I got my double order of Maui Wowie yesterday!! Of course I just popped Black Hyena the day b-4...
Landrace Genetics 101
- Thread starter Conradino23
- Start date
I got my double order of Maui Wowie yesterday!! Of course I just popped Black Hyena the day b-4...
Damn...gonna be a lot of Maui Wowie getting growed out this year!! Going to be a very Hawaiian summer up in deez parts!!
It made it thru Philly mail ... it'd be gone if anyone made a connection. I think mine just had a return address and not the seed bank name.
Beaver said:
Love your nic.. I lost my virginity to a Beaver(f)! Oye... and in a field of wild flowers down by the river! Was love...
Nanners = chop time. If you see some there are more. You will have some free seeds. Always a good thing ... S1, unless they aren't.
What's everyone's thought on Landrace plants throwing nanners? I get em every time I let them go too long.
I haven't had that problem yet but I usually chop at first sign of amber
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
Well, I had one of my Panama x Malawi plants self-pollinate and it was bizarre because I was NEVER able to find a nanner. I suppose it's possible I got some errant pollen on me somehow, but I don't know.
I could see why landrace strains would have a higher proclivity to self-pollinate based on certain geological and climate conditions. So for example, imagine that one batch of "Malawi" seeds was taken from plants in some meadow on an open plane, versus some from "Malawi" plants that were found growing in a little fjord between two large hills. Well, the open-meadow plants are going to have a much higher likelihood of receiving wind-blown pollen than the plants that are buttressed by these two looming hills, and so the fjord plants may have to rely on self-pollination every couple of seasons or so if there's no pollen that makes it in. So then some strain hunter comes along, looking for Malawi seeds and his guide says, "Oh I know where there's some more you can go collect seeds from," he may not realize that these seeds are self-pollinated and unwittingly selecting for the hermaphroditic trait. The same type of scenario could manifest itself for a lot of different reasons as plants self-pollinate for a lot of different reasons.
So one of my theories has to do with how varying levels of nitrogen and phosphate in the soil effect sexual expression. There's strong evidence that suggests cannabis plants in soil that's rich in both nitrogen and phosphorous will have a tendency to become mostly female. Now what if there is an open meadow full of female plants, and then some dumb buffalo comes and munches on the few lowly males? Are the females just going to perish? No, without the males to fertilize them, they will go "longer" into their season than they're use to and self-pollinate to continue on. So even in this meadow where conditions are adequate to receive air born pollen, there may be conditions where there just isn't any pollen to go around, and if they sense they're coming to the end of their life without producing seeds, they'll then self-pollinate to continue on their genes. 100% natural selection
But so that's where humans come along and screw around with stuff. What we've done, is taken these landrace varieties, and then grown them basically wherever BUT because we're greedy and like to get the most we can out of everything, we let them go for a long time hoping they get bigger. Well, as the plants would do in nature when they think they won't procreate, they throw nanners and pollinate themselves, but since we don't like seeds, then we selectively breed the ones that don't go hermie so it's basically the complete opposite of what happens with the natural selection, and we end up reinforcing the traits that say "Don't self-pollinate" to create our most popular varieties.
So essentially my theory is it all comes down to natural vs artificial selection, and that in the wild with natural selection, cannabis strains that have a trait to self-pollinate are going to be more successful than ones that do not, even if they do not have to rely on this trait often. I think it's perfectly logical assumption to make, but the real "lyncpin" to my theory is that landrace strains only seem like they're more prone to it, whereas in reality we've simply artificially selected cannabis genes to make varieties less prone to it.
