Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 29;16(7):e0249160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249160

Evaluation of substrate composition and exogenous hormone application on vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

Sean M Campbell 1,¤, Steven L Anderson 1, Zachary T Brym 2, Brian J Pearson 1,*
Editor: Bi-Cheng Dong3
PMCID: PMC8320905  PMID: 34324510

Abstract

To support the rapidly expanding industrial hemp industry, a commercial supply of high-quality starter plants with low genetic variability from nurseries will be key to consistent and efficient cultivation efforts. Rooting success was evaluated across four propagation medias, five rooting hormones, and eight commercially available high-cannabidiol (CBD) essential oil hemp cultivars. Cuttings were placed in a climate-controlled room and assessed for rooting success 12 days after cloning. Rooting success was determined by quantifying total root number, cumulative total root length, and total root mass. Propagation media had the greatest effect on rooting success (13–80%). Rockwool had the highest rooting success resulting in 10-fold increases in rooting traits over the next highest scoring medium (Berger BM6). Hormone applications significantly improved (15- to 18-fold) rooting success compared to no hormone application, while non-statistical differences were observed across auxin hormone concentrations and application methods. Genetic variation in rooting response was observed between cultivars with ‘Cherry Wine’ outperforming all other cultivars with an approximate 20% increase in rooting success over the next highest rooting cultivar, ‘Wife’. Although the ideal combination was not specifically identified in this study, findings provide insight into how rooting hormone application and medium selection impact vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp.

1. Introduction

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is a short day, herbaceous, commonly dioecious annual plant cultivated throughout the world for grain, fiber, and secondary metabolites. Passing of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 federally commercialized production and distribution of industrial hemp [C. sativa having less than 0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)] in the United States [1]. Of the $1.4 billion in hemp-based product sales in the U.S. for 2019, $813.2 million were attributed to consumer sales of cannabidiol (CBD), a secondary metabolite, and its associated products. These values are estimated at $2.61 and $1.81 billion, respectively, by 2024 [2, 3]. Unlike grain and fiber varieties which are planted exclusively by seed, essential oil hemp is cultivated through seed and cutting propagation. Seed propagation of essential oil hemp is simple and cost-effective, but commonly lacks genetic uniformity required for commercial cultivation [4, 5]. Vegetative propagation guarantees genetic uniformity and production of female plants, an important attribute for dioecious essential oil hemp. Male plants inherently produce low levels of oil and, through sexual fertilization, can reduce oil production in female plants by as much as 75% [6]. Therefore, asexual vegetative propagation of hemp offers a reliable, cost-effective method for hemp cultivators and liner producers.

Successful rooting of vegetative cuttings can be influenced by an array of factors including plant genetics [7], cutting caliper [8, 9], humidity [10], temperature [11, 12], season [8, 9], mother stock age/health [9, 12], leaf number and tipping [13], hormone application [13], and stem wounding [7]. Currently, limited scientific literature exists with respect to optimizing vegetative propagation in Cannabis. Caplan et al. [13] demonstrated uncut leaf tips and application of 2000 ppm indole-3-butyric (IBA) acid gel significantly increased rooting success of Cannabis, while removal of leaves (3 versus 2), and location of cutting (apical versus basal) had little effect on rooting success. Campbell et al. [7] demonstrated stem wounding followed by 1000 ppm IBA significantly increased rooting success and time to rooting across three marijuana cultivars. Of the current Cannabis rooting studies, environmental conditions consisted of growth chamber or humidity domes which may not be applicable at commercial scale. Hormone rates, application methods, and rooting media have not been empirically studied to our knowledge and could significantly optimize propagation success.

Optimal propagation media depends upon plant species, cutting type, season, and propagation system. Rooting medium serves several functions towards rooting success, to include: (i) holding the cutting in place during rooting, (ii) providing moisture to the cutting, (iii) allowing air to the base of the cutting, and (iv) reducing light penetration to cutting base [14]. Ideal propagation medium has sufficient porosity combined with high water holding capacity while also being well drained. Optimal water retention of medium is critical to propagation success as excess water retention can block oxygen to developing roots [15]. Furthermore, propagation systems in conjunction with season may dictate the appropriate propagation media for optimized rooting success. Commonly, propagators use a combination of organic (peat, sphagnum moss, bark) and mineral components (perlite, vermiculite, polystyrene, rockwool) [16] in combination with intermittent misting, fog, or enclosed systems.

Treating cuttings with auxin increases formation of roots, reduces time to root initiation, and improves rooting uniformity [14, 17]. Valued for their extensive history of use and consistent rooting response, indole-3-butryic acid (IBA) and 1-naphthalenacetic acid (NAA) are common auxins used in commercial propagation of plants [17, 18]. Auxin is commonly applied to cuttings via liquid solution, powder formulations, or a combination of both methods [14], although liquid solutions are generally more effective than powder formulations [19, 20]. Low concentrations of IBA (1000–2000 ppm) have demonstrated improved rooting success of Cannabis compared to no auxin application [7, 13], indicating hemp rooting lies within the range of softwood/herbaceous to semi-hardwood auxin application rates and may tolerate auxin levels up to 5000 ppm [14]. No comparison of auxin application rates has been empirically study in Cannabis to our knowledge.

Where propagative information is made available, contributions are primarily sourced from Cannabis-based website opinions and user forums, thus there is a need for reliable, empirically derived information that has examined factors influential in rooting success of essential oil hemp. The objectives of this investigation were to examine the influence of four media compositions and five exogenous plant rooting hormone compounds on rooting success of eight vegetatively propagated essential oil hemp cultivars. The objectives of this study were to: (i) quantify the effects of commercially available rooting mediums on rooting success of essential oil hemp, (ii) evaluate the effect of commercial auxin products of varying concentrations and application methods on rooting success of essential oil hemp cultivars, and (iii) determine if genetic variation in rooting response exists across essential oil hemp cultivars.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Propagation media

Four soilless media were selected based on their bulk density (Db) and water holding capacities as presented by the manufacturer’s product specifications, which was mainly influenced by percentage peat (Fig 1). Propagation media included:

Fig 1. Cross section, dry bulk density in lb./ft.3 and g/cm3, sphagnum peat moss content (%) and pH for the four experimental substrates.

Fig 1

XValues determined experimentally using an average of three replicates of the saturated paste extract method [21]. WRockwool pH was adjusted before use per the manufacturer’s instruction. YExact values unavailable, percentage was estimated based on company product description. ZValues reported as lb./ft.3 and g/cm3 to satisfy manufacturers specifications and scientific literature, respectively.

  • PRO-MIX High Porosity (HP) Mycorrhizae Growing Medium (Premier Tech Horticulture; Quakertown, PA).

  • Jolly Gardener Pro-Line C/20 (Oldcastle Lawn & Garden; Atlanta, GA).

  • Berger BM6 All-Purpose Mix (Berger; Saint-Modeste, QC).

  • Stone Wool A-OK 1.5” Starter Plugs (Grodan; Roermond, The Netherlands), hereafter referred to as Grodan rockwool will be used as reference.

2.2 Rooting hormone

Five rooting hormone treatments were prepared according to manufacturer recommendations and included: Hormidin 1 (H1, 1,000 ppm IBA); Hormidin 2 (H2, 3,000 ppm IBA); 1:10 Dip ‘N Grow (DNG, 1,000 ppm IBA/500 ppm NAA); 1:5 Hormex (Hx, 500 ppm NAA); and an untreated control. H1 and H2 (OHP, Inc., Bluffton, SC) were applied directly in their powdered form to the freshly cut portion of the internode. The DNG (Dip ‘N Grow Inc, Clackamas, OR) liquid concentrate was diluted to a 1:10 ratio with distilled water, reducing it from the packaged 10,000 ppm IBA/5,000 ppm NAA to the desired 1,000 ppm IBA/500 ppm NAA. The cut portion of the cutting’s internodes were dipped in for three to five seconds. The Hx Vitamin B1 and Hormone (Hormex, Westlake Village, CA) liquid concentrate was diluted to a 1:5 ratio with distilled water, reducing the packaged 2,400 ppm NAA to the desired 500 ppm NAA, before propagules were soaked for a duration of 5 minutes.

2.3 Hemp cultivars and cutting preparation

Eight “high-CBD, low-THC” hemp cultivars to include ‘ACDC’ (A), ‘Cherry’ (C), and ‘Super CBD’ (D) (Ano Colorado, LLC; Hartsel, CO), ‘ACDC’ (M) and ‘JL Baux’ (L) (Colorado Hemp Institute, LLC.; Parachute, CO), and ‘Cherry Wine’ (N), ‘Mother Earth’ (Q), and ‘Wife’ (P) (Lone Star Valley, LLC.; Monte Vista, CO) were evaluated. The cultivars selected have reported THC < 0.3% and CBD ≥ 7% which equates to a CBD:THC ratio of ≥ 20:1. Mother stock plants (5 plants of each cultivar cloned from a singular mother plant) were cultivated in a greenhouse located in Apopka, Florida, United States (latitude 28°38’ N, longitude 81°33’ W) using 1000 W, 7500K metal halide lamps to maintain a photoperiod of 18 hr daylight to ensure plants remained vegetative. Mother stock were maintained in c1600 (13.55 L) containers with Pro-Mix HP Mycorrhizae (Premier Tech Horticulture, Quakertown, PA, U.S.) media. Mother stock was supplied with Osmocote 15-9-12 5-6-month slow-release fertilizer (Everris NA, Inc.; Dublin, OH, United States) as needed. Mother stock plants were roughly 7 months old when cuttings were taken (11/7/2019).

A total of 120 cuttings of each cultivar were collected from 5 genetically identical mother stock plants. Cuttings were excised from apical shoot tips at a length of ~15 cm. To maintain uniformity, clones were selected with four identifiable nodes and expanded fan leaves. Lower fan leaves were removed and the leaf at the youngest/ apical node were tipped. A 45-degree cut was made below (~1 cm) the fourth node to increase vascular tissue surface area exposure. Although studies have identified that leaf removal and tipping may reduce rooting success of Cannabis [13], under our lower humidity rooting conditions excessive leaf tissue resulted in low turgor presser of clones within all propagation medias. Cuttings were rooted in 6.35 cm round Hydrofarm CK64002 plastic 72 cell pack (Hydrofarm, Medley, FL, U.S.) with experimental rooting mediums.

2.4 Experimental design and environmental rooting conditions

The experiment was designed as a 4 × 5 × 8 confounded split-split-plot, with the main plot of propagation media (Grodan Rockwool, PRO-MIX HP, Berger BM6, and Jolly Gardner Pro-Line C/20), the sub-plot of rooting hormone application (Hx, DNG, H2, H1, and control), and the sub-sub-plot of eight hemp cultivars: ‘ACDC’ (A), ‘Super CBD’ (B), ‘Cherry’ (C), ‘JL Baux’ (L), ‘ACDC’ (M), ‘Cherry Wine’ (N), ‘Wife’ (P), and ‘Mother Earth’ (Q). Each of the 160 treatment combinations was replicated six times, once per tray, for a total of 960 experimental observations.

Clones were placed in environmentally controlled propagation rooms. Room temperature was controlled by an air conditioner set to 25°C. Air temperature (24.90 ± 0.04° C) and relative humidity (63.62 ± 0.16%) were recorded by thermocouples near canopy height and were collected by a wireless data logging station (HOBO RX3000; Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, United States). A 24-h photoperiod was provided by T5 fluorescent lamps (E-conolight, Sturtevant, WI, United States). The photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) on the propagation bench was measured by a quantum sensor (MQ-500; Apogee Instruments Inc., Logan, UT, United States) at ten representative positions at the seedling canopy level. The average PPFD that cuttings and seedlings received was 54 μmol m-2 s-1, with a daily light integral (DLI) of 5 mol m-2 d-1. Media was manually saturated as necessary to maintain cutting turgor.

2.5 Data collection

Propagules were harvested for analysis 12 days after sticking (DAS) when more than 50% of all propagules had visible root protrusion from the stem when gently removed from the media [13]. Medium was rinsed from rooted cuttings prior to measurement collection using either water alone or in combination with forceps. Propagules were placed onto a 20” box fan (Lasko; West Chester, PA) and cellulose filter (3M; Saint Paul, MN) for approximately 5 min to remove surface moisture. Roots were then removed from each propagule with a razor blade and recorded for total root number, laid end to end and measured for length, and weighed to record total root mass (S1 File). Cuttings that died during the experiment were given a score of zero for the rooting measurements.

2.6 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using JMP (JMP®, Version 14. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989–2021.). To normalize data, due to a substantial proportion of zero values within the distribution, the root number, root length, and root mass response variables were transformed using the cube root transformation.

The three-factor split-split plot model (Eq 1) was fitted as follows: where μ is the grand mean;

yijklm=μ+Tm+TRlm+αi+αTRilm+βj+αβij+αβTRijlm+γk+αγik+βγjk+αβγijk+εijklm (1)

Tm is the random trial effect; TRlm is the random trial-by-rep interaction;, αi is the fixed, main plot (medium) effect; αTRilm is the random, error term of the main plot (medium); βj is the fixed, sub-plot effect (hormone); αβij is the fixed, medium-by-hormone interaction effect; αβTRijlm is the random, error term of the sub-plot (hormone) and medium-by-hormone interaction; γk is the fixed, sub-sub-plot (cultivar) effect; αγik is the fixed, medium-by-cultivar interaction effect; βγjk is the fixed, hormone-by-cultivar interaction effect; αβγijk is the fixed, medium-by-hormone-by-cultivar interaction effect; and εijklm is the residual random error term for sub-sub-plot (cultivar), medium-by-cultivar, hormone-by-cultivar, and medium-by-hormone-by-cultivar. Significant, statistical differences were calculated using Tukey’s HSD test (α < 0.05).

3. Results

Within the three experimental independent variables of medium, hormone, and cultivar and the three recorded root phenotypes of count, length and mass, there were significant (α = 0.05) differences observed at P <0.001. All three phenotypes for the medium-by-cultivar interaction effect exhibited significance at P <0.001, whereas only two of the three recorded factors exhibited significant differences for the hormone-by-cultivar interaction effect (P = 0.019, P = >0.05 (NS), P = 0.014). The interaction effects of medium-by-hormone (P = 0.33, P = 0.398, and P = 0.531) and medium-by-hormone-by-cultivar (P = 0.23, P = 0.223, and P = 0.299) lacked significance across all three rooting phenotypes and therefore were omitted.

3.1 Rooting media significantly influenced rooting success

Rooting medium significantly affected rooting success with medias ranging from 13.3 to 80.4%. Average rooting success among media treatments expressed 2.26±3.58 roots with a cumulative root length of 3.13±4.24 cm and root mass of 7.39±10.78 g. Cuttings propagated in rockwool displayed the greatest rooting success for root number (7.7 roots), length (9.5 cm), and mass (23.8 mg). Rooting success of rockwool was 7- to 13-fold greater than the next best performing medium for all rooting phenotypes. Rooting success in Berger BM6 (0.7 roots, 1.3 cm, and 2.7 mg) and PRO-MIX HP (0.59 roots, 1.6 cm, and 3.0 mg) were statistically lower than rockwool but not statistically different from each another. Rooting success was lowest in Pro-Line C/20 soilless medium (< 0.1 roots, <0.1 cm, and <0.1 mg) which equated to 435- to 580-fold reduction in rooting success compared to rockwool’s performance (Fig 2A).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Root number (roots; top row), length (cm, center row), and mass (mg; bottom row) for the [A] medium, [B] hormone, and [C] cultivar independent variables for industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) vegetative cuttings. Hormone treatments include Hormidin 1 (H1, 1,000 ppm IBA); Hormidin 2 (H2, 3,000 ppm IBA); 1:10 Dip ‘N Grow (DNG, 1,000 ppm IBA/500 ppm NAA); 1:5 Hormex (Hx, 500 ppm NAA) and an untreated Control. Bars plot represent group means and error bars represent the 95% confidence interval of each group. Connect letter represent Tukey HSD significant difference tests (α = 0.05).

3.2 Rooting significantly improved with hormone application

Rooting hormone application also significantly improved success, ranging from 24.0 to 50.5% within hormone treatments. Average rooting success across media treatments (including control) expressed 1.17±0.63 roots with a cumulative root length of 1.93±0.53 cm and root mass of 4.27±2.23 g. A 2-fold increase in rooting success was observed when hormone was applied compared to no hormone application. No significant differences were observed among hormone treatments (excluding control; 1.44±0.44 roots; 2.36±0.77 cm; 5.24±1.52 g). H2 numerically outperformed other hormone treatments in rooting number and root mass, while Hx resulted in the longest roots. H1 had the least impact on rooting among the hormone treatments (0.8 roots, 1.2 cm, and 2.9 mg) (Fig 2B).

3.3 Genetic variation in rooting response across cultivars

Significant variance in rooting response was observed across cultivars. Rooting success within cultivars ranged from 37.5 to 46.7%. On average, rooting among cultivars equated to 1.04±0.37 roots with a cumulative root length of 1.73±0.64 cm and root mass of 3.82±1.30 g. ‘Cherry Wine’ (N) developed the highest root number (2.0 roots), length (3.2 cm), and mass (7.0 mg) among the eight tested “high-CBD” hemp cultivars. ‘Cherry Wine’ (N) root growth was approximately 20% greater than the next highest rooting cultivar, ‘Wife’ (P), for all rooting phenotypes. ‘Mother Earth’ (Q) (0.4 roots, 0.6 cm, and 1.5 mg) had the worst propagule rooting performance among cultivars, expressing a 3.30- to 4.64-fold reduction among rooting phenotypes. (Fig 2C).

3.4 Cultivar specificity to rooting media or hormone

Significant interaction existed between cultivar and medium, indicating optimal rooting media can vary across essential oil hemp cultivars. Five cultivars (A, L, N, P, and Q) expressed significantly increased rooting response when propagated within rockwool media. ‘Super CBD’ (B) was unique among cultivars where significantly increased rooting response occurred when propagated within Berger BM6 media (Fig 3A). The remaining cultivars (C and M) expressed insignificant rooting responses between PRO-MIX HP, Berger BM6, and rockwool media. All cultivars expressed the least rooting response when propagated with the Proline media and the greatest response in rockwool [excluding ‘Super CBD’ (B)]. Our results demonstrate cultivar specificity to rooting media exists and can significantly improve rooting success.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Visual representation of root number (roots; left column), length (cm; center column), and mass (mg; right column) for the [A] medium-by-cultivar interaction and [B] hormone-by-cultivar interaction for industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) vegetative cuttings. Hormone treatments include Hormidin 1 (H1, 1,000 ppm IBA); Hormidin 2 (H2, 3,000 ppm IBA); 1:10 Dip ‘N Grow (DNG, 1,000 ppm IBA/500 ppm NAA); 1:5 Hormex (Hx, 500 ppm NAA) and an untreated Control. Points are independent and lines are being used for visualization purposes.

Significant interaction existed between cultivar and hormone application, indicating optimal hormone application method and auxin concentrations can vary across essential oil hemp cultivars (Fig 3B). For all cultivars, application of auxin versus no auxin applied resulted in improved rooting success. ‘Cherry’ (C) expressed improved rooting response when liquid, quick-dip applications were utilized. Additionally, ‘Cherry’ (C) benefited from increased IBA concentration (3000 pmm vs 1000 ppm) if powder application methods are the only products available. Furthermore, ‘Super CBD’ (B) expressed improved rooting response when propagated with higher concentrations of hormone (1000 ppm IBA + 500 ppm NAA or 3000 ppm IBA). Six cultivars (A, L, M, N, P, and Q) demonstrated low specificity to hormone application method or auxin concentration, which indicates these cultivars are less difficult to root and applicable to a multi-cultivar propagation system.

4. Discussion

Being naturally dioecious, hemp is wind pollinated, highly heterozygous, suffers from inbreeding depression, and exhibits hybrid vigor [22]. Furthermore, beyond sexual reproduction, male sex expression is undesirable due to reduced cannabinoid concentrations in essential oil cultivars [23] and reduced fiber quality due to early degradation [6]. Chemical applications can be used to influence sex development of male flowers on female Cannabis plants [24], the resulting XX pollen can be used to pollinate female flower to produce “feminized seed” (i.e., all resulting seedlings will be XX female genotype) [6, 25, 26]. Unfortunately, propagation through “feminized seed” can demonstrate a high degree of variation with a cultivar [25, 27] at early generation followed by extreme inbreeding after several generations of feminized seed production (i.e., self-pollination) [6]. Mendelian genetics demonstrates that feminized seed must be at the fifth generation of inbreeding (F5) to contain <10% heterozygosity, which should be kept under consideration when looking for stable seed sources [28]. To capitalize on hybrid vigor, feminized F1 hybrid seed should originate from highly inbred parental lineage (>F4) to avoid variation. Alternatively, clonal propagation is used in many crops cultivated by humans (including Cannabis) to eliminate variability caused by sexual reproduction, resulting in a consistent performing genotype. Clonal propagation of female plants eliminates the risk of male (XY) genotypes and provides genetically identical plants with the desired phenotypic expression regardless of heterotic levels of the mother plants [6].

4.1 Propagation media

Propagation media had greater effect on rooting success compared to hormone and cultivar treatments within our environment. Two media properties which have a significant impact on rooting success are porosity and bulk density. Highly porous media can be too loose and lead to insufficient contact between the cutting and the media, resulting in loss of turgor [29]. Low porosity can lead to increased water holding capacity of the media and reduced oxygen availability to developing roots [14]. Related to porosity, bulk density (soil weight per unit volume) defines, with higher bulk densities generally having lower total porosity, water holding capacity, and air filled porosity [30]. Selecting a propagation media that offers a balance of good aeration and high water-holding capacity [14, 29, 31] in combination with good water management is critical to rooting success. Of the limited Cannabis propagation studies, no comparisons have been made across media types. Campbell et al. [7] used peat-based Grow-Tech Flexi-Plug (Quick Plug, South Portland, ME, USA) with humidity domes and Caplan et al. [13] used PRO-MIX PG Organic growing medium (Premier Tech) with growth chambers under complex environmental conditions. There remains a lack of empirical studies aimed at optimizing Cannabis propagation under different production methods (fog, mist, etc.)

When comparing the three commercially available potting mixes utilized in this study, the primary factor considered was the peat concentration, ranging from 65–75%, 80%, and 85% for the PRO-MIX HP, Jolly Gardner Pro-Line C/20, and Berger BM6 medias, respectively. Hemp prefers well-aerated soils with ample aeration and high organic matter concentration; poorly drained or compacted soils can result in difficulty establishing seedlings and young plants. This suggests that rooting success could be improved as aeration is heightened and bulk density is decreased [32]. In the context of bulk density, the greater bulk density reported for the Jolly Garner Pro-Line C/20 versus Berger BM6 and PRO-MIX HP medias could also be responsible for its poor rooting success [33]. The uniformity in density, size, and weight of rockwool carries multiple advantages over commercial potting mixes demonstrated in the study. The uniform medium consistency, optimal air-to-water ratio (due to high porosity and water-holding capacity), and lack of competitive organisms [3436] resulted in rockwool significantly outperforming the other three medias.

4.2 Endogenous auxin application substantially increased rooting

Selection of rooting hormone had minimal impact on rooting success compared to cultivar and medium selection, although, significant improvement was achieved when using a hormone versus the control. Caplan et al. [13] found that the position (apical or basal) C. sativa cuttings were taken from had little effect on success or quality of rooting, but that application of a 2,000 ppm IBA treatment exhibited a 2.1-fold increased rate of rooting success and 1.6-fold increased root quality when compared to a 2,000 ppm willow (Salix alba L.) extract. Powder based applications of IBA tend to be less effective than solutions of equal concentration (e.g. H1 versus DNG) [20]. Quick-dip solutions have several advantages including application uniformity, reduced cost at large cutting throughput, broad auxin final concentration, and uniform rooting results. Nevertheless, powders are easy to apply, do not require dilutions to achieve desired auxin concentrations, are easy to store, and evidence of application is easily visible [14, 17, 3739]. Cannabis is an easily rooted plant which benefits from the application of auxin. However, excessive auxin concentrations can negatively impact rooting success [17] and such thresholds have not been identified for Cannabis.

4.3 Management and cultivar selection

Cultivar genetics affected overall rooting success in this study. Comparable results have been reported for marijuana cultivars ‘Ghost Train Haze’, ‘Bubba Kush’, and ‘Headband’ with rooting percentages of 85%, 40%, and 40%, respectively [7]. The differential in rooting identified in literature and observed in this study is cultivar-specific but can be influenced by environmental and managerial conditions [14]. Proper selection of genetics is a critical consideration for large-scale producers who demand stable genetic rooting response, placing high selection intensity upon rooting success when selecting breeding accessions for mother stock and clonal propagation. If production goals are aimed to provide a diverse portfolio of Cannabis genetics, a producer may select to implement a single or limited number of rooting techniques that result in high rooting success across a broad range of cultivars, removing difficult to root cultivars from their system. Adversely, some producers may elect to grow a cultivar that is in high demand in the current market (e.g., CBG cultivar) specializing their management and production environment to optimize rooting success of such cultivars. A comparison could be made between any combination of cultivars with similar market demand and value and should be taken into consideration when incorporating new hemp genetics within a business’s supply chain.

5. Conclusion

Differing agricultural techniques stemming from cultural preferences interacting with varied environmental factors have led to a diverse industrial hemp phenotype, and the blossoming industrial hemp and cannabinoid markets will demand a reliable supply of consistently cultivated to produce the extracts, consumer goods, and other associated products required. Our study identified: (i) medium selection significantly effects rooting response of hemp vegetative cuttings; (ii) the use of a rooting hormone significantly increases rooting success; (iii) variances in genetics among cultivar effect hemp rooting; and (iv) specific interactions occur between cultivars and medium or hormones, although the substrate or hormone selection may overcome one another. While multiple methods exist for the propagation of industrial hemp, rooting success of vegetative cuttings will be improved by proper selection of genetics and propagation media, in combination with a rooting hormone. Future work could identify additional factors which may influence rooting success including, but not limited to, mother stock nutrient application, age of mother stock, caliper of cutting, length of cutting, number of nodes withing rooting medium, light spectrum/intensity, nutrient applications rates/timing to cuttings, and season/environmental/management rooting plasticity.

Supporting information

S1 File. Sheet 1 raw data contains the raw data collection and cube root transformed data used in the statistical analysis.

Sheet 2 Model output means contains the back transformed best linear unbiased predictors/estimates of the model terms.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jimmie Johnston and Dylan Raab for their assistance with this work. Jerry Fankhauser and Sandra Alomar for administrative assistance; and all members of the University of Florida IFAS Industrial Hemp Pilot Project for their collaboration.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its S1 File.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This project was made possible by financial support from Green Roads, LLC and the UF/IFAS Office of the Dean and Research. Green Point Research, Green Roads LLC, and ANO Colorado LLC donated the cultivars used in this research. Steven Anderson was funded by Roseville Farm’s UF/IFAS Florida Industrial Hemp Endowment contribution.

References

  • 1.Congress U, editor Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. 115th Congress Available at https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRPT-115hrpt1072.pdf; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Statista. Sales of hemp-based products in the United States from 2012 to 2022 2020. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/980300/hemp-based-products-sales-us/.
  • 3.Statista. Total U.S. cannabidiol (CBD) consumer sales from 2014 to 2022 2020. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/760498/total-us-cbd-sales/.
  • 4.Ball V. Ball Redbook: Ball Pub.; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Potter DJ. A review of the cultivation and processing of cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) for production of prescription medicines in the UK. Drug testing and analysis. 2014;6(1–2):31–8. doi: 10.1002/dta.1531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Small E. Cannabis: a complete guide: CRC Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Campbell LG, Naraine SG, Dusfresne J. Phenotypic plasticity influences the success of clonal propagation in industrial pharmaceutical Cannabis sativa. PloS one. 2019;14(3):e0213434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dorrell D. Vegetative propagation of flax by stem cuttings. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 1974;54(1):197–201. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Haile G, Gebrehiwot K, Lemenih M, Bongers F. Time of collection and cutting sizes affect vegetative propagation of Boswellia papyrifera (Del.) Hochst through leafless branch cuttings. Journal of Arid Environments. 2011;75(9):873–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.De Andrés E, Sánchez F, Catalán G, Tenorio J, Ayerbe L. Vegetative propagation of Colutea istria Mill. from leafy stem cuttings. Agroforestry systems. 2004;63(1):7–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hinesley L, Blazich F. Influence of postseverance treatments on the rooting capacity of Fraser fir stem cuttings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1981;11(2):317–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Muñoz-Gutiérrez L, Vargas-Hernández JJ, López-Upton J, Soto-Hernández M. Effect of cutting age and substrate temperature on rooting of Taxus globosa. New forests. 2009;38(2):187–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Caplan D, Stemeroff J, Dixon M, Zheng Y. Vegetative propagation of cannabis by stem cuttings: effects of leaf number, cutting position, rooting hormone, and leaf tip removal. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2018;98(5):1126–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hartmann HT, Kester DE, Davies FT, Geneve RL. Hartmann and Kester’s Principles and Practices of Plant Propagation. 8 ed: Pearson Education Limited; 2014. 922 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tilt K. Physical properties of propagation media and their effects on rootng of three woody ornamentals. HortScience. 1987;22:245–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sabalka D. Propagation media for flats and for direct sticking: what works? Combined proceedings-International Plant Propagators’ Society (USA). 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Blythe EK, Sibley JL, Tilt KM, Ruter JM. Methods of auxin application in cutting propagation: A review of 70 years of scientific discovery and commercial practice. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 2007;25(3):166–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Preece JE. A century of progress with vegetative plant propagation. HortScience. 2003;38(5):1015–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Berry J. Rooting hormone formulations: A chance for advancement. Combined proceedings-International Plant Propagators’ Society (USA). 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chong C, Allen O, Barnes H. Comparative rooting of stem cuttings of selected woody landscape shrub and tree taxa to varying concentrations of IBA in talc, ethanol and glycol carriers. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 1992;10(4):245–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Huang J, Fisher P. The Saturated Paste Extract Method to Test Substrate pH and Electrical Conductivity (EC). UF/IFAS Bulletin FRA S14. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Clarke RC, Merlin MD. Cannabis domestication, breeding history, present-day genetic diversity, and future prospects. Critical reviews in plant sciences. 2016;35(5–6):293–327. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Clarke RC, Merlin MD. Cannabis: evolution and ethnobotany: Univ of California Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ram HM, Sett R. Induction of fertile male flowers in genetically female Cannabis sativa plants by silver nitrate and silver thiosulphate anionic complex. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 1982;62(4):369–75. doi: 10.1007/BF00275107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Salentijn EM, Zhang Q, Amaducci S, Yang M, Trindade LM. New developments in fiber hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) breeding. Industrial crops and products. 2015;68:32–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Amaducci S, Scordia D, Liu F, Zhang Q, Guo H, Testa G, et al. Key cultivation techniques for hemp in Europe and China. Industrial Crops and Products. 2015;68:2–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mandolino G, Carboni A. Potential of marker-assisted selection in hemp genetic improvement. Euphytica. 2004;140(1–2):107–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fehr W. Principles of cultivar development: theory and technique. Macmillian Publishing Company. New York, NY. 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Loach K. Rooting of cuttings in relation to the propagation medium. 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Raviv M, Wallach R, Silber A, Bar-Tal A. Substrates and their analysis. Embryo Publications, Athens; 2002. p. 25–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gordon I, editor A review of materials for propagation media. Combined Proceedings International Plant Propagators Society. 1992. University of Washington—Int. Plant Propagation Soc. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Small E, Marcus D, Janick J, Whipkey A. Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America. Trends in new crops and new uses. 2002:284–326. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Amaducci S, Zatta A, Raffanini M, Venturi G. Characterisation of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) roots under different growing conditions. Plant and Soil. 2008;313(1):227. doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9695-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Allaire SE, Caron J, Ménard C, Dorais M. Potential replacements for rockwool as growing substrate for greenhouse tomato. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2005;85(1):67–74. doi: 10.4141/S04-026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Smith DL. Rockwool in horticulture. #, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Da Silva F, Wallach R, Chen Y, editors. Hydraulic properties of rockwool slabs used as substrates in horticulture. International Symposium on Growing Media & Plant Nutrition in Horticulture; 401; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Blazich FA. Chemicals and formulations used to promote adventitious rooting. Advances in plant sciences series (USA). 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Macdonald B. Practical woody plant propagation for nursery growers, volume I: Timber press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bonaminio V, editor Comparison of IBA quick-dips with talc for rooting cuttings. Combined proceedings International Plant Propagators’ Society; 1983. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bi-Cheng Dong

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-08119

Evaluation of substrate composition and exogenous hormone application on vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anderson II,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bi-Cheng Dong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to thank Mengzi Zhang, Jimmie Johnston, and Dylan Raab for their assistance with this work. The authors would also like to thank Roseville Farms and Green Roads for their financial support to conduct this research and for their support of the UF/IFAS Industrial Hemp Pilot Project. Hemp cultivars were donated by Green Roads, LLC and ANO Colorado, LLC.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The authors would also like to thank Roseville Farms and Green Roads for their financial support to conduct this research and for their support of the UF/IFAS Industrial Hemp Pilot Project. Hemp cultivars were donated by Green Roads, LLC and ANO Colorado, LLC.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE for review. Your manuscript has already been reviewed by two referees. Both of them are highly positive about your study and agree that your manuscript to some extent fits the acceptance requirement of PLOS ONE. I do agree with them and thus suggest that you improve the manuscript again, taking the comments of the two referees into account.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors of the present manuscript have conducted a study to determine the influence of three variables (substrate, hormone application and plant cultivar) on the rooting ability of Cannabis. In my perception the objectives of the work are in line with the chosen experimental design, the results obtained are clearly explained and the conclusions are presented in a correct way. I believe that this is a work that provides valuable information regarding the cultivation of cannabis by clonal propagation. The authors clearly explain the novelty and interest of their work. The conclusions are supported by the results obtained. For all these reasons, I consider that the work is suitable for publication in its present form. I would like to make a few comments that the authors may consider in order to improve their manuscript.

Considering the limitation on THC content required by U.S. legislation for commercial cannabis cultivation, can clonal propagation be beneficial to avoid variability in the content of this secondary metabolite? If so, it may be interesting to discuss this in the section regarding the benefits of clonal propagation.

One of the fundamental aspects of the present work is to improve the vegetative propagation of Cannabis cultivars with high CBD content, which allows preserving the desirable phenotype of the maternal plants. Although I do not consider necessary an explanation of what CBD is, it would be positive to mention what a CBD-rich cultivar is, specifying what CBD content these cultivars may have. While the selection of growing media is justified in the text by its bulk density and water retention capacity, the selection of cultivars seems a bit arbitrary.

It is not clear what is meant by the comment on the lines 145 – 148: “Although studies have identified that leaf removal and tipping may reduce rooting success of Cannabis [13], under our lower humidity rooting conditions excessive leaf tissue resulted in low turgor presser of clones within all propagation medias.” The substrate conditions in the present study is described as moisture saturated. Does this comment refer to a previous experiment? Specify.

I am not an expert in Cannabis cultivation, but a 24h photoperiod seems excessive. Add some source regarding this figure (line 242), and specify if this was maintained throughout the experiment.

How was the moisture saturation in the substrate maintained during the experiment? (Line 165)

Did all cuttings maintain turgor during the experiment, none were counted as dead or non-viable at the end of the experiment? This should be specified.

Minor remarks:

Line 71, has not been -> have not been

Lines 262-264, citation needed.

Fix the link to the URL of the first bibliographic source.

Table 1, reference X in the legend is duplicated.

In the captions of figures 1 and 2, put in italics the name of the species.

Reviewer #2: To find out how rooting hormone application and medium selection impact vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp is quite interesting and logically sounds good. This study was conducted to quantify the effects of commercially available rooting mediums on rooting success of essential oil hemp and tried to determine the genetic variation in rooting response across essential oil hemp cultivars. The experimental design and writing are well but the logic is not sound good in the introduction section, which need to be improved. However, I have some comments which might be contributed to the improvement of the manuscript

Line 99-102: The proposed objectives are very simple, scientifically sounds not good for good quality paper, and should need to be improved by giving the hypothesis or by raising some question.

Line 100: Why author used only commercial auxin products on rooting success of essential oil hemp cultivars?

Line 253-326: Materials and methods section has written well but I found one problem in the whole discussion section. It seems that author repeated the results with supportive references only in discussion part. It should be improve or rewrite by giving the reasons and avoid from repeating the results. I also suggest giving some limitation or perspective in discussion.

Line 335: If multiple methods exist for the propagation of industrial hemp, then what is application of your research in the field or in the industry?? I also suggest to author add some recommendation for future work in conclusion part.

Please also consider the text answers to the following questions and include it into your manuscript at appropriate place:

What is the new finding in this study?

What is the innovation in the methodology part?

How to use your findings in real-world applications?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Rubén Portela Carballeira

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 29;16(7):e0249160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249160.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1: The authors of the present manuscript have conducted a study to determine the influence of three variables (substrate, hormone application and plant cultivar) on the rooting ability of Cannabis. In my perception the objectives of the work are in line with the chosen experimental design, the results obtained are clearly explained and the conclusions are presented in a correct way. I believe that this is a work that provides valuable information regarding the cultivation of cannabis by clonal propagation. The authors clearly explain the novelty and interest of their work. The conclusions are supported by the results obtained. For all these reasons, I consider that the work is suitable for publication in its present form. I would like to make a few comments that the authors may consider in order to improve their manuscript.

Considering the limitation on THC content required by U.S. legislation for commercial cannabis cultivation, can clonal propagation be beneficial to avoid variability in the content of this secondary metabolite? If so, it may be interesting to discuss this in the section regarding the benefits of clonal propagation.

Thank you for the comment. Although there is no guarantee that any cultivar will be compliant from grow-to-grow. Clonal propagation can ensure that the plants should perform like the previous grow when the breeding history and quality of seed is not well defined. Although the genetic architecture underlying cannabinoid development is in its infancy there have been several regions of the genome that can be selected for cannabinoid concentrations, although this does not guarantee compliant THC levels. Additionally, the scientific understanding of cannabinoid concentrations based on management practices and environmental interactions has just begun to be explored.

The authors feel it would not be appropriate to make such claims in the discussion.

One of the fundamental aspects of the present work is to improve the vegetative propagation of Cannabis cultivars with high CBD content, which allows preserving the desirable phenotype of the maternal plants. Although I do not consider necessary an explanation of what CBD is, it would be positive to mention what a CBD-rich cultivar is, specifying what CBD content these cultivars may have. While the selection of growing media is justified in the text by its bulk density and water retention capacity, the selection of cultivars seems a bit arbitrary.

The selection of cultivars was based on what was provided by the donors and mother plants at the appropriate level to take the necessary cuttings needed for this study. Many of the cultivars presented within this study are commonly available and widely grown low THC, high CBD cultivars. We have provided a statement within the M&M regard what constitutes a high CBD hemp cultivar.

L133: All the cultivars selected have reported THC < 0.3% and CBD ≥ 7 % which equates to a CBD:THC ratio of ≥ 20:1.

It is not clear what is meant by the comment on the lines 145 – 148: “Although studies have identified that leaf removal and tipping may reduce rooting success of Cannabis [13], under our lower humidity rooting conditions excessive leaf tissue resulted in low turgor presser of clones within all propagation medias.”

Good question. There are very few peer-reviewed publications in reference to cannabis vegetative propagation. One of the original papers presenting vegetative propagation in marijuana cultivars presented the findings the reviewer is inquiring about. The authors chose to put these comments in our materials in methods to acknowledge that our methods are different from those previously published, due to the lower humidity environment we conducted our experiment under.

The substrate conditions in the present study is described as moisture saturated. Does this comment refer to a previous experiment? Specify.

Watering was based on visual appearance of propagules and soil from the previous day. Future research is needed to fine tune what moisture levels in specific medias are optimal for rooting. This is likely cultivar specific.

We adjusted the watering statement withing the M&M.

L166: Media was manually saturated as necessary to maintain cutting turgor.

I am not an expert in Cannabis cultivation, but a 24h photoperiod seems excessive.

Yes, it may seem excessive, but Cannabis does not need a rest period to our knowledge. It is common to push growth under 20 to 24 hrs of light. Since we were rooting our cuttings under low intensity fluorescence light the 24 hr light regime is not uncommon in industry. Although we do acknowledge it is not necessary, it does ensure that none of the cultivar’s transition to reproductive phase.

Add some source regarding this figure (line 242), and specify if this was maintained throughout the experiment.

The authors are not sure what the reviewers are referring to on line 242.

How was the moisture saturation in the substrate maintained during the experiment? (Line 165)

Substrates were check daily in the morning and flats that were showing signs of wilting or dried substrate were saturated with a hose.

Did all cuttings maintain turgor during the experiment, none were counted as dead or non-viable at the end of the experiment? This should be specified.

Good comment. Plants that died were marked as zeros in the dataset. We have specified this within the materials and methods.

L174: Cuttings that died during the experiment were given a score of zero for the rooting measurements.

Minor remarks:

Line 71, has not been -> have not been

Corrected.

Lines 262-264, citation needed.

Citation added.

Fix the link to the URL of the first bibliographic source.

Corrected.

Table 1, reference X in the legend is duplicated.

Corrected.

In the captions of figures 1 and 2, put in italics the name of the species.

Corrected.

Reviewer #2: To find out how rooting hormone application and medium selection impact vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp is quite interesting and logically sounds good. This study was conducted to quantify the effects of commercially available rooting mediums on rooting success of essential oil hemp and tried to determine the genetic variation in rooting response across essential oil hemp cultivars. The experimental design and writing are well but the logic is not sound good in the introduction section, which need to be improved. However, I have some comments which might be contributed to the improvement of the manuscript

Line 99-102: The proposed objectives are very simple, scientifically sounds not good for good quality paper, and should need to be improved by giving the hypothesis or by raising some question.

Thank you for the comment. The authors disagree with this comment and believe the objects are in line with and of consistent quality to other papers within PLOS ONE and other equal quality journals.

Line 100: Why author used only commercial auxin products on rooting success of essential oil hemp cultivars?

A major objective for this manuscript was to test readily available auxin products. If there is an auxin product readily available on the market that successfully roots cannabis, producers are not going to go out of there way to buy raw auxin and mix it to their desired concentrations. Furthermore, of the limited studies present in cannabis rooting the only hormone comparisons have been one organic auxin product versus one commercial product, which does not show comparisons between auxin concentrations and application methods which our treatments have done.

Line 253-326: Materials and methods section has written well but I found one problem in the whole discussion section. It seems that author repeated the results with supportive references only in discussion part. It should be improve or rewrite by giving the reasons and avoid from repeating the results. I also suggest giving some limitation or perspective in discussion.

The authors believe the discussion is appropriate and in line with the recommendations of PLOS ONE recommendations (https://plos.org/resource/how-to-write-conclusions/). Key findings are summarized within in the first sentence of each paragraph and supporting discussion from previous research is used to build the discussion of why the results occurred. We have added some future work comments as stated below.

“A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

1. Summarize the key findings in clear and concise language.

2. Acknowledge when a hypothesis may be incorrect.

3. Place your study within the context of previous studies.

4. Discuss potential future research.

5. Provide the reader with a “take-away” statement to end the manuscript.”

Line 335: If multiple methods exist for the propagation of industrial hemp, then what is application of your research in the field or in the industry??

As stated below the objective of this manuscript was not to define an innovation. We strived to provide empirical data driven results (which is lacking in all areas of cannabis research) to the commercial and research community as it pertains to cannabis vegetative propagation. hope these findings will give production/research groups the information to reduce or bypass the hurdle of experiments with cloning protocols.

I also suggest to author add some recommendation for future work in conclusion part.

We have included a statement regarding some areas of future work.

L337: Future work is necessary to identify additional factors which may influence rooting success including, but not limited to, mother stock nutrient application, age of mother stock, caliper of cutting, length of cutting, number of nodes withing rooting medium, light spectrum and intensity, nutrient applications to rotting cuttings, and season/environmental/management rooting plasticity.

Please also consider the text answers to the following questions and include it into your manuscript at appropriate place:

What is the new finding in this study?

Within the discussion the clear take away are clearly stated to begin each discussion paragraph followed by context for previous studies.

L272: Propagation media had greater effect on rooting success compared to hormone and cultivar treatments within our environment.

L299: Selection of rooting hormone had minimal impact on rooting success compared to cultivar and medium selection, although, significant improvement was achieved when using a hormone versus the control.

L313: Cultivar genetics affected overall rooting success in this study.

What is the innovation in the methodology part?

The objective of this manuscript was not to define an innovation. We strived to provide empirical data driven results (which is lacking in all areas of cannabis research) to the commercial and research community as it pertains to cannabis vegetative propagation. We hope these findings will give production/research groups the information to reduce or bypass the hurdle of experiments with cloning protocols.

L41: Although the ideal combination was not specifically identified in this study, findings provide insight into how rooting hormone application and medium selection impact vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp.

How to use your findings in real-world applications?

The authors believe this is clearly stated in the final sentence of the manuscript:

L336: “rooting success of vegetative cuttings will be maximized by proper selection of genetics and propagation media, in combination with a rooting hormone.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Campbell et al. 2021_ ReviewerRespones.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bi-Cheng Dong

5 Jul 2021

Evaluation of substrate composition and exogenous hormone application on vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

PONE-D-21-08119R1

Dear Dr. Anderson II,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bi-Cheng Dong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Bi-Cheng Dong

14 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-08119R1

Evaluation of substrate composition and exogenous hormone application on vegetative propagule rooting success of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

Dear Dr. Anderson II:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bi-Cheng Dong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Sheet 1 raw data contains the raw data collection and cube root transformed data used in the statistical analysis.

    Sheet 2 Model output means contains the back transformed best linear unbiased predictors/estimates of the model terms.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Campbell et al. 2021_ ReviewerRespones.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its S1 File.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES