Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 29;16(7):e0252985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252985

Response of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles to varying fertigation rates

Steven L Anderson II 1, Brian Pearson 1,*, Roger Kjelgren 1, Zachary Brym 2
Editor: Umakanta Sarker3
PMCID: PMC8320997  PMID: 34324496

Abstract

Five essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivars (Cherry Blossom, Cherry Blossom (Tuan), Berry Blossom, Cherry Wine, and Cherry Blossom × Trump) were treated with six fertigation treatments to quantify the effects of synthetic fertilizer rates and irrigation electrical conductivity on plant growth, biomass accumulation, and cannabinoid profiles. Irrigation water was injected with a commercial 20-20-20 fertilizer at rates of 0, 50, 150, 300, 450, and 600 ppm nitrogen equating to 0.33 (control), 0.54, 0.96, 1.59, 2.22, and 2.85 dS m−1, respectively. Plants were grown under artificial lighting (18 hr) to maintain vegetative growth for eight weeks, followed by an eight-week flowering period. High linear relationship between chlorophyll concentrations and SPAD-502 measurements validated the utilization of SPAD meters to rapidly identify nutrient deficiency in essential oil hemp. Cultivars expressed significant variation in plant height and cannabinoid profiles (% dry mass), in concurrence with limited biomass and cannabinoid (g per plant) yield variation. Cherry Blossom was the best performing cultivar and Cherry Wine was the least productive. Variation in plant growth, biomass, and cannabinoid concentrations were affected to a greater extent by fertilizer rates. Optimal fertilizer rates were observed at 50 ppm N, while increased fertilizer rates significantly reduced plant growth, biomass accumulation, and cannabinoid concentrations. Increased fertilizer rates (> 300 ppm N) resulted in compliant THC levels (< 0.3%), although when coupled with biomass reductions resulted in minimal cannabinoid yields. Additionally, CBD concentration demonstrated higher sensitivity to increased fertilizer rates (> 300 ppm N) compared to THC and CBG (> 450 ppm N). The results of this study can serve as a guide when using fertigation methods on essential oil hemp cultivars; although results may differ with cultivar selection, environmental conditions, and management practices.

1. Introduction

Cannabis sativa L. is a short day, herbaceous, commonly dioecious annual subshrub cultivated throughout the world for grain (seed), fiber (stems), and secondary metabolites (essential oils). Following the Agriculture Improvement Act of the 2018, Cannabis is now categorized into two groups by the concentration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), industrial hemp (Δ9-THC < 0.3%; federally legal) and drug-type marijuana (Δ9-THC > 0.3%; federally illegal). Unlike marijuana which is exclusively cultivated for secondary metabolites (cannabinoids, terpenes, etc.), hemp cultivars have been traditionally cultivated for grain and fiber. In recent decades, high essential oil hemp cultivars have been selected for high cannabinoid secondary metabolites, led by cannabidiol (CBD) varieties; with evolving interest in varieties bred for higher levels of other cannabinoids (canabigerol, canachromine, etc) [1, 2]. Maximum essential oil production occurs within unpollinated flowers of dioecious, female Cannabis concentrated within glandular trichomes [3, 4]. THC and CBD are the two most abundant cannabinoids of the over 200 known phytocannabinoids [5, 6]. Their acidic precursors, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), are synthesized from canabigerolic acid (CBGA) by THCA synthase (THCAS) and CBDA synthase (CBDAS) [7, 8], respectively. Long-standing legal restrictions of Cannabis growth has stunted science-based information regarding modern cultivation methods and the best management practices for optimal plant growth and physiological development of secondary metabolites.

Nutrient management is a major factor affecting plant growth and development [9, 10]. Specifically, nitrogen is the most abundant mineral nutrient in plants playing critical roles in plant development and metabolism [10]. Nitrogen supply is positively correlated to chlorophyll content in marijuana [11], although classical chlorophyll quantification can be a labor intensive, time consuming method of assessing nitrogen deficiency. SPAD chlorophyll meters are a high-throughput, noninvasive method used to grade greenness of plants [12] and potentially useful in assessing hemp nutrient deficiency. Understanding the effects of nutrient management on biomass yields in conjunction with cannabinoid production and accumulation are critically important to maintaining long-term production and economic sustainability of Cannabis [13]. Currently available literature lacks information pertaining to essential oil hemp fertilization rates, focusing on field grown fiber/grain hemp [1416] and growth chamber grown marijuana cultivars [11, 1719]. It is speculated that the recent development of high essential oil hemp cultivars were derived from the introgression of hemp haploblocks within a predominant marijuana haplotype [20, 21], indicating essential oil hemp cultivars may have similar nutrient needs as marijuana.

Recent studies have investigated the influence of fertilization rates on growth of marijuana cultivars applied through fertigation methods. When implementing fertigation management practices, over fertilization can lead to the accumulation of salts within the root zone while under fertilization leads to nutrient deficiencies and reduced growth/yield [22]. Investigation of optimal nitrogen rates during vegetative growth phases have presented varying results of 389 ppm N [17] and 160 ppm N [11] for different marijuana cultivars. Consistent with nitrogen, optimal concentration of potassium varied across marijuana cultivars [23] under vegetative growth. Fertigation rates of 389 ppm N during the vegetive growth [17] followed by 212–261 ppm N [18] during the floral period have been demonstrated to optimize biomass and cannabinoid content of select marijuana cultivars. Negative correlations have been demonstrated between cannabinoid concentrations (THC and CBG) and increased fertilizer rates [18, 24]. Empirical research defining nutrient management practices for essential oil hemp cultivars using fertigation application methods are lacking in the literature.

In this study, varying fertigation application rates were evaluated with respect to essential oil hemp cultivar production under greenhouse conditions. Five essential oil hemp cultivars were subjected to six fertigation rates throughout a complete growth cycle (vegetative and flowering) to empirically test the genetic and abiotic response of essential oil hemp to fertilizer rates. The objectives of this study were to: [i] quantify the relationship between chlorophyll concentrations and SPAD measurements in essential oil hemp cultivars, [ii] evaluate variance in cultivar growth and cannabinoid concentrations, and [iii] quantify the effects of fertilizer rates on hemp growth parameters and cannabinoid profiles.

2. Materials and methods

Five dioecious essential oil hemp cultivars were sowed from seed: [i] Cherry Blossom, [ii] Cherry Blossom (Tuan), [iii] Berry Blossom, [iv] Cherry Wine, and [v] Cherry Blossom × Trump. Feminized seeds were sowed (10/14/2019; one seed per cell) within 72 round cell propagation sheets (PRO072R0G18C100) filled with Pro-Mix HP Mycorrhizae (Premier Tech Horticulture, Quakertown, PA, U.S.) media. Pro-Mix HP Mycorrhizae was used as the media in all increased pot sizes. In combination with the high porosity soil, to avoid overwatering, plants were periodically step up in pot size. Three weeks post-sowing (11/05/2019; 21 days after sowing [DAS]), seedlings were transplanted (one plant per pot) in 1.1 L square pots (SVD-450, T.O. Plastics, Clearwater, MN, U.S.) and maintained in vegetative growth for three weeks using 1000 W Metal Halide supplemental lighting (18/6 hr light/dark cycle). Plants were transplanted (11/26/2019; 43 DAS) to their final 5.68 L #2 pot (C600 Nursery Supplies, Inc., Kissimmee, FL, U.S.) and maintained in vegetative growth for two weeks to allow for root establishment. Supplemental lighting was turned off (12/11/2019; 58 DAS) and the natural daylength (~10 hr 20 min; Apopka, FL, U.S.) was used to induce vegetative-to-reproductive transition to flowering. Six weeks after floral initiation (01/21/2020), 15 cm cola (apical floral mass) samples were collected for cannabinoid analysis. Eight weeks after floral initiation (02/05/2020), plants were harvested and dried within a 70°C environment.