In fact, all these cash croppers who talk about "polluting the gene pool" are a far greater threat to cannabis than anything they contend is. They're basically hating on a trait that has allowed cannabis to become what it is, and if it didn't self-pollinate then we may not even have the varieties we do now. There's of course that rumor that OG Kush was grown from a bag seed, but even beyond that if cannabis couldn't self-pollinate, then what kind of weak-ass varieties would be available to use now today, if it had even survived that long at all? We probably owe quite a bit to cannabis being able to hermie, and in reality if these growers let their weak-ass genetics out into the wild, they'd be gone within a season or two, consumed by natural selection. "Only the strongest survive," but the "strongest" depends entirely on context, and for all we know these hybrids we've developed with ultra high yield, resistance, potency, and so on and so forth, but then selected against hermaphroditism, would end up extinct in the wild because they couldn't self-pollinate to carry on their lineage. The thing that gets me is cash croppers act as if it's wild cannabis that's polluting their crop, when in reality it's cultivated cannabis that's polluting the wild cannabis gene pool. Imagine if we somehow disrupted cannabis's natural ability to self-pollinate, and then released all these super temperamental, finicky varieties into the wild, would the species itself even survive? I think the truth is we need that hermaphroditic trait and owe a lot to it, and cash croppers would be wise to see it as "necessary evil" because they wouldn't have the varieties to cash in on without it.
That's just my theory on it anyway.
Well, "success" of an organism meaning one that can create another generation of itself, sure. But the organism (generally) benefits from some genetic diversity. Without new genes... what happens when it becomes a little cooler, a lilttle warmer, a little more dry, et cetera? If a plant pollinates itself easily and routinely, you can end up with a crop of plants that are too alike - then when not if something in the environment changes, if that change happens to be one that the plants cannot endure, <POOF!>. Whereas, if there is a good bit of diversity, it is far more likely that some plants will survive, perhaps even thrive under the new conditions.
People have been experiencing cannabis for thousands of years. They've also been farming... for thousands of years. Seems like even when the religious powers were preaching about how everything was a direct result of God's actions - forgetting, apparently, that He was said to have given us free will for a reason - the farmers knew about selection for traits and breeding.
Then, too, as pollen tends to both travel freely upon even a light wind and also to stick to each and every animal that comes into contact with it (as the average outdoor grower knows well, lol), and animals often seem to delight in eating cannabis (ditto), the species... Well, people called it weed for a reason :rolleyes3 . You can kill a plant, but it's kind of difficult to kill the species. As evidenced by all the eradication efforts that, while obviously capable of putting a dent into it... in certain regions, failed to do so.
I thought "polluting the cannabis gene pool" was some guys traveling around the world, collecting landrace seeds from local farmers (and making videos) - and passing out their "designer" strains to those same farmers in return
. I've read stories about people who've gone to areas of Mexico, Jamaica, parts of SE Asia, et cetera looking for the landrace strains of old... only to be offered some of the strains that one can order from any random seedbank (IOW, not original landrace varieties). Go to Jamaica hunting that legendary Lambsbread or whatever it was called and you might find it far easier to find AK-47 or whatnot. I can't blame the local farmers for this. "It flowered for 18 weeks?!?!? Here, have some of these seeds, they'll be ready for harvest in half the time!"
Hermaphrodism... Yeah, okay, under certain conditions, I'll agree that it can be a useful trait. Triple canopy overhead keeping the breeze down, humidity so high it literally drips from everything in sight, that kind of thing is going to put the kibosh on a lot of natural pollination tools. When it's growing under conditions like this, it can make the difference between producing offspring and not. But it ought to be trait of last resort, "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass," if you will. That gives M-F procreation a chance, and THAT adds genes to the successive generation.
Just think if asexual reproduction was the primary means of procreation among Homo sapien, or at least as likely as sexual reproduction. Would a portion of us have ended up with some Neanderthal genes, Denisovan genes, or quite possibly other genes from ancient hominids that we haven't learned about yet?
If I remember correctly, the gene for sickle cell disease has been around for millions of years. It either came from a mutation - that was passed on through sexual reproduction (and spread throughout the local population) or as the result of a crossbreeding. Now that seems like a negative thing, anemia not being something that kids wish for at Christmas and all - but it also provides malaria resistance, which would appear to be a pretty useful survival trait in areas where malaria is common.
Crohn's disease and psoriasis might be the same way, kind of. That is tosay, although each presents as a problem now, they could have been positives that aided in survivability when the changes that produced them occurred. Who knows, lol, such things might have played a very real part in us being here today.
From an article titled "Did genetic links to modern maladies provide ancient benefits?" at Phys.org :
Your theory about nitrogen and phosphorous content in the soil effecting sex is not a new theory. I read the same thing in an article years ago that Dutch Passion published. Informal experimentation seems to agree with it, lol. There is a page on their website that discusses it. It begins by discussing the creation of feminized seeds, but the information is (IMHO) still valid in the general sense. I won't provide a link to the web page, out of respect to our sponsors (they aren't a forum sponsor, but other breeders are), but here is the relevant text from it:
And the above, IMHO, goes a long way toward explaining why some people can buy a ten-pack of seeds, grow them out, and wind up with six, seven, even more females while someone else might buy a ten-pack of the same strain and post complaints at every cannabis-related forum they can about how "those seeds are JUNK, they are almost all males!!!"
- or why I've seen a higher ratio of females when I started seeds in the cooler months than when I did in the middle of August when it was too hot to move in here.
If you think about the conditions - and the time of year - when the different "sets" of conditions tend to occur, the seed-production process / time it takes, etc., these things suddenly make sense.
Err... I had something to say that was relevant to this thread when I began typing (honest, lol). I just wish I could remember what it was....
People have been experiencing cannabis for thousands of years. They've also been farming... for thousands of years. Seems like even when the religious powers were preaching about how everything was a direct result of God's actions - forgetting, apparently, that He was said to have given us free will for a reason - the farmers knew about selection for traits and breeding.
Then, too, as pollen tends to both travel freely upon even a light wind and also to stick to each and every animal that comes into contact with it (as the average outdoor grower knows well, lol), and animals often seem to delight in eating cannabis (ditto), the species... Well, people called it weed for a reason :rolleyes3 . You can kill a plant, but it's kind of difficult to kill the species. As evidenced by all the eradication efforts that, while obviously capable of putting a dent into it... in certain regions, failed to do so.
I thought "polluting the cannabis gene pool" was some guys traveling around the world, collecting landrace seeds from local farmers (and making videos) - and passing out their "designer" strains to those same farmers in return
. I've read stories about people who've gone to areas of Mexico, Jamaica, parts of SE Asia, et cetera looking for the landrace strains of old... only to be offered some of the strains that one can order from any random seedbank (IOW, not original landrace varieties). Go to Jamaica hunting that legendary Lambsbread or whatever it was called and you might find it far easier to find AK-47 or whatnot. I can't blame the local farmers for this. "It flowered for 18 weeks?!?!? Here, have some of these seeds, they'll be ready for harvest in half the time!"Hermaphrodism... Yeah, okay, under certain conditions, I'll agree that it can be a useful trait. Triple canopy overhead keeping the breeze down, humidity so high it literally drips from everything in sight, that kind of thing is going to put the kibosh on a lot of natural pollination tools. When it's growing under conditions like this, it can make the difference between producing offspring and not. But it ought to be trait of last resort, "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass," if you will. That gives M-F procreation a chance, and THAT adds genes to the successive generation.
Just think if asexual reproduction was the primary means of procreation among Homo sapien, or at least as likely as sexual reproduction. Would a portion of us have ended up with some Neanderthal genes, Denisovan genes, or quite possibly other genes from ancient hominids that we haven't learned about yet?
If I remember correctly, the gene for sickle cell disease has been around for millions of years. It either came from a mutation - that was passed on through sexual reproduction (and spread throughout the local population) or as the result of a crossbreeding. Now that seems like a negative thing, anemia not being something that kids wish for at Christmas and all - but it also provides malaria resistance, which would appear to be a pretty useful survival trait in areas where malaria is common.
Crohn's disease and psoriasis might be the same way, kind of. That is tosay, although each presents as a problem now, they could have been positives that aided in survivability when the changes that produced them occurred. Who knows, lol, such things might have played a very real part in us being here today.
From an article titled "Did genetic links to modern maladies provide ancient benefits?" at Phys.org :
Did genetic links to modern maladies provide ancient benefits?
Your theory about nitrogen and phosphorous content in the soil effecting sex is not a new theory. I read the same thing in an article years ago that Dutch Passion published. Informal experimentation seems to agree with it, lol. There is a page on their website that discusses it. It begins by discussing the creation of feminized seeds, but the information is (IMHO) still valid in the general sense. I won't provide a link to the web page, out of respect to our sponsors (they aren't a forum sponsor, but other breeders are), but here is the relevant text from it:
And the above, IMHO, goes a long way toward explaining why some people can buy a ten-pack of seeds, grow them out, and wind up with six, seven, even more females while someone else might buy a ten-pack of the same strain and post complaints at every cannabis-related forum they can about how "those seeds are JUNK, they are almost all males!!!"
- or why I've seen a higher ratio of females when I started seeds in the cooler months than when I did in the middle of August when it was too hot to move in here.If you think about the conditions - and the time of year - when the different "sets" of conditions tend to occur, the seed-production process / time it takes, etc., these things suddenly make sense.
Err... I had something to say that was relevant to this thread when I began typing (honest, lol). I just wish I could remember what it was....
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
Well, "success" of an organism meaning one that can create another generation of itself, sure. But the organism (generally) benefits from some genetic diversity. Without new genes... what happens when it becomes a little cooler, a lilttle warmer, a little more dry, et cetera? If a plant pollinates itself easily and routinely, you can end up with a crop of plants that are too alike - then when not if something in the environment changes, if that change happens to be one that the plants cannot endure, <POOF!>. Whereas, if there is a good bit of diversity, it is far more likely that some plants will survive, perhaps even thrive under the new conditions.
People have been experiencing cannabis for thousands of years. They've also been farming... for thousands of years. Seems like even when the religious powers were preaching about how everything was a direct result of God's actions - forgetting, apparently, that He was said to have given us free will for a reason - the farmers knew about selection for traits and breeding.
Then, too, as pollen tends to both travel freely upon even a light wind and also to stick to each and every animal that comes into contact with it (as the average outdoor grower knows well, lol), and animals often seem to delight in eating cannabis (ditto), the species... Well, people called it weed for a reason :rolleyes3 . You can kill a plant, but it's kind of difficult to kill the species. As evidenced by all the eradication efforts that, while obviously capable of putting a dent into it... in certain regions, failed to do so.
I thought "polluting the cannabis gene pool" was some guys traveling around the world, collecting landrace seeds from local farmers (and making videos) - and passing out their "designer" strains to those same farmers in return
Hermaphrodism... Yeah, okay, under certain conditions, I'll agree that it can be a useful trait. Triple canopy overhead keeping the breeze down, humidity so high it literally drips from everything in sight, that kind of thing is going to put the kibosh on a lot of natural pollination tools. When it's growing under conditions like this, it can make the difference between producing offspring and not. But it ought to be trait of last resort, "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass," if you will. That gives M-F procreation a chance, and THAT adds genes to the successive generation.
Just think if asexual reproduction was the primary means of procreation among Homo sapien, or at least as likely as sexual reproduction. Would a portion of us have ended up with some Neanderthal genes, Denisovan genes, or quite possibly other genes from ancient hominids that we haven't learned about yet?
If I remember correctly, the gene for sickle cell disease has been around for millions of years. It either came from a mutation - that was passed on through sexual reproduction (and spread throughout the local population) or as the result of a crossbreeding. Now that seems like a negative thing, anemia not being something that kids wish for at Christmas and all - but it also provides malaria resistance, which would appear to be a pretty useful survival trait in areas where malaria is common.
Crohn's disease and psoriasis might be the same way, kind of. That is tosay, although each presents as a problem now, they could have been positives that aided in survivability when the changes that produced them occurred. Who knows, lol, such things might have played a very real part in us being here today.
From an article titled "Did genetic links to modern maladies provide ancient benefits?" at Phys.org :
Did genetic links to modern maladies provide ancient benefits?
Your theory about nitrogen and phosphorous content in the soil effecting sex is not a new theory. I read the same thing in an article years ago that Dutch Passion published. Informal experimentation seems to agree with it, lol. There is a page on their website that discusses it. It begins by discussing the creation of feminized seeds, but the information is (IMHO) still valid in the general sense. I won't provide a link to the web page, out of respect to our sponsors (they aren't a forum sponsor, but other breeders are), but