that auxins control apical dominance and replaces it with sugars. So, when you train, you redirect the sugars, not the auxins, so much. That is really the only thing you can take from this study.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

It would be interesting to see if sugar levels increase in plant tissue distal to the site of removed 'sink' leaves.

Also will be interesting if more studies could prove/disprove this?


----------



## chuck estevez (May 19, 2014)

a senile fungus said:


> It would be interesting to see if sugar levels increase in plant tissue distal to the site of removed 'sink' leaves.
> 
> Also will be interesting if more studies could prove/disprove this?


a brix meter can easily test this.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> I highly doubt this study has anything to do with the amount of sugars in the plant. It simply takes the theory that auxins control apical dominance and replaces it with sugars. So, when you train, you redirect the sugars, not the auxins, so much. That is really the only thing you can take from this study.


It has everything to do with the amount of sugars in a plant. The study finds that increased levels of sucrose suppresses BRC1 regulator and allows for dormant budsites to get access to sugar and become active budsites.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

"An enhancement in sugar supply is both necessary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance."

That's pretty straight forward to me...


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 19, 2014)

a senile fungus said:


> "An enhancement in sugar supply is both necessary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance."
> 
> That's pretty straight forward to me...


 Pretty straight forward for me as well, however, 'sugar supply' shouldn't be taken literally. In other words, dumping white cane sugar in your soil, well, duh. Hope they have enough research dollars to continue the study and determine _exactly_ the molecular structure of the 'sugar' they're referring to. Then we're getting somewhere and could lead to recommendations as to how one may 'enhance' the supply of the _specific_ sugar the plant is looking for.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 19, 2014)

*Significance

It is commonly accepted that the plant hormone auxin mediates apical dominance. However, we have discovered that apical dominance strongly correlates with sugar availability and not apically supplied auxin. We have revealed that apical dominance is predominantly controlled by the shoot tip’s intense demand for sugars, which limits sugar availability to the axillary buds. These findings overturn a long-standing hypothesis on apical dominance and encourage us to reevaluate the relationship between hormones and sugars in this and other aspects of plant development. 

......Our data support a theory of apical dominance whereby the shoot tip’s strong demand for sugars inhibits axillary bud outgrowth by limiting the amount of sugar translocated to those buds.*

"A theory". Let's be clear cause some folks tend to rush to conclusions and link this to that. The buds they refer to are not flowers for starts, they are dormant foliar buds which I refer to in my 4 main cola ditty. You take out the apical dominant points and those sugars/auxins/Cuero Gold shots are redistributed, which backs up my never ending preaching that the top, the most active growing part of a plant/tree/shrub is gonna get mother nature's goodies. IAA also plays a strong role.

When it comes to cannabis, there are many varieties that seem to put on good nugget development at lower levels in the shade, which I showed in my "no light" thread.

*Moreover, artificially increasing sucrose levels in plants represses the expression of BRANCHED1 (BRC1), the key transcriptional regulator responsible for maintaining bud dormancy, and results in rapid bud release. An enhancement in sugar supply is both necessary and sufficient for suppressed buds to be released from apical dominance.*

I never found any reference to how, when, and where sucrose was applied in the study and in what form.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/04/1322045111.abstract

https://www.facebook.com/FESPB.EU/posts/278091662359052


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> Pretty straight forward for me as well, however, 'sugar supply' shouldn't be taken literally. In other words, dumping white cane sugar in your soil, well, duh. Hope they have enough research dollars to continue the study and determine _exactly_ the molecular structure of the 'sugar' they're referring to. Then we're getting somewhere and could lead to recommendations as to how one may 'enhance' the supply of the _specific_ sugar the plant is looking for.


They made mention of sucrose.

As I said earlier, I don't think they meant it as carb loading the soil, I think they were artificially introducing sucrose into plant tissue, kind of like an IV... Or to a plant it'd be intraphloem, or IP.

I have IV supplies and could make a quick sterile enough field and find some sucrose and make a drip, lol. I also wonder the specific structure of the sugar they're using. 

I have 5% dextrose IV bags but doubtful that'd work as its in solution with saline...


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 19, 2014)

a senile fungus said:


> They made mention of sucrose.
> 
> 
> I have IV supplies and could make a quick sterile enough field and find some sucrose and make a drip, lol. I also wonder the specific structure of the sugar they're using.
> ...


What would be your goal?


----------



## waterdawg (May 19, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> I must be crazy, But I really thought the plant makes it's own sugars(photosynthesis) and anything in the soil must be first broken down into ions.
> 
> SO, adding sugar or sugar products won't help the plant, but will feed microbes. RIGHT?


Thats what I thought as well but again a newb when it comes to anything other than time release nutes and praying (seems to work for the most part lol). I would really like to to go kind of au natural for the auto's, so by adding some kind of sugar I would think it would help with the all around health of the soil. That hopefully would help the plant get required nutrients without hitting the spot on a regular basis. I just thought the study may explain why some soil growers say they get good results using molasses. Also the enzymes people use in hydro, are they not used to convert dead plant material into sugars? If I'm getting way off topic I'm sorry and just tell me to get the hell off this thread lol.


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 19, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> *Significance
> 
> It is commonly accepted that the plant hormone auxin mediates apical dominance. However, we have discovered that apical dominance strongly correlates with sugar availability and not apically supplied auxin. We have revealed that apical dominance is predominantly controlled by the shoot tip’s intense demand for sugars, which limits sugar availability to the axillary buds. These findings overturn a long-standing hypothesis on apical dominance and encourage us to reevaluate the relationship between hormones and sugars in this and other aspects of plant development.
> 
> ...


 Excellent post, Ben. Interesting times we live in. It's stuff like this that keeps reminding us just how little we know. After all the years of study on plants and all living things, new stuff is discovered every day. It's truly a treat for a science guy such as myself to sit back and soak it all in. I hope we still have a group of younger people with the same kind of thirst for unanswered questions that my generation has. I suspect they're out there but they currently have their faces stuck in their cell phone worried about somebody's post on Facecrap, _in my opinion_.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 19, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> What would be your goal?


Collection of anecdotal evidence


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 19, 2014)

waterdawg said:


> Thats what I thought as well but again a newb when it comes to anything other than time release nutes and praying (seems to work for the most part lol). I would really like to to go kind of au natural for the auto's, so by adding some kind of sugar I would think it would help with the all around health of the soil. That hopefully would help the plant get required nutrients without hitting the spot on a regular basis. I just thought the study may explain why some soil growers say they get good results using molasses. Also the enzymes people use in hydro, are they not used to convert dead plant material into sugars? If I'm getting way off topic I'm sorry and just tell me to get the hell off this thread lol.


 Check out some information on Mycorrhizal networks if you really want to keep it simple when it comes to soil life. You'll be amazed how easy it is to maintain a proper soil balance with the correct ingredients. Molasses is nice but I prefer it in my cookies!


----------



## waterdawg (May 19, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> Check out some information on Mycorrhizal networks if you really want to keep it simple when it comes to soil life. You'll be amazed how easy it is to maintain a proper soil balance with the correct ingredients. Molasses is nice but I prefer it in my cookies!


I will do that. Thanks! Its unfortunate that growing 6 plants here could get you 6 months in jail! The days of using the garden hose in my back yard are gone


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 19, 2014)

> I hope we still have a group of younger people with the same kind of thirst for unanswered questions that my generation has. I suspect they're out there but they currently have their faces stuck in their cell phone worried about somebody's post on Facecrap, _in my opinion_.




Facebook and Twitter, what a complete waste of time.

Ever watch Water's World on the Bill O'Reilly show? He'll interview youth, the ones you speak of at a beach, political event, street and ask simple questions like, "who is Joe Biden" or "who was our first president", "what does the 2nd Amendment provide for"? Maybe 1 in 10 can answer such basic questions. Then they expect you to give them an answer when they demand it rather than doing some simple research.[/quote]


----------



## cannaculturalist (May 19, 2014)

I certainly didn't post this to troll. I am rather disappointed that the posting of a scientific article would yield such a suggestion. I have better things to do with my time than argue with stoners on the internet. I am just a curious bloke that likes to explore the natural world. I had no expectation that this was going to change anything for anyone, nor should it have changed anyones existing practices if they've already shown to be plenty effective. Nice to see some actual discussion of the science rather than just people hurling shit at each other. Whatever flips your switches.


----------



## Thorhax (May 20, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> *Significance
> 
> It is commonly accepted that the plant hormone auxin mediates apical dominance. However, we have discovered that apical dominance strongly correlates with sugar availability and not apically supplied auxin. We have revealed that apical dominance is predominantly controlled by the shoot tip’s intense demand for sugars, which limits sugar availability to the axillary buds. These findings overturn a long-standing hypothesis on apical dominance and encourage us to reevaluate the relationship between hormones and sugars in this and other aspects of plant development.
> 
> ...


Isn't sucrose a carbohydrate? I know carbohydrates supply the quickest energy... Could this theory show that these quick energy carbs is part of what makes the side branches grow faster. Of course it would obviously be in conjunction with auxin.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

Thorhax said:


> Isn't sucrose a carbohydrate? I know carbohydrates supply the quickest energy... Could this theory show that these quick energy carbs is part of what makes the side branches grow faster. Of course it would obviously be in conjunction with auxin.



Basically, auxins are a hormone that suppresses, or opposes, axillary bud development. This hormone is produced by the tallest growing shoot tip, or the most "apically dominant." 

The traditional school of thought is that the most dominant top was sending down these auxins to the axillary bud sites and suppressing them from growing. This study suggests that it may not be auxins that play a sole role in axillary bud site suppression, but actually that the amount of sugars that are available to each budsite may be what's causing the axillary buds to remain dormant, in conjunction with the hormones. The presence of sugars in an axillary bud site is "sufficient and necessary" to release a budsite from its bind of apical dominance.

This makes sense I think because the main cola is going to be using a lot of sugars and will want to inhibit the other colas from growing so that it can continue to take advantage of having a large portion of the plant's total sugar count to itself. The fact that it is using up a lot of sugars means that there won't be many sugars leftover for axillary buds, and those axillary buds will be suppressed, both by the auxins, but more importantly by lack of available energy.

Basically sugars move faster through a plant than auxins do and so when you top a plant, the signal for the dormant side bud sites to start growing isn't necessarily from the hormone auxin, but from a surge of sugar availability within the plant.



If you feel/see the need to correct me please do... I'd like this to remain productive and educational


----------



## cannaculturalist (May 20, 2014)

I think of it this way; that he apical shoot is growing the most and using up the sugars being produced for shoot development - from the leaves, a portion of which is for roots and he rest of the plant body. So I suggest it is about prioritising the resources and that reduces the supply to the axillary buds to conserve energy. If in ample supply, lateral shooting does occur on its own account in some plants - but surpressed unless the top shoot is damaged, and having an element of redundancy.

So the quest is, what about giving the plant extra sugar to encourage the side shoots? Well, maybe it's not so simple. It would depend on the path ways and whatever controlling mechanisms are involved. If what I pose of a priority of plant resources is correct, then introducing additional sugars to the plant would not necessarily elicit the response of induced branching, again depending on species.

With this kind of research and then the posing of future questions requires one to think in terms of the plant more than just what we can do to fiddle with some process we don't yet fully understand.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

cannaculturalist said:


> I think of it this way; that he apical shoot is growing the most and using up the sugars being produced for shoot development - from the leaves, a portion of which is for roots and he rest of the plant body. So I suggest it is about prioritising the resources and that reduces the supply to the axillary buds to conserve energy. If in ample supply, lateral shooting does occur on its own account in some plants - but surpressed unless the top shoot is damaged, and having an element of redundancy.
> 
> So the quest is, what about giving the plant extra sugar to encourage the side shoots? Well, maybe it's not so simple. It would depend on the path ways and whatever controlling mechanisms are involved. If what I pose of a priority of plant resources is correct, then introducing additional sugars to the plant would not necessarily elicit the response of induced branching, again depending on species.
> 
> With this kind of research and then the posing of future questions requires one to think in terms of the plant more than just what we can do to fiddle with some process we don't yet fully understand.


I think this study helps to show why topping has the effects that it does, ie topping above the second node produces four tops, third node produces six, fourth is eight etc.

I also think, (don't shoot me) that it could explain much of the plant/bud site behavior when we defoliate.

I think this could have many applications and am excited to see more similar research and thought stemming from this.


----------



## Thorhax (May 20, 2014)

a senile fungus said:


> I think this study helps to show why topping has the effects that it does, ie topping above the second node produces four tops, third node produces six, fourth is eight etc.
> 
> I also think, (don't shoot me) that it could explain much of the plant/bud site behavior when we defoliate.
> 
> I think this could have many applications and am excited to see more similar research and thought stemming from this.





Uncle Ben said:


> *Significance
> 
> It is commonly accepted that the plant hormone auxin mediates apical dominance. However, we have discovered that apical dominance strongly correlates with sugar availability and not apically supplied auxin. We have revealed that apical dominance is predominantly controlled by the shoot tip’s intense demand for sugars, which limits sugar availability to the axillary buds. These findings overturn a long-standing hypothesis on apical dominance and encourage us to reevaluate the relationship between hormones and sugars in this and other aspects of plant development.
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!!!! i think that this study just shows another reason topping works.


----------



## Thorhax (May 20, 2014)

a senile fungus said:


> I think this study helps to show why topping has the effects that it does, ie topping above the second node produces four tops, third node produces six, fourth is eight etc.
> 
> I also think, (don't shoot me) that it could explain much of the plant/bud site behavior when we defoliate.
> 
> I think this could have many applications and am excited to see more similar research and thought stemming from this.


However i do not think that it has something to do with defoliation. it wouldn't make sense for sugars to rush to the big fan leaves.


----------



## chuck estevez (May 20, 2014)

Thorhax said:


> However i do not think that it has something to do with defoliation. it wouldn't make sense for sugars to rush to the big fan leaves.


Actually, the leaves are what makes the sugars, it's called photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms'


----------



## cannaculturalist (May 20, 2014)

Ok well here's a question. If this is describing why topping works, then how might this work in regard to LST, bending the plant to encourage lateral growth. Is this purely a tropic effect or partly related to the auxin/sugar flow?


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

Thorhax said:


> However i do not think that it has something to do with defoliation. it wouldn't make sense for sugars to rush to the big fan leaves.





chuck estevez said:


> Actually, the leaves are what makes the sugars, it's called photosynthesis.
> 
> Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms'


There was another study posted on the site which suggested that some larger fan leaves may actually be competing for nutrients with the bud sites. This goes back to the sink or source debate. Leaves are the primary and most efficient and productive location where photosynthesis takes place. If a leaf stops to produce so much, or so efficiently, there will come a time when that leaf will no longer be a source of carbs, and will become a sink. If this is the case, the leaf will be a competitor. So removal of said leaf will not cause net loss of carbs and any energy going into that sink leaf will continue in the ductwork to other parts of the plant.

That study along with this one, for me, suggests that selective removal of leaves (not completely stripping a plant of all leaves) may be a way to redirect plant resources. 

I will continue to play around with this idea...


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

cannaculturalist said:


> Ok well here's a question. If this is describing why topping works, then how might this work in regard to LST, bending the plant to encourage lateral growth. Is this purely a tropic effect or partly related to the auxin/sugar flow?


I would think that it is a relationship between sugar availability and auxins suppressing the lower lateral shoots.

When you LST you might change which shoot is actually the tallest. The tallest will typically be dominant and use the most sugars. Also, by spreading the branches out you are opening the plant up, possibly allowing more sugar production by leaves and therefore changing sugar concentrations within the plant. Maybe this change in sugar production allows the axillary buds to have more access to sugar and to leave their dormant state and become competing colas...

Note: This is all speculation and rambling. I may not actually know what I'm talking about...


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2014)

This is a shot of my grapevines March of this year breaking bud. They are pruned/topped to what's called Vertical Shoot Positioning or VSP. It takes years to produce properly selected fruiting spurs on the permanent cordon arms (and I'm still tweeking)....we're talking spurs at least a fist apart so there's some room for air movement and light into the canopy, about 2-4 buds per spur, about 5-7 spurs per 3' arm, denubbing the stuff that pops daily that comes off the side and below the arms, etc. Not for the faint of heart. 



*.....and this is what happens come harvest.*



Once you master topping and pruning, you rule the world!!!!

(sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

So, in the harvest pic- all the foliage we're seeing originated from the spurs you have spaced apart on the cordon arms? Forgive my ignorance but are spurs also producing the buds for the grapes themselves or do they come later from shoots off the spurs? Thanks for the info YouTwitFace.


----------



## neo12345 (May 20, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> we're talking spurs at least a fist apart so there's some room for air movement and light into the canopy,
> 
> (sorry, couldn't resist)


Why would you need to get light in to the canopy?


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> So, in the harvest pic- all the foliage we're seeing originated from the spurs you have spaced apart on the cordon arms? Forgive my ignorance but are spurs also producing the buds for the grapes themselves or do they come later from shoots off the spurs? Thanks for the info YouTwitFace.


Yes, all that from the spurs. It gets to be a jungle and anything over 6.5' I top. I also have to trim the laterals before netting. Every time I cut, it induces more foliage from the axis of the branches. I try to keep it neat and clean. Some just let the foliage go all over the place, but they don't net either. Many resort to getting cases of shotgun shells and eliminating the bird pop.

I've had what's called 'bull canes' come from those spurs, we're talking shoots up to 10' long.

The spurs have winter dormant buds. Budbreak is in spring and the flowers/fruit is abundant along the new shoots about 6" above the cordon wire.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2014)

neo12345 said:


> Why would you need to get light in to the canopy?


As detailed in previous posts, to increase fruit and wine quality. Do some research on wine grapes.


----------



## st0wandgrow (May 20, 2014)

This is (essentially) the thinking behind sprouted seed teas. We take a seed like barley, and through a soak/rinse/rest cycle begin to sprout the seeds.... then halt that sprouting once enzymatic action has peaked. These enzymes turn the starchy endosperm of the seed into sugars which feed the seeds germination/growth. These grains are then mashed/pureed and strained at this point, and added as a soil drench to our marijuana plants.

Anecdotal evidence only, but it seems to stimulate a lot of growth.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

In theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not.


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

I'm impressed with the even spacing of the spurs and just how organized it all looks. I imagine this vineyard has a few years on it? I can see something like this taking quite some time to arrive at what we're seeing here. Were all these vines planted as just shoots from another vine, kind of like what we call cloning around here?


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> This is (essentially) the thinking behind sprouted seed teas. We take a seed like barley, and through a soak/rinse/rest cycle begin to sprout the seeds.... then halt that sprouting once enzymatic action has peaked. These enzymes turn the starchy endosperm of the seed into sugars which feed the seeds germination/growth. These grains are then mashed/pureed and strained at this point, and added as a soil drench to our marijuana plants.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence only, but it seems to stimulate a lot of growth.


 Ahhhh, malting. I know this process quite well as one of my other hobbies requires this same process to allow the enzymes to break down the starches into something my little yeasties like to eat. Although you have anecdotal evidence only, it seems to me the readily available sugars produced by the enzymes certainly wouldn't harm the soil. How much of that actually becomes available to the plant is going to be determined by the condition of the soil you're treating. If there is a healthy population of micro-organisms ready to munch on the sugar, you probably have a nice little soil amendment there. The mycorrhiza fungi certainly enjoy the extra rotting material that results from the un-eaten sugars.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2014)

Unlike most, I can get a full term cordon the first year on about 90% of my new plantings. It's all about the tweeks.

I plant the highest quality vinifera clones on the rootstock that will provide them with the best nourishment. In fact, one of the parents of the rootstock I use came from my area, and is now used worldwide. It likes lime, is drought tolerant, vigorous as a mofo, and delays budbreak. A scion is budded to the rootstock at the nursery, grown out in the field, dug in the spring and put into cold storage, roots nipped to 8" long and shipped in neat bundles of 25.

Clones - like I said, if I'm going to spend the time and money, I want the best. For example, my Merlot clone came from Beaucastel, France originally. It is the clone that all Merlot clones are compared against regarding wine quality. I also buy certified virus free stock.

Without breeching my security, here's another photo showing budbreak down a row. Have some awesome pix of the vineyard in the with deer grazing on the other side of the fence.

Check out the scars on the side from my pruning. There are thousands of them.


----------



## st0wandgrow (May 20, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> Ahhhh, malting. I know this process quite well as one of my other hobbies requires this same process to allow the enzymes to break down the starches into something my little yeasties like to eat. Although you have anecdotal evidence only, it seems to me the readily available sugars produced by the enzymes certainly wouldn't harm the soil. How much of that actually becomes available to the plant is going to be determined by the condition of the soil you're treating. If there is a healthy population of micro-organisms ready to munch on the sugar, you probably have a nice little soil amendment there. The mycorrhiza fungi certainly enjoy the extra rotting material that results from the un-eaten sugars.



Yes, this is used in an inoculated, organic medium. And yes indeed, it is the same malting process that brewers would use. A lot of other grass seeds can be used as well.


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

During my travels I've driven past vast areas of grape vines that seem to run for miles. I simply can't imagine the time involved in harvesting a viable crop from all that. Holy smokes!!


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> Yes, this is used in an inoculated, organic medium. And yes indeed, it is the same malting process that brewers would use. A lot of other grass seeds can be used as well.


 I'm actually distilling but the process of mashing is virtually the same.
So grass seed, huh? I'm listening...


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> During my travels I've driven past vast areas of grape vines that seem to run for miles. I simply can't imagine the time involved in harvesting a viable crop from all that. Holy smokes!!


I can get a ton of high quality grapes from about 2/3 my vineyard, about 150 vines I'm fruiting. Am still working on a 2 year old row that has no vigor, am dropping fruit and hitting it with my new Love Potion 99 brew.  Time? It's all about time management and economy of scale. I have a tractor, implements, 3 commercial sprayers, one being an air blaster, homemade netter, ATV and a heeler that keeps me company. 

What's a killer is the pests - galls, diseases, viruses, hail, wind. Last year raccoons broke through the net and stole 1,600 lbs. They strip the clusters perfectly clean leaving this skeleton. This year I have to put up an electric fence.


----------



## st0wandgrow (May 20, 2014)

I've used alfalfa seeds, wheat grass, mung beans, chia seeds (more difficult to sprout, makes a bit of gelatinous mess).

Tough to quantify exactly to what extent the plant is utilizing these sugars, but again, rapid growth is consistently observed by those using it.

For anyone not familiar with malting .....

http://www.mosquitobytes.com/Den/Beer/Hmbrewing/Malt.html


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I can get a ton of high quality grapes from about 2/3 my vineyard, about 150 vines I'm fruiting. Am still working on a 2 year old row that has no vigor, am dropping fruit and hitting it with my new Love Potion 99 brew.  Time? It's all about time management and economy of scale. I have a tractor, implements, 3 commercial sprayers, one being an air blaster, homemade netter, ATV and a heeler that keeps me company.
> 
> What's a killer is the pests - galls, diseases, viruses, hail, wind. Last year raccoons broke through the net and stole 1,600 lbs. They strip the clusters perfectly clean leaving this skeleton. This year I have to put up an electric fence.


 Never ending battle I imagine. Congrats on a sweet looking(and producing) vineyard!! I hope it's more than a labor of love for you, labor of 'cash' sounds more fun.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

Yes. Those vines are well kept for sure. Good job Uncle Ben!


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> I've used alfalfa seeds, wheat grass, mung beans, chia seeds (more difficult to sprout, makes a bit of gelatinous mess).
> 
> Tough to quantify exactly to what extent the plant is utilizing these sugars, but again, rapid growth is consistently observed by those using it.
> 
> ...


 Excellent idea using the malting idea. Like you, it's tough to quantify exactly what's being used but again, it certainly doesn't hurt anything. Have you done any side-by-side just for giggles?


----------



## st0wandgrow (May 20, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> Excellent idea using the malting idea. Like you, it's tough to quantify exactly what's being used but again, it certainly doesn't hurt anything. *Have you done any side-by-side just for giggles?*


I have been meaning to. I want to do the same with compost teas, nutrient teas, silica, etc.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2014)

Rocketman64 said:


> Never ending battle I imagine. Congrats on a sweet looking(and producing) vineyard!! I hope it's more than a labor of love for you, labor of 'cash' sounds more fun.


I sell to amateur winemakers. I have an additional charge of $0.10/lb. to crush and destem the grapes using a motorized S/S crusher/destemmer. What takes a couple 4 hours to do by hand I can do in 30 seconds. They leave as happy campers.  I put all posts and trellis in by hand. Try digging 2' deep holes with a manual post hole digger in heavy clay loam but all's well that ends well. It paid for itself upon the first harvest - 3rd leaf.


----------



## a senile fungus (May 20, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I sell to amateur winemakers. I have an additional charge of $0.10/lb. to crush and destem the grapes using a motorized S/S crusher/destemmer. What takes a couple 4 hours to do by hand I can do in 30 seconds. They leave as happy campers.  I put all posts and trellis in by hand. Try digging 2' deep holes with a manual post hole digger in heavy clay loam but all's well that ends well. It paid for itself upon the first harvest - 3rd leaf.


I worked on a farm for years and the auger was often broken and we had to dig post holes by hand. Great way to build muscles and pop blisters


----------



## chuck estevez (May 20, 2014)

Looking good Ub,


----------



## Rocketman64 (May 20, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I sell to amateur winemakers. I have an additional charge of $0.10/lb. to crush and destem the grapes using a motorized S/S crusher/destemmer. What takes a couple 4 hours to do by hand I can do in 30 seconds. They leave as happy campers.  I put all posts and trellis in by hand. Try digging 2' deep holes with a manual post hole digger in heavy clay loam but all's well that ends well. It paid for itself upon the first harvest - 3rd leaf.


 The dreaded post hole digger, uggggghhhh. I spent 8 years installing satellite dishes for a national company many years ago. We installed rain or shine and in the dead of winter with a frost line touching around 12". Our posts had to be below 40" to keep the freezing ground from heaving the concrete up. You want to talk about a friggin workout? The sound of a solid iron spud bar pinging off the frozen Ohio mud still gives me nightmares.


----------



## waterdawg (May 20, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I sell to amateur winemakers. I have an additional charge of $0.10/lb. to crush and destem the grapes using a motorized S/S crusher/destemmer. What takes a couple 4 hours to do by hand I can do in 30 seconds. They leave as happy campers.  I put all posts and trellis in by hand. Try digging 2' deep holes with a manual post hole digger in heavy clay loam but all's well that ends well. It paid for itself upon the first harvest - 3rd leaf.


Do I see a three point hitch post hole digger in your future lol?


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 21, 2014)

waterdawg said:


> Do I see a three point hitch post hole digger in your future lol?


Sold it. I'm a masochist. (had a leaky gasket, use neighbor's now)


----------



## waterdawg (May 22, 2014)

I havent been on tractor since last snow storm!!! I had intimate relations with it this winter due the "winter vortex" .... Fucking snow!!!! Lol


----------