2.1 Fertilizer rates and corresponding electrical conductivity treatments

Peters Professional 20-20-20 (N-P-K) (ICL Specialty Fertilizers, Dorchester County, SC, U.S.) general purpose fertilizer with micronutrients (0.050% Mg, 0.0125% B, 0.0125% Cu, 0.050% Fe, 0.025% Mn, 0.005% Mo, and 0.025% Zn) was prepared at variable fertilizer treatment rates (0, 50, 150, 300, 450, and 600 ppm nitrogen) following their respective EC (0.33, 0.54, 0.96, 1.59, 2.22, and 2.85 dS m−1). Electrical conductivity of irrigation supply water was constant at 0.33 dS m−1 and thus explains the 0.33 dS m−1 EC of the control treatment (0 ppm N). Daily fertigation (i.e., dissolved in the irrigation solution at each irrigation) treatments began upon transplanting seedling from 72 round cell propagation sheets to SVD-450 square pots (11/05/2019). Fertigation treatments were applied using Dosatron D14MZ2 injectors and stock fertilizer solutions mixed at 1:128 injection ratios of 0, 4.3, 97.4, 194.0, 291.3, and 387.9 g L-1 fertilizer equating to 0, 50, 150, 300, 450, and 600 ppm N, respectively. Fertigation was applied with Rust MaxiJet grooved nursery pot stakes (Dundee, FL, U.S.) delivering 0.3 L min-1 at 172.4 kPa inlet pressure. Irrigation was delivered for 4 min (1.2 L) to each SVD-450 pot followed by 20 min (6.0 L) to each of the C600 pots. The extensive leaching was utilized to maintain soil EC and avoid salt accumulation. Emitter and pour through leachate ECs were periodically monitored using the method described by Wright [25] using a Hanna instruments HI98130 (Woonsocket, RI, U.S.) pH and conductivity meter.

2.2 Phenotypic characterization

2.2.1 SPAD and chlorophyll estimates

SPAD measurements were collected using a SPAD 502 meter (Spectrum Technologies, Inc., Aurora, IL, U.S.) at the vegetative-to-floral transition to correlate to chlorophyll content for non-invasive, rapid nutrient deficiency of essential oil hemp. Chlorophyll concentrations were estimated using absorption from an Evolution 201/2020 UV-Visible Spectrophotometer (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, U.S.). Chlorophyll was extracted following the modified procedure of Arnon et al. [26]. A 0.3 g sample of leaf tissue was collected from the third node below the apical meristem with fully developed leaves. Tissue samples were homogenized in 1.5 mL of 80% acetone at 15,000 rpm for 1 min. Homogenate leaf tissue was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 mins. Supernatant was diluted 1:100 (1 mL final volume) and absorption values were collected at 646, and 663 nm for chlorophyll concentration estimates [27].

2.2.2 Plant height, growth curves, and absolute growth rates

Plant height was measured as the distance from the media surface to the dominant apical growth point. Height measurements were collected throughout the growth cycle at 31, 36, 52, 67, 77, 99, and 114 days after sowing (DAS) to model trends in plant growth.

Temporal plant height measurements were used to fit the Weibull [28] three parameter sigmoidal function (Eq 1), where height is modeled as a function of DAS (x) with the asymptote

f(x)=L(1e((x/x0)b)) [1]

(L), inflection point (x0), and the growth rate (b) of the fitted curve. The asymptote (L [m]) is maximum value of the curve which represents maximum growth height. The inflection point (x0 [d]) indicates the DAS where the slope of the logarithmic phase is at its absolute maximum. The growth rate (b) is a unitless empirical constant which defines the shape of the curve. The Weibull function was chosen over other common sigmoidal models (logistic, Gompetz, etc.) due to its flexibility to asymmetric growth allowing the inflection point to lie at any x-value. The first derivative of the Weibull function (Eq 2) estimates the absolute growth rate (AGR; m d-1) at each time point throughout the growth cycle. Weibull parameters were estimated using the FitCurve tool in JMP (JMP®, Version 15. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989–2021.)

f(x)=Lbe((x/x0)b)(xx0)bx [2]

2.2.3 Dry biomass

Dry biomass was measured after complete dry down within a 70°C oven. Total biomass, floral biomass, and bucked (i.e., the leaf and floral tissues) biomass was measured using an Ohaus Ranger 3000 (Parsippany, NJ, U.S.) compact bench scale. Stem diameter was measured at soil level on the date of harvest with a digital caliper.

2.2.4 Cannabinoid analysis

Six weeks after the vegetative to floral transition was initiated, 15 cm long apical floral samples (cola) were collected from each plant. Cola samples were cool air dried using the techniques described by Campbell and Pearson [29] for 7 days. Dried samples were ground into a fine powder using a coffee grinder and stored in 100 mL glass vials. Detailed extraction and quantification of cannabinoids methods can be found in Berthold et al. [30]. Ground samples were weighed, and cannabinoids were extracted by adding a solution of methanol and water (95:5, v/v) acidified with 0.005% formic acid at a 1:100 w/v plant material to solvent concentration ratio. Solution was vortex mixed for 5 mins, sonicated for 5 min, and centrifuged at 4°C, 3220 × g for 10 min. Supernatant was serial diluted using extraction solvent until the sample quantification fell within quantification range. Quantification of cannabinoids was conducted using a Waters I-Class Acquity UPLC (Milford, MA, U.S.) coupled with a Waters Xevo TQ-S Micro™ triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer (MS/MS) [30]. Furthermore, mass spectrometry was used for detection, no wavelengths are involved just mass transitions. The mass transitions are available in Berthold et al. [30]. Raw cannabinoid quantification and standard curve data are presented in S1 File.

2.3 Statistical inference

The experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with six replications of five cultivars (Chery Blossom, Cherry Blossom (Tuan), Berry Blossom, Cherry Wine, and Cherry Blossom × Trump) nested within six fertilizer/ECW treatments (0; 0.33, 50; 0.54, 150; 0.96, 300; 1.59, 450; 2.22, and 600 ppm N; 2.85 dS m−1). Best linear unbiased estimator (BLUEs) of response variables (Yijk) were estimated in JMP (JMP®, Version 15. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989–2021.) by fitting Eq 3 using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approaches with

Yijk=μ+Rep(T)k(i)+Ti+Cj+TCij+εijk [3]

grand mean (μ), fertilizer treatment effect (Ti), cultivar (Cj) effect, fertilizer treatment by cultivar interaction (TCij), replication nested within fertilizer treatments (Rep(T)k(i)), and residual error (εijk). The model term Rep(T)k(i) was fitted as a random effect, while all other terms were fitted as fixed effects. Significant statistical differences were calculated using Tukey’s HSD test (α < 0.05). Raw data (S2 File), variance component decomposition (S1 Table), fixed effect tests (S3 File), cultivar BLUEs (S4 File), and fertilizer rate BLUEs (S5 File) have been provided.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Visual plant appearance

The visual appearance of the cultivars reflected growth responses based on genetics and fertilizer rates (Fig 1). Lack of fertilization (0 ppm N) resulted in restricted growth, lack of branching, and severe leaf chlorosis. The 50 ppm N and 150 ppm N treatments resulted in the tallest plants, high branching number, healthy green foliage, and lack of nutrient toxicity symptoms. Increased fertilizer rates of 300 ppm N resulted in necrosis of older, lower canopy fan leaves, growth stunting of Berry Blossom and Cherry Wine, slight leaf tip burning, and shorter branch lengths. Leaf necrosis throughout the plant architecture progressed in severity within the 450 ppm N and 600 ppm N treatments. Higher fertilizer treatments demonstrated dark green, glossy leaves with downward curling leaf architecture indicative of nitrogen toxicity. Furthermore, visual appearances indicated differential cultivar tolerances to increased fertilization rates, with Cherry Wine and Berry Blossom being the least tolerant.

Fig 1. Visual appearance of plants one week prior to harvest.

Fig 1

Columns represent fertilizer rates of 0, 50, 150, 300, 450, and 600 ppm N from left to right. Rows represent cultivars Cherry Blossom, Cherry Blossom (Tuan), Berry Blossom, Cherry Blossom × Trump, and Cherry Wine in descending order.

3.2 SPAD and chlorophyll are highly correlated

SPAD measurements are a high-throughput, non-destructive measurement of chlorophyll content which can be utilized to assess nitrogen deficiencies in an array of plant species. We demonstrated high Pearson’s correlations (r) between SPAD measurements and total chlorophyll (r = 0.82). Calibration curves demonstrate one SPAD unit equated to 17.4 ± 3.9 nmol mL-1 total chlorophyll (Fig 2). Lack of fertilizer application (0 ppm N) resulted in the lowest SPAD reading and total chlorophyll (S5 File) of the fertilizer treatments. Applications of fertilizer resulted in a 1.6- (50 ppm N) to 1.8-fold (450 ppm N) increase in SPAD readings. Across fertilizer treatments (excluding control) no statistical difference were observed for total chlorophyll indicating no evidence for nitrogen deficiencies across the fertilizer rates. SPAD measurements in combination with chlorophyll estimates effectively identified a nutrient deficient (SPAD < 44) threshold for essential oil hemp. The nutrient deficient threshold was based upon the lower 95th percentile of the 50 ppm N treatment. Our results support the use of a SPAD meter to estimate chlorophyll content and potential nutrient deficiency quickly, nondestructively, and reliably within leaves of hemp cultivars utilized in this study.

Fig 2. Linear relationships between SPAD 502 meter and total chlorophyll (a+b) concentrations at vegetative to floral transition.

Fig 2

3.3 Plant growth and development

3.3.1 Genetic variation expanded following floral initiation

Genetic variation in plant growth was observed across cultivars throughout the growth cycle with greater separation of heights at later stages of the growth cycle (Fig 3A). Increased growth rates were highly correlated to taller plants (r = 0.97) (Fig 3B). Additionally, biomass measurements were highly correlated to plant height starting at 52 DAS (r = 0.66–0.82) demonstrating that taller plants at floral initiation resulted in greater biomass yields. Unlike plant height, limited separation of biomass means were observed across cultivars (Fig 4A). The limited variance in cultivar biomass could be attributed to the lack of genetic diversity within essential oil hemp cultivars [31], constrained allometry [32], unstable trait expression in seeded hemp cultivars, and equivalent biomass accumulation through selection of traits beyond plant height (e.g. branch number, flower density, etc.).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

[A] Temporal plant heights BLUEs by cultivar. Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals. [B] Growth rate curves by cultivar. [C] Temporal plant heights BLUEs by fertilizer treatment. Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals. [D] Growth rate curves by fertilizer treatment. Vertical black dashed lines indicated vegetative to floral transition. Connecting letter reports can be accessed in S4 and S5 Files.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

[A] Bar graphs depicting cultivar best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) values for biomass traits total biomass, bucked biomass (flower and leaves), flower biomass (left to right). Error bars depict the 95% confidence intervals and connecting letters indicate statistical differences using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05). [B] Bar graphs depicting fertilizer treatment BLUE values for biomass traits total biomass, bucked biomass (flower and leaves), flower biomass (left to right). Error bars depict the 95% confidence intervals and connecting letters indicate statistical differences using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05).

3.3.2 Increased fertilizer rates stunted plant growth

Plant growth and development was significantly affected by fertilizer rates (Fig 3C and 3D). Lack of fertilizer application (0 ppm N; 0.33 dS m-1) restricted plant development resulting in the shortest plants (Fig 3C, red circle), the lowest growth rates (Fig 3D), and limited biomass accumulation (Fig 4A). With the exception of the control, plant height was progressively stunted in conjunction with increased fertilizer rates resulting in the shortest plants at the highest concentration of fertilization (600 ppm; 2.85 dS m-1). Significant reductions in plant height (compared to 50 ppm N) were observed at ≥ 600 ppm N (52 DAS), ≥ 450 ppm N (77 DAS), and ≥ 300 ppm N (99 DAS) (S2 Table). Such trends demonstrate reduced tolerance to elevated fertilizer rates (> 150 ppm N) as the growing season progressed. It is presumed that the increased concentrations of N supply increased the osmotic potential of leaf tissue sap, similar to marijuana cultivars, demonstrating a salinity response [11]. The gradual stunting demonstrated the time-dependent process of salinity response [33] with a fast response at high salinity levels early (Fig 3C, day 52) followed by the slow accumulation of salts within plants stunting growth at later dates (Fig 3C, day 99). Optimized plant growth and biomass was achieved at 50 ppm N (0.54 dS; Fig 4B) with statistically significant (α = 0.05) reductions in total biomass and bucked biomass at fertigation 450 ppm N (ECw > 2.22 dS) and significant reductions of floral biomass at 300 ppm N (ECw > 1.83 dS) (Fig 4B, S4 File). Although the conservative Tukey’s HSD demonstrated non-significant reductions in biomass accumulation up to 450 ppm N applications, from a production mindset, implementing 50 ppm N would reduce production costs, reduce environmental impacts of fertilizer leaching, and numerically improved floral biomass by > 20% (Fig 4B).

To our knowledge there are no studies within the literature investigating the impacts of fertilization rates on essential oil hemp growth and biomass accumulation. Recent studies have identified the effects of fertilizer rates on growth and development of drug type marijuana cultivars. Specifically, Cannabis fertilization studies have focused upon the vegetative growth stages of limited cultivars grown within growth chambers/rooms. Caplan et al. [17] identified an optimal rate of 389 ppm N during vegetative growth followed by 283 ppm N during the flowering period optimized floral yields for marijuana cultivar OG Kush x Grizzly. Saloner and Bernstein [11] observed restricted growth and biomass reductions above 160 ppm N, with optimal nitrogen use efficiency between 30–80 ppm N daily fertigation of marijuana cultivar Annapurna. Differences in fertilizer formulations, nutrient holding capacity of media, size of plants, growth rate/nutrient demand of cultivars, container size, and frequency of fertilizer applications could be attributing to the variation in optimal fertilizer rates for container grown cannabis. Furthermore, differential responses to potassium rates across marijuana cultivars [23] indicates genetic variability in the requirements and tolerances to nutrients of cannabis. Further research is needed to include greater genetic diversity and growth under common commercial production environments (greenhouse and field) focused on production methods of the Cannabis industry.

3.4 Cannabinoid accumulation

Of the 160 plants sampled, 57% exceeded the total potential THC threshold of 0.3%. Examples of cannabinoid chromatograms are available in S1 Fig. Toth et al. [34] demonstrated that only 35% of 150 BD/BD chemotype (0.06–0.75% THC), essential oil hemp plants complied with the total potential THC threshold (< 0.3%) at maturity. Our results, combined with published knowledge that cannabinoid concentrations exceed compliance thresholds around 4 weeks of flowering [35], demonstrate the need for growers to adopt temporal cannabinoid testing during the flowering stage of their crop to remain compliant with regulations.

3.4.1 Cannabinoid variance between cultivars

Significant variance in cannabinoid concentrations (% dry mass) were observed across cultivars (Fig 5). Interestingly, limited variation in cannabinoid yields (g plant-1) existed across cultivars (Fig 6). Average THC concentrations at 6 weeks of flowering resulted in one cultivar (Cherry Wine) being federally compliant for harvest and sale in the U.S. As breeders continue to push the limit of THC compliance while maximizing CBD, CBG, and other secondary metabolites it will become increasingly important to understand and manage THC development and accumulation. In this study, all the varieties we tested stemmed from a common parent, Cherry Wine (https://www.leafy.com). Improved CBD concentrations and plant vigor (biomass/flower accumulation) resulted in a 3.3-fold increase in total CBD per plant (3.2 g plant-1) of the four cultivars compared to Cherry Wine (1.0 g plant-1) (Figs 4A, 6, and S4 File). The highest cannabinoid producing cultivar in this study, Cherry Blossom × Trump, is an example of a recently developed hemp cultivar possessing marijuana-based genetics. Among the cultivars cultivated in this study, Cherry Blossom × Trump likely had the greatest proportions of marijuana based genetics within its breeding pedigree [20]. Thus, the potential higher proportion of marijuana genetics may have contributed to the observation that Cherry Blossom × Trump exceeded the U.S. federal THC limit for hemp regardless of fertilizer rate when sampled at 6 weeks of flowering.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Bars represent fertilizer rate best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) values total potential (carboxylated form + 0.877[acid form]) cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations between [A] cultivars and [B] fertilizer rates. Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals and connecting letters indicate statistical differences using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05). Horizontal red line indicates the THC compliance threshold of 0.3% total potential THC.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Cannabidiol (CBD; top row) and canabigerol (CBG; bottom row) across [A] cultivars and [B] fertilizer rates. Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals and connecting letters indicate statistical differences using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05).

3.4.2 Increased fertilizer rates reduced cannabinoids

Increased fertilizer rates were negatively correlated to cannabinoid concentrations (Fig 5) and yield per plant (Fig 6). Interestingly, CBG concentrations were highest among plants that were nutrient deficient (0 ppm N; Fig 5C). Plants that received this same treatment (0 ppm N) also possessed greater concentrations of THC than plants that received either 450 ppm N or 600 ppm N. When coupled with total biomass accumulation, however, the applicability of no fertilizer would not be an advisable management plan. The 50 ppm N rate maximized cannabinoid concentrations (Fig 5B) and overall oil yields (Fig 6B), demonstrating optimal fertigation management maximized overall cannabinoid production. At 6 weeks of flower development, plants that received the 450 ppm N and 600 ppm N fertilizer treatments possessed mean total THC concentrations that were compliant with U.S. limits (THC < 0.3%). However, these treatments also resulted in the lowest concentrations of desired cannabinoids (Fig 5B). Utilizing high concentrations of fertilizer to facilitate THC compliance is not advisable due to [i] reduced biomass and low cannabinoid yields, [ii] increased production costs, and [iii] increased environmental impacts due to fertilizer leaching. Our results demonstrated that lower fertilizer rates optimized cannabinoid concentrations and testing for THC compliance should be monitored throughout floral development rather than at the time of peak cannabinoid levels [35].

CBD concentrations were more sensitive to high fertilizer rates compared to other cannabinoids. More specifically, CBD concentrations were more negatively impacted than CBG or THC concentrations when plants received > 50 ppm N (Fig 5B). Furthermore, CBD concentrations were reduced by 16% when increasing fertilizer rated from 50 ppm N to 150 ppm N compared to 7% and 10% reductions in CBG and THC, respectively. Intriguingly, THC and CBD synthase are genetic inherited within a genomic region of low recombination [21], yet large variation in THC:CBD ratios are observed among cultivars of the same chemotype [34]. Transcriptome analysis of hemp grown under abiotic stressed environments identified up- and down-regulation genes involved in the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites in hemp [36, 37]. We speculate that abiotic stress induced by fertilization levels may have differential expression patterns of genes involved in THC and CBD biosynthesis pathways.

Fertilizer rate studies conducted in marijuana have indicated that increased fertilizer rates during the vegetative phase did not increased THC concentrations, while higher fertilizer rates resulted in reduced THC and CBG concentrations when applied during the flowering stage [17, 18]. To our knowledge, we have presented the first empirical evidence that CBD concentrations negatively correlated to increased fertilizer rates in essential oil hemp cultivars. Furthermore, our results demonstrated that CBD concentrations and oil yield are affected by lower levels of soil EC and fertilizer rates compared to THC and CBG. Variance in cannabinoid concentrations across fertilizer rates could be due to a multitude of scenarios including: (i) differences in loci expression [38], (ii) reduced flower formation, and (iii) variation in trichome size and density [39]. Nevertheless, effective management practices coupled with reliable genetics and disciplined cannabinoid testing can result in optimized oil yields while remaining under the U.S. federal schedule I controlled substance THC threshold.

4. Conclusion

This research is one of the first empirical studies to report the effects of synthetic fertilizer rates and fertigation salinity levels on essential oil hemp cultivars grown in container culture. The results of this study indicated that essential oil hemp cultivars express similar irrigation salinity tolerances to vegetable crops and marijuana cultivars. This research can be used as the foundation for future essential oil hemp fertigation research to identify optimal rates and intervals between fertigation events to minimize production costs and maximize plant performance and yield. Three of the most important findings were: (i) SPAD-502 measurements were highly correlated to leaf chlorophyll content, indicating that SPAD measurements can be utilized as a rapid, non-invasive tool to access nutrient deficiency in essential oil hemp, (ii) increased fertilizer rates and irrigation salinity at maintained rates significantly reduced plant growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles, and, (iii) maintaining constant low rates of fertilizer available in the growing media maximized cannabinoid concentrations.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Chromatograph examples of [a] a standard curve, [b] sample N-091 below the federal THC limit of 0.3%, [c] sample N-132 near the federal THC limit of 0.3%, and [d] sample N-173 above the federal THC limit of 0.3.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Raw cannabinoid concentration quantification data including standard curves.

(XLSX)

S2 File. Raw phenotype dataset.

(CSV)

S3 File. Fixed effects test outputs of Eq 3.

(XLSX)

S4 File. BLUEs estimates for cultivars from Eq 3.

(XLSX)

S5 File. BLUEs estimates for fertilizer rates from Eq 3.

(XLSX)

S1 Table. Percent variance explained by each model term of Eq 3.

Repeatability estimates calculated on an entry means basis.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Irrigation water salinity thresholds (ECW) which caused statistically significant (Tukey’s LSD; α = 0.05) reductions in the trait of interest compared to the 50 ppm N fertilizer treatment (EC = 0.54).

Relative trait reductions indicate the reduction of the trait at or above the ECW threshold. Percentages in parentheses indicated the percent reduction of the trait relative to the 50 ppm N fertilizer treatment (EC = 0.54).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Brandon White, Mengzi Zhang, and Chris Halliday for their scientific and technical support; James Johnston and Dillan Raab for their hard work and effort maintaining experimental plants and collecting phenotypic data; Jerry Fankhauser and Sandra Alomar for administrative assistance; Erin Berthold and Chris McCurdy for completing the cannabinoid extractions and quantification; Green Point Research for donating the cultivars used in this research; 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 Supporting Information files.

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. Steven Anderson was funded by Roseville Farm’s UF/IFAS Florida Industrial Hemp Endowment contribution.

References

  • 1.Adesina I, Bhowmik A, Sharma H, Shahbazi A. A review on the current state of knowledge of growing conditions, agronomic soil health practices and utilities of hemp in the United States. Agriculture. 2020;10(4):129. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rupasinghe H, Davis A, Kumar SK, Murray B, Zheljazkov VD. Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa) as an Emerging Source for Value-Added Functional Food Ingredients and Nutraceuticals. Molecules. 2020;25(18):4078. doi: 10.3390/molecules25184078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Livingston SJ, Quilichini TD, Booth JK, Wong DC, Rensing KH, Laflamme‐Yonkman J, et al. Cannabis glandular trichomes alter morphology and metabolite content during flower maturation. The Plant Journal. 2020;101(1):37–56. doi: 10.1111/tpj.14516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mahlberg PG, Kim ES. Accumulation of cannabinoids in glandular trichomes of Cannabis (Cannabaceae). Journal of Industrial Hemp. 2004;9(1):15–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.ElSohly MA, Slade D. Chemical constituents of marijuana: the complex mixture of natural cannabinoids. Life sciences. 2005;78(5):539–48. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2005.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hanuš LO, Meyer SM, Muñoz E, Taglialatela-Scafati O, Appendino G. Phytocannabinoids: a unified critical inventory. Natural product reports. 2016;33(12):1357–92. doi: 10.1039/c6np00074f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sirikantaramas S, Morimoto S, Shoyama Y, Ishikawa Y, Wada Y, Shoyama Y, et al. The gene controlling marijuana psychoactivity molecular cloning and heterologous expression of Δ1-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase from Cannabis sativa L. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2004;279(38):39767–74. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M403693200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Taura F, Sirikantaramas S, Shoyama Y, Yoshikai K, Shoyama Y, Morimoto S. Cannabidiolic-acid synthase, the chemotype-determining enzyme in the fiber-type Cannabis sativa. FEBS letters. 2007;581(16):2929–34. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2007.05.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maathuis FJ. Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Current opinion in plant biology. 2009;12(3):250–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hawkesford M, Horst W, Kichey T, Lambers H, Schjoerring J, Møller IS, et al. Marschner’s mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press; San Diego, CA, USA:; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Saloner A, Bernstein N. Response of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) to nitrogen supply under long photoperiod. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020;11:1517. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.572293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Minolta K. Chlorophyll meter SPAD-502 instruction manual. Minolta Co, Ltd, Radiometric Instruments Operations Osaka, Japan. 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schluttenhofer C, Yuan L. Challenges towards revitalizing hemp: A multifaceted crop. Trends in plant science. 2017;22(11):917–29. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Aubin MP, Seguin P, Vanasse A, Tremblay GF, Mustafa AF, Charron JB. Industrial hemp response to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilization. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management. 2015;1(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tang K, Struik P, Yin X, Calzolari D, Musio S, Thouminot C, et al. A comprehensive study of planting density and nitrogen fertilization effect on dual-purpose hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivation. Industrial Crops and Products. 2017;107:427–3 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vera C, Malhi S, Raney J, Wang Z. The effect of N and P fertilization on growth, seed yield and quality of industrial hemp in the Parkland region of Saskatchewan. Canadian journal of plant science. 2004;84(4):939–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Caplan D, Dixon M, Zheng Y. Optimal rate of organic fertilizer during the vegetative-stage for cannabis grown in two coir-based substrates. HortScience. 2017;52(9):1307–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Caplan D, Dixon M, Zheng Y. Optimal rate of organic fertilizer during the flowering stage for cannabis grown in two coir-based substrates. HortScience. 2017;52(12):1796–803. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bernstein N, Gorelick J, Zerahia R, Koch S. Impact of N, P, K and humic acids supplementation on the chemical profile of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L). Frontiers in plant science. 2019;10:736. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Grassa CJ, Weiblen GD, Wenger JP, Dabney C, Poplawski SG, Motley ST, et al. A new Cannabis genome assembly associates elevated cannabidiol (CBD) with hemp introgressed into marijuana. New Phytologist. 2021;230:1665–79. doi: 10.1111/nph.17243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Laverty KU, Stout JM, Sullivan MJ, Shah H, Gill N, Holbrook L, et al. A physical and genetic map of Cannabis sativa identifies extensive rearrangements at the THC/CBD acid synthase loci. Genome research. 2019;29(1):146–56. doi: 10.1101/gr.242594.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Incrocci L, Massa D, Pardossi A. New trends in the fertigation management of irrigated vegetable crops. Horticulturae. 2017;3(2):37. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Saloner A, Sacks MS, Bernstein N. Response of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) genotypes to K supply under long photoperiod. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:1369. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Coffman C, Gentner W. Responses of Greenhouse‐grown Cannabis sativa L. to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium 1. Agronomy Journal. 1977;69(5):832–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wright RD. The pour-through nutrient extraction procedure. HortScience. 1986;21(2):227–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Arnon DI, McSwain BD, Tsujimoto HY, Wada K. Photochemical activity and components of membrane preparations from blue-green algae. I. Coexistence of two photosystems in relation to chlorophyll a and removal of phycocyanin. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Bioenergetics. 1974;357(2):231–45. doi: 10.1016/0005-2728(74)90063-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Porra RJ. The chequered history of the development and use of simultaneous equations for the accurate determination of chlorophylls a and b. Photosynthesis research. 2002;73(1–3):149–56. doi: 10.1023/A:1020470224740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Weibull W. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. Journal of applied mechanics. 1951;18(3):293–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Campbell S, Pearson B. Process of Drying Post-Harvest Hops (Humulus lupulus) for Small-Scale Producers Using a Novel Drying Rig. EDIS. 2019;2019(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Berthold E, Yang R, Sharma A, Kamble SH, Kanumuri SR, King TI, et al. Regulatory Sampling of Industrial Hemp Plant Samples (Cannabis sativa L.) using UPLC-MS/MS Method for Detection and Quantification of Twelve Cannabinoids. Journal of Cannabis Research. 2020. doi: 10.1186/s42238-020-00050-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Henry P, Khatodia S, Kapoor K, Gonzales B, Middleton A, Hong K, et al. A single nucleotide polymorphism assay sheds light on the extent and distribution of genetic diversity, population structure and functional basis of key traits in cultivated north American cannabis. Journal of Cannabis Research. 2020;2(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s42238-020-00036-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Weiner J. Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2004;6(4):207–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Munns R, Schachtman D, Condon A. The significance of a two-phase growth response to salinity in wheat and barley. Functional Plant Biology. 1995;22(4):561–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Toth JA, Stack GM, Cala AR, Carlson CH, Wilk RL, Crawford JL, et al. Development and validation of genetic markers for sex and cannabinoid chemotype in Cannabis sativa L. GCB Bioenergy. 2020;12(3):213–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yang R, Berthold E, McCurdy CR, da Silva Benevenute S, Brym ZT, Freeman JH. Development of Cannabinoids in Flowers of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)—a Pilot Study. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c01211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gao C, Cheng C, Zhao L, Yu Y, Tang Q, Xin P, et al. Genome-wide expression profiles of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in response to drought stress. International journal of genomics. 2018;2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/3057272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liu J, Qiao Q, Cheng X, Du G, Deng G, Zhao M, et al. Transcriptome differences between fiber-type and seed-type Cannabis sativa variety exposed to salinity. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 2016;22(4):429–43. doi: 10.1007/s12298-016-0381-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Marks MD, Wenger JP, Gilding E, Jilk R, Dixon RA. Transcriptome analysis of Arabidopsis wild-type and gl3–sst sim trichomes identifies four additional genes required for trichome development. Molecular plant. 2009;2(4):803–22. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Small E, Naraine SG. Size matters: evolution of large drug-secreting resin glands in elite pharmaceutical strains of Cannabis sativa (marijuana). Genetic resources and crop evolution. 2016;63(2):349–59. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Umakanta Sarker

23 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-03958

Response of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles to varying fertigation rates.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anderson,

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 Jun 07 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,

Umakanta Sarker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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 Financial Disclosure section:

"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. Steven Anderson was funded by Roseville Farm’s UF/IFAS Florida Industrial Hemp Endowment contribution."

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Green Roads, LLC.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: This manuscript is focused on studying impact of fertigation on plant growth, biomass accumulation, and cannabinoid profiles in 5 essential oil hemp cultivars. This study provides a baseline data of fertilizer requirements for hemp. This manuscript is written very-well and describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Below are few minor comments:

1. Provide reference for L-53.

2. Mention the name of micronutrients used to prepare fertilizer treatments in L 117-118.

3. Describe how SPAD <40 threshold was obtained in L-229.

4. I would suggest to add a figure showing THC:CBD ratio for all the treatments.

Reviewer #2: This article is an interesting study reporting the effect of different N fertigation rates and CBD yielding hemp varieties on yield and cannabinoid concentrations. Some of the highlights are:

1) N fertigation rates of >150 ppm stunted plant growth demonstrating plant's salinity response.

2) The THC content for all varieties except for cherry wine was beyond 0.3%.

3) Highest cannabinoids was found in Cherry blossom*Trump because of its strong linkages to marijuana genetics

4) Nutrient related stress (low and high) possessed greater THC concentrations

Overall the paper is very well written but the conclusions are not very comprehensive. More extensive data collection and parameters need to be added to make it more conclusive. The variety selection seems to be too much narrow. The treatments need to be redesigned and reconsidered. This would be a better fit for a short communication.

Reviewer #3: Research addressing nutrient management and hemp varieties is crucial due the fact that, differently than other crops, the literature provides a scarce information for cannabis. Technically, cannabis became a new crop after some legislation changes and there is so much to be explored in this area. This manuscript is very instructive and well written. However, I found minor flaws that, if revised, it would improve the manuscript.

Line 40: This sentence could be more specific. Is CBD also sensitive at 450 and 600 ppm? Are THC and CBG sensitive at 600 ppm?

Line 100: One plant per pot? It would be good to have this information very clear.

Line 128: How the soil water content was calculated? How the 1.5 L and 6 L were calculated? Are these values the saturation point? Did the irrigation amount change as the hemp plant developed? Was there any mechanism to avoid overwatering?

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Jose Franco Da Cunha Leme Filho

[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):e0252985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252985.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 May 2021

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is focused on studying impact of fertigation on plant growth, biomass accumulation, and cannabinoid profiles in 5 essential oil hemp cultivars. This study provides a baseline data of fertilizer requirements for hemp. This manuscript is written very-well and describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Below are few minor comments:

Thank you for the kind words and your comments.

1. Provide reference for L-53.

References have been included.

2. Mention the name of micronutrients used to prepare fertilizer treatments in L 117-118.

We revised the sentence to include the micronutrient percentages. Please see lines: 117-120:

“Peters Professional 20-20-20 (N-P-K) (ICL Specialty Fertilizers, Dorchester County, SC, U.S.) general purpose fertilizer with micronutrients (0.050% Mg, 0.0125% B, 0.0125% Cu, 0.050% Fe, 0.025% Mn, 0.005% Mo, and 0.025% Zn) was prepared at variable fertilizer treatment…”

3. Describe how SPAD <40 threshold was obtained in L-229.

We included the statement below to clarify how we identified the threshold statistically.

Line 232:“The nutrient deficient threshold was based upon the lower 95th percentile of the 50 ppm N treatment”

4. I would suggest to add a figure showing THC:CBD ratio for all the treatments.

Thank you for the suggestion. During the analysis significant differences were not discovered for CBD:THC ratios between fertilizer treatments. For this reason, we focused upon the cannabinoid concentrations as their yields are what dictate federal compliance and economic gain.

Reviewer #2: This article is an interesting study reporting the effect of different N fertigation rates and CBD yielding hemp varieties on yield and cannabinoid concentrations. Some of the highlights are:

1) N fertigation rates of >150 ppm stunted plant growth demonstrating plant's salinity response.

2) The THC content for all varieties except for cherry wine was beyond 0.3%.

3) Highest cannabinoids was found in Cherry blossom*Trump because of its strong linkages to marijuana genetics

4) Nutrient related stress (low and high) possessed greater THC concentrations

Overall the paper is very well written but the conclusions are not very comprehensive. More extensive data collection and parameters need to be added to make it more conclusive.

Thank you for your comments. The authors believe that the results of this study are comprehensive having 7 fertilizer treatments applied to 6 hemp cultivars replicated five times within each treatment under greenhouse grown container culture. As very little published, empirical data has been produced in the cannabis research community this study creates the building blocks to justify the implementation of larger, extensive, and increasingly complicated studies. Additionally, growers are demanding science-based recommendations for this rapidly expanding new crop and delaying this information several years would not benefit the industry. We believe the results are conclusive and empirically demonstrate that maintained soil nutrient loads at higher concentrations negatively impacts the growth, biomass accumulation, and cannabinoid yield. The authors acknowledge that additional studies should be conducted to fine tune the exact nutrient application rate and timing within container and field grown conditions, but studies such as ours are essential prior to investing resources to answer such questions.

The variety selection seems to be too much narrow.

The genetic diversity of hemp is quite narrow and the lack of genetic stability accompanying a cultivars name makes it increasingly difficult to evaluate genetic diversity on a cultivar name basis. These cultivars were donated to our research efforts and we made the best use of them. Due to limited funding of hemp research, we could not justify DNA sequencing to evaluate the diversity of these cultivars. The closest related study included only 2 marijuana cultivars which we have expanded the genetic comparison within the allotted greenhouse space. We have provided insight and data to justify future research efforts with greater numbers of cultivars.

The treatments need to be redesigned and reconsidered. This would be a better fit for a short communication.

The authors are not sure what the reviewer means by “the treatments need to be redesigned and reconsidered”. Without providing an explanation it is difficult to improve the manuscript with such comments. This research provides critical empirical data which can be expanded upon in future research projects which the authors alluded to in the discussions of results.

Reviewer #3: Research addressing nutrient management and hemp varieties is crucial due the fact that, differently than other crops, the literature provides a scarce information for cannabis. Technically, cannabis became a new crop after some legislation changes and there is so much to be explored in this area. This manuscript is very instructive and well written. However, I found minor flaws that, if revised, it would improve the manuscript.

Thank you for your comments!

Line 40: This sentence could be more specific. Is CBD also sensitive at 450 and 600 ppm? Are THC and CBG sensitive at 600 ppm?

Great question. The sensitivity is based on statistically significant reductions in the cannabinoids which continues to be significantly reduced at higher concentrations then presents. We have clarified this with the inclusion of greater than symbols.

“increased fertilizer rates (>300 ppm N) compared to THC and CBG (>450 ppm N).”

Line 100: One plant per pot? It would be good to have this information very clear.

Clarified:

“Feminized seeds were sowed (10/14/2019; one seed per cell) within 72 round cell propagation sheets (PRO072R0G18C100) filled with Pro-Mix HP Mycorrhizae (Premier Tech Horticulture, Quakertown, PA, U.S.) media. Three weeks post-sowing (11/05/2019; 21 days after sowing [DAS]), seedlings were transplanted (one plant per pot) in 1.1 L square pots (SVD-450, T.O. Plastics, Clearwater, MN, U.S.)”

Line 128: How the soil water content was calculated?

To maintain the consistent soil EC we choose to extensively leached each day to avoid EC build up, but exact soil water content was not considered here.

How the 1.5 L and 6 L were calculated?

These are the volume of irrigation water the emitters displaced during the irrigation events. We have corrected a typo:

L131: Fertigation was applied with Rust MaxiJet grooved nursery pot stakes (Dundee, FL, U.S.) delivering 0.3 L min-1 at 172.4 kPa inlet pressure. Irrigation was delivered for 4 min (1.2 L) to each SVD-450 pot followed by 20 min (6.0 L) to each of the C600 pots.

Are these values the saturation point? Did the irrigation amount change as the hemp plant developed? Was there any mechanism to avoid overwatering?

Great question. Over watering is very evident in cannabis as the plants will wilt and die overnight. By stepping up the pot size during the experiment and using high porosity soil we were able to avoid such conditions which would have been evident in the control planting.

Additionally, we acknowledge that future research is necessary to track irrigation necessity and proper fertilizer application timing. Our findings provide insight as to optimal maintained nutrient levels for essential oil hemp growth.

This was clarified in line 104:

“In combination with the high porosity soil, to avoid overwatering, plants were periodically step up in pot size.”

Reviewer #4: I found the article presents laudable data on hemp a widely used bioresource. The information presented will be of benefit to readers. The results are of some scientific importance for cultivation of essential oil cultivars.

Scientific composition and writing are fine, and the manuscript can be accepted after some trivial queries.

• Please revise the English.

The author’s native langue is English. Without specific details we believe the English is well written and appropriate. We have done our best to review and correct any obvious writing errors.

• Do not justify your text in the whole manuscript. Please left align only.

Within the PLOS ONE manuscript body formatting guidelines the text is justified. For this reason, we will leave our text body justified.

• Write the title as sentences format. (check the format of journal)

Corrected.

• Write the first line of each part without hanging. (check the format of journal)

Paragraphs are indented within the PLOS ONE manuscript body formatting guidelines.

Introduction:

1. Is it possible to give some explanations based on the literature on the role of fertilizer in improving growth and chlorophyll?

2. Is it possible to give some explanations about the necessity of measurement of chlorophyll and SPAD?

The authors feel the above 2 comments were adequately addressed within the introduction.

Line: 64: Nutrient management is a major factor affecting plant growth and development [9, 10]. Specifically, nitrogen is the most abundant mineral nutrient in plants playing critical roles in plant development and metabolism [10]. Nitrogen supply is positively correlated to chlorophyll content in marijuana [11], although classical chlorophyll quantification can be a labor intensive, time consuming method of assessing nitrogen deficiency. SPAD chlorophyll meters are a high-throughput, noninvasive method used to grade greenness of plants [12] and potentially useful in assessing hemp nutrient deficiency.

Materials and methods:

1. L100 please explain about these cultivars like: "Essential oil cultivars are bred and grown for their essential oils (cannabinoids and terpenes)".

This information was addressed in the introduction and the authors feel it does not need such clarification in the methods.

Line 53: “In recent decades, high essential oil hemp cultivars have been selected for high cannabinoid secondary metabolites, led by cannabidiol (CBD) varieties; with evolving interest in varieties bred for higher levels of other cannabinoids (canabigerol, canachromine, etc).”

Also, explain whether the essential oil cultivars are dioecious or monoecious?

They can be either or, but are commonly dioecious. It is thought that the monecious phenotype is caused by recessive genes that are fixed during excessive inbreeding.”

Clarified:

Line 100: Five dioecious essential oil hemp cultivars were sowed from seed.

2. L102 Feminized seeds were sowed. It is better to omit Feminized.

The authors believe this is a necessary detail to include as to avoid the discussion of rouging males within the text.

3. L105 what culture medium were the square pots filled with?

Clarified:

Line 104: Pro-Mix HP Mycorrhizae was used as the media in all increased pot sizes.

4. In heading of section 2.1. Fertilizer rates and corresponding electrical conductivity treatments

L118 fertilizer with micronutrients…Please insert the analysis of fertilizer.

The authors are not sure what the reviewer is requesting as “analysis of fertilizer”. We have included the percentages of micronutrients as requested by another reviewer.

Line 120: Peters Professional 20-20-20 (N-P-K) (ICL Specialty Fertilizers, Dorchester County, SC, U.S.) general purpose fertilizer with micronutrients (0.050% Mg, 0.0125% B, 0.0125% Cu, 0.050% Fe, 0.025% Mn, 0.005% Mo, and 0.025% Zn)

5. In heading of section 2.2.1 SPAD and chlorophyll sstimates correct to Estimates

Thank you. Corrected.

6. In part 2.2.2 Plant height, growth curves, and absolute growth rates:

L145 It is better to use crown instead of the media surface.

Thank you for the comment. As we have already completed the experiment, we will keep this in mind for future research.

Mentioning the references of Eq1 and Eq2 are essential.

Eq. 2 is the derivative of Eq.1 as a result we have cited the appropriate literature. Weibull, 1951 was added as a reference.

7. In part 2.2.4 Cannabinoid analysis:

please insert wavelength absorbance of samples and standard curve for mass spectrometer.

Thank you for the comment.. If readers would like to learn more about the process they can reference Berthold et al. 2020 from within the text. In general mass spectrometry was used for detection so no wavelengths are involved just mass transitions. Wavelengths would be relevant if using PDA or QDA detection or some type of UV detection. The mass transitions are available in my Berthold et al. 2020.

We included a statement on L186:

“Furthermore, mass spectrometry was used for detection, no wavelengths are involved just mass transitions. The mass transitions are available in Berthold et al. 2020. Raw cannabinoid quantification and standard curve data are presented in S1 File.”

Results

I read the results and discussion; the flow is OK.

1. At least one chromatogram of cannabinoids must be presented in the text.

The authors believe this would take away from the manuscript as it is not focused upon methodology of cannabinoid quantification. We have provided some chromatogram figures within the supplemental files.

L314: Examples of cannabinoid chromatograms are available in S1 Fig.

2. Please insert the table of analysis of variance in MS.

Thank you for the comment. We conducted our research using mixed linear models and REML approaches. Mean squares are not appropriate for such an approach and were not presented. We have included the variance component decomposition within the S1 Table and the fixed effect tests in S3 File.

We have included a statement to inform readers of the data:

L204: “Significant statistical differences were calculated using Tukey’s HSD test (α < 0.05). Raw data (S2 File), variance component decomposition (S1 Table), fixed effect tests (S3 File), cultivar BLUEs (S4 File), and fertilizer rate BLUEs (S5 File) have been provided.”

3. Fig 3. (a and c) are not clear…also, it should be inserted the alphabet to show the significant differences between treatments.

Thank you for the comment. The figures are demonstrating the grouping BLUEs (i.e., the points) and the 95% confidence intervals. Overlapping confidence intervals indicate non-significant differences between groups. Adding the connecting letters would clutter the figure and likely be un-readable.

We have indicated within the figure caption that readers interested in the connecting letters can reference S4 File and S5 File.

Reference

Check referencing format well. (The name of the journal should be abbreviated.)

We have checked the reference formatting.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Anderson_ResponseToReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Umakanta Sarker

20 May 2021

PONE-D-21-03958R1

Response of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles to varying fertigation rates.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anderson,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Check carefully the whole MS, missing of spacing (many), absence of spacing in different symbols such as “>” “<” “=” “≥” including figure captions and figures.

Line 63: Include “the” before the word “best”

Line 183: ---at 4°C, 3220 ×g---. Use space after “4” and after “×”

Line 194: ---fertilizer/ ECW---. Delete the space after “/”. Change small “x” to the cross symbol “×”. Follow this style for whole MS e. g., line 275, 307, 309,

Figures 4-6: Check the error bars. It seems too high. Also, seems that the lettering doesn’t in accordance with error bars.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 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,

Umakanta Sarker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. 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 #3: Great work! Very important scientific information can be release with the publication of this manuscript.

Reviewer #4: The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in a previous round of review and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. 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 #3: Yes: Jose Franco Da Cunha Leme Filho

Reviewer #4: Yes: Mahnaz Abdollahi

[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):e0252985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252985.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 May 2021

Check carefully the whole MS, missing of spacing (many), absence of spacing in different symbols such as “>” “<” “=” “≥” including figure captions and figures.

That you for the comment. We have reviewed the manuscript and made the appropriate corrections.

Line 63: Include “the” before the word “best”

Corrected.

Line 183: ---at 4°C, 3220 ×g---. Use space after “4” and after “×”

Corrected.

Line 194: ---fertilizer/ ECW---. Delete the space after “/”. Change small “x” to the cross symbol “×”. Follow this style for whole MS e. g., line 275, 307, 309,

Corrected.

Figures 4-6: Check the error bars. It seems too high. Also, seems that the lettering doesn’t in accordance with error bars.

Thank you for the comment we have double check the figures and the error bars are correct, indicating the 95% confidence intervals. The connecting letters were also checked, show no sign of differing from the error bars, and are consistent with the original JMP output.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviewerResponses.docx

Decision Letter 2

Umakanta Sarker

27 May 2021

Response of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles to varying fertigation rates.

PONE-D-21-03958R2

Dear Dr. Anderson,

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,

Umakanta Sarker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Umakanta Sarker

9 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-03958R2

Response of essential oil hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growth, biomass, and cannabinoid profiles to varying fertigation rates

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

Professor Umakanta Sarker

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 Fig

    Chromatograph examples of [a] a standard curve, [b] sample N-091 below the federal THC limit of 0.3%, [c] sample N-132 near the federal THC limit of 0.3%, and [d] sample N-173 above the federal THC limit of 0.3.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Raw cannabinoid concentration quantification data including standard curves.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Raw phenotype dataset.

    (CSV)

    S3 File. Fixed effects test outputs of Eq 3.

    (XLSX)

    S4 File. BLUEs estimates for cultivars from Eq 3.

    (XLSX)

    S5 File. BLUEs estimates for fertilizer rates from Eq 3.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Table. Percent variance explained by each model term of Eq 3.

    Repeatability estimates calculated on an entry means basis.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Irrigation water salinity thresholds (ECW) which caused statistically significant (Tukey’s LSD; α = 0.05) reductions in the trait of interest compared to the 50 ppm N fertilizer treatment (EC = 0.54).

    Relative trait reductions indicate the reduction of the trait at or above the ECW threshold. Percentages in parentheses indicated the percent reduction of the trait relative to the 50 ppm N fertilizer treatment (EC = 0.54).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Anderson_ResponseToReviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ReviewerResponses.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES