Fan Leafs. Blockers of Light Or Energy Producers???

Slab said:

I would wish you the same, but I wouldn't want to come off as being inauthentic .

Click to expand...

giantsfan24 said:

I defoliated my last grow and just defoliated my current grow. I doubled my yield in my last grow from the grow prior to that and think I'll do better than that on this grow. I also minimized the possibility of disease in my environment, limited my vertical growth and improved the efficiency of my grow space.

The argument about defoliation won't ever end. The folks that haven't done it or didn't have success doing it claim it doesn't work while the more likely reason is that there were other issues with the grow variables. Something wasn't right and defoliating wasn't the answer to their issues.

I've never had a problem and it works great for me. I'll leave it at that.

Happy Trails

PS. Trying to be civil with the uncivilized is fruitless Making my point then not responding to critics is always the best use of my energy.

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

You and your noobie friends are all about theories. I deal with science only. Word is "botany".

Click to expand...

Bud Brewer said:

Here are some studies

Here Is a study Compensatory growth responses to defoliation and light availability in two native Mexican woody plant species
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...66467409990514

Defoliation, often caused by herbivory, is a common cause of biomass loss for plants that can affect current and future growth and reproduction. There are three
models that predict contrasting compensatory growth responses of plants to herbivory and resource availability: (1) Growth rate model, (2) Compensatory continuum
hypothesis and (3) Limiting resource model. The predictions of these three models were tested on the tree Brosimum alicastrum and the liana Vitis tiliifolia.
Seedlings were subjected to three levels of experimental defoliation (0%, 50% and 90% leaf removal) along a light resource gradient (1%, 9% and 65% of full sun).
In both species, defoliation significantly increased leaf production rate and relative growth rate of leaf area, but not of biomass.
Net assimilation rate was the strongest driver of biomass growth in both species, but leaf area ratio and specific leaf area were also important in B. alicastrum.
Compensatory responses of leaf area growth in B. alicastrum were significantly greater in higher than lower light availability, consistent with the compensatory
continuum hypothesis predictions, but in contrast to the growth rate model predictions. The limiting resource model offered an explanation for all possible
experimental outcomes by directly considering the effects of environmental differences in resource availability.

One more http://journals.cambridge.org/action...1447970002353X

Effects of Artificial Defoliation (Simulating Pest Damage) on Varieties of Upland Rice
W. E. Taylora1

a1 Njala University College, University of Sierra Leone, P. M. B. Freetown

Abstract

Artificial defoliation was used to simulate grazing by cutting-grass or cane-rat (Thryonomys swinderianus), on three rices with durations of 110–115, 130–135
and 140–145 days respectively, defoliated before, during and soon after tillering by removing leaves to half, two-thirds and the total height of the plants.
All varieties showed marked compensatory growth, resulting in increased tillering and yield, especially when defoliated during tillering, but yield fell when
foliage was removed after tillering, especially with shorter duration rice. Defoliation to half the height of the plant during tillering had the most beneficial
effect, whereas removal of all leaves to soil level after the tillering stage had the most adverse effect.

And another it produces more corn & double the cotton in dry conditions http://journals.cambridge.org/action...14479703001534

EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF DEFOLIATION ON GROWTH AND PRODUCTION OF WATER-STRESSED MAIZE AND COTTON PLANTS
Z. YANG a1c1 and D. J. MIDMORE a1
a1 Plant Sciences Group, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Qld 4702, Australia


Article author query
yang z [PubMed][Google Scholar]
midmore d [PubMed][Google Scholar]
Abstract

In this study, different levels of defoliation were imposed on a determinate species (maize) and a relatively indeterminate species (cotton).
The aim was to quantify the effects of defoliation on plant growth and production, under either optimum or water-stressed conditions. Under well-watered conditions,
33% defoliation twice (conducted 28 and 35 days after emergence) resulted in a 16% reduction in grain yield of maize while 67% defoliation once
(conducted 28 days after emergence) had no significant effect on yield. Under water stress, the grain yields of maize plants with 33% (twice) and 67% defoliation
were 13.5% and 25% greater than that of non-defoliated control plants, respectively. For cotton, the reproductive yields (seed and lint) with 33% and 67% defoliation
(conducted 43 days after emergence) were reduced, under well-watered conditions, by 28% and 37% of that of the non-defoliated control, respectively.
Defoliated cotton plants lost less fruiting forms (squares and young bolls) than non-defoliated plants during water stress. Therefore, under water stress the
harvestable product of cotton plants with 67% defoliation was double that of non-defoliated control plants. In non-defoliated cotton plants, a second flush of
flowering after release from water-stress permitted further compensatory fruit set and boll harvest. Defoliated plants did not show such levels of compensation.
Defoliation significantly reduced water use by maize and cotton. The relative yield advantage of defoliated plants under water-stress conditions can be attributed
to defoliation-induced improvement in water status as reflected in measures of photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance. Under anticipated drought stress,
defoliation could be an important management practice to reduce drought-induced yield decrease, but this needs to be tested under field conditions.

(Accepted August 5 2003)

Just one more with corn http://journals.cambridge.org/action...21859600062043

Defoliation studies in hybrid maize: II. Dry-matter accumulation, LAI, silking and yield components*
R. P. Singha1 and K. P. P. Naira1

a1 Department of Agronomy, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India

SUMMARY

Data are presented from an experiment made in two crop seasons, to examine the effects of plant density and degree of defoliation at different stages of growth
in maize at Pantnagar, India, on the dry-matter accumulation in different plant parts, leaf area index (LAI), time of silking and grain yield components.

Different patterns of dry-matter accumulation in various plant parts was observed. Silking was delayed by increasing plant density. Defoliation (even partial)
at the 16th fully expanded leaf stage resulted in substantial reduction in LAI and such yield components as number of ears, ear length, ear diameter and
1000-grain weight. On the other hand, partial defoliation done at the 10th fully expanded leaf stage to simulate an ‘erectophile canopy’ led to yield increases
even under high plant density (90000 plants/ha) in the Kharif (rainy season), mainly through an increase in number of ears, 1000-grain weight and grain to stover
ratio coupled with a reduction in barrenness and percentage of lodging. It is suggested that an increase in the photosynthetic efficiency per unit area of leaf
resulting from the ‘erectophile canopy’ is the reason for these effects.

(Received December 18 1974)



http://www.actahort.org/books/218/218_10.htm
LEAF YIELD RESPONSE OF ETHIOPIAN MUSTARD (BRASSICA CARINATA A BR) SELECTIONS TO DEFOLIATION REGIMES
Authors: N.A. Mnzava, W.W. Msikita
Abstract:
The influence of leaf harvest frequency (weekly or bi-weekly) and amount of leaf removal (10%, 50% or 75%) on total yield of three local Ethiopian mustard
selections 'CRRS-V', 'CRRS-II' and 'Mulio Giant' were studied during two consecutive winter seasons in the field. The amount of leaves removed at each harvest
rather than harvest frequency significantly affected total yield which was test cultivar-dependent. Yield increased with defoliation rate to an optimum at 27 t
ha-1 for 'Mulio Giant', and 40 t ha-1 in 'CRRS-II' under either a 50% weekly or 75% bi-weekly harvest frequency, while 'CRRS-V' attained 55 t ha-1 under a
50% bi-weekly harvest frequency. More frequent and intense defoliation tended to prolong the vegetative phase in all cultivars. The physiological consequences
of defoliation on earliness to flower and compensatory growth in relation to yield variation in vegetable mustard is discussed.

This showed no loss in grain weight but increased leaf production and photosynthesis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19090232?dopt=Abstract
Effects of timing and defoliation intensity on growth, yield and gas exchange rate of wheat grown under well-watered and drought conditions.
Ahmadi A, Joudi M.
Source

Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
Abstract

The aim of this research was to determine the effects of timing and intensity of source reduction on grain yield of wheat under well-watered and drought stress
conditions. A field experiment was conducted at the research farm of the Agriculture College, University of Tehran, Karaj, in 2003-2004. Drought stress was
imposed when plants were at the second node stage by withholding watering and plants were re-irrigated when they showed signs of wilting or leaf rolling,
particularly during the morning. Various intensities of leaf defoliation were performed at three growth stages: booting, anthesis and 20 days after anthesis.
Flag leaf gas exchange parameters as well as chlorophyll content measurements were made 20 days after defoliation at each growth stage. Generally leaf removal
appeared to stimulate an increase of net photosynthesis rate (p(n)) and stomatal conductance (g(s)) of the remaining flag leaf. With leaf removal, stability of
the flag leaf chlorophyll content tended to increase. Neither grain yield, nor protein content were affected by defoliation. Interestingly, even removal of all
leaves at anthesis stage did not reduce grain yield and grain protein significantly. Increased remobilization of stored photoassimilate, decreased maintenance
respiration by source reduction and therefore enhanced photoassimilate partitioning toward grain and spike photosynthesis might be responsible for sustain grain
growth in this condition.
another http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880905002793
Current-year defoliation increased both quality and production of protein and energy compared to non-defoliated plots

We assessed the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on ruminant forage quality and nutrient yields during 4 years in semiarid shortgrass steppe where grazing by
domestic livestock is the primary land-use. A defoliation and a nitrogen fertilization treatment were superimposed on CO2 treatments in large open-top chambers.
CO2 effects on forage soluble and fiber (celluloses, lignin) constituents were small, even though mid-growing season yield and end of season production increased.
However, large negative effects of elevated CO2 were evident in crude protein concentrations and digestibility of forages. While the effects were more negative
mid-growing season than autumn, a reduction in already poor quality autumn forage may be more critical to animals. Crude protein concentrations of autumn forage
on the elevated CO2 treatment fell below critical maintenance requirements 3 out of 4 years, compared to 1 of 4 for ambient and control treatments.
Forage digestibility declined 14% mid-season and 10% in autumn with elevated CO2. Negative effects of elevated CO2 on animal performance mediated through forage
quality are likely to be greater than the positive effects of increased quantity, because quality drops to critically low levels that can inhibit utilization.
Further, elevated CO2 shifted the proportional availability of protein and energy to a species of lower overall quality and the species most negatively affected
by drought. Current-year defoliation increased both quality and production of protein and energy compared to non-defoliated plots, but no CO2 by defoliation
treatment interactions were observed. Nitrogen fertilization increased crude protein concentrations and digestibilities, but not in the least nutritious species
that increased with elevated CO2 or in autumn when quality was lowest.



http://www.forages.ncsu.edu/TechnicalBulletins/TallfescueTB_317.pdf
Research findings show that tall fescue pasture
yield and quality can be greatly improved through
proper defoliation practices and that endophyte-free
tall fescue cultivars can be no-till established into
infected pastures. Further, the experiments show that
with judicious planning and management, producers
can effectively use late summer-accumulated tall
fescue from October to March. These results have
applications wherever tall fescue is grown in North
Carolina and in other mid-Atlantic states.


These are for strawberries http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/25728
The number of trusses and flowers on control plants was significantly lower than on early-renovated plants (2 to 5 WAH). Date of renovation had no significant
effect on yield per plant in the summer of 1990 for all 3 cultivars individually. However, compared with the un-renovated control plants, the pooled yields of
'Benton', 'Totem', and 'Redcrest' showed a significant increase for early renovated plants (5 WAH or earlier). Compared with un-renovated plants, renovation
significantly increased berry size in 'Totem', and delayed the date of harvest in 'Totem' and 'Redcrest' but not in 'Benton'.



one more http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942298004440
However, growth of defoliated seedlings was considerably higher than that of nondefoliated ones.

Last one I could go on forever http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429004000541

Analysis of physiological data collected in 1999 suggests that defoliation suppressed vegetative growth, optimized the ratio of AGDM at anthesis to that at final
harvest (0.5–0.8, peak 0.66) and led to more AGDM post-anthesis for maximal grain production. Defoliation that led to a yield increase also increased the leaf
area ratio and enhanced stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity at anthesis.

It is concluded that defoliation of early (April)-sown wheat defoliated at the middle to late tillering stage could let to greater yield and WUE, and would not
result in yield reduction. The value of foliage removed and overall economic and risk analyses are discussed in a further paper.


None of these plants are like pot that can photosynthesis from there fruit or create leaves on the fruit it is like nothing else. Fruit is usually separate from
leaf like apples.

Defoliation is just another pruning technique like topping, suppercroping, lollypoping or listing.

Topping a plant they go into shock and then develop branches faster then if the top was on.

Supercroping you crush the stem stopping food and water to the branch it goes into shock and stops growing until it heals then gains vigor.

Lollypoping defoliates and removes branches leaving large holes in the stem causing shock till the wounds heal and hormones transfer.

Listing shocks the plant forcing it to change the flow of hormones and stops growth until the hormone transfers and leaves reorientates up.

Defoliation removes large leaf forcing growth to the smaller leaves attached to branches making the branches develop much more replacing the leaf mass in three
days while keeping the top and creating more bud sites with closer nodes and denser branching.

Are any of these methods scientifically proven to work on pot all cause some shock I have never seen a side by side or proof
of any kind that these methods work other that peoples opinion but are not questioned much most try it for themselves. The vast majority of people who have
defoliated are happy with the results I bet a much higher % than the other methods which is why dozens of growers have defended the thread always
against people who have never tried it usually only a couple of haters at a time versus many more who have done it and produce increased numbers from previous grows.

The only people who argue are ones who admit to not trying it but believe the solar panel religion blindly even thou the leaves replace themselves in 3 days
I have read much more than most about this and can not find one person who put up numbers or pictures proving this didn't work only a rare post where it didn't
work for them or they did it wrong I have asked them what happened and they never give details

I have tried all the pruning methods over the years with the exception of supercroping to move a branch I don't care for any of the other methods none have been as good or as fast as defoliation a buddy showed me this years ago when I was part of the solar panel religion till I was converted we didn't do it exactly like the
thread but did see results.

I want to investigate this to the fullest Including real side by sides with numbers for a valued test of timing and amounts with controls which will be started soon.

I thank you for reading this and I hope you look at it with an open mind it is a bit to read and much more to write.
Thanks Bud Brewer out.

Click to expand...

legallyflying said:

The truth of the matter is that canopy management is a critical part of producing the highest amount of high quality buds.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to take the time to learn how to apply this technique properly..its really no big deal.

Click to expand...

There are PLENTY of growers that learn one thing and are absolutely resistant to hearing any other technique or information regardless if it shown to produce better results. Unlce Ben probably being the biggest example of this. I have seen him pull the string on his back and claim "snake oil snake oil snake oil" on such products that have really come to forefront in recent years such as cold extract kelp and fulvic acids and using HPS for the entire growth cycle.

Click to expand...

The most skilled professional grower I have ever read about goes through two rounds of defoliation every cycle. This guy (desert squirrel) absoutely fucking kills it, like staggering amounts of yield and balls to the wall quality. This cat knows what the hell he is doing, down to PH specific rangesfor different portions of the grow and calculating nutrient profiles to determine the EXACT amount of each mineral he is adding. And this is in undercurrent systems which are arguably THE hardest method to master. If he is trimming fan leaves, then I am trimming fan leaves.

Click to expand...

Slab said:

what I would like to get is a better understanding of is leaf transmittance, and does it vary with the wattage of bulb.

I wish you guys would lay off with personal attacks, it's a real buzz kill.

Click to expand...

Slab said:

good points, for fun I will add. if you cut off one hand, the other will becoming stronger from more use lol.

Click to expand...

Slab said:

what I would like to get is a better understanding of is leaf transmittance, and does it vary with the wattage of bulb.

Click to expand...

Slab said:

thanks Uncle Ben! very kind of you.

Click to expand...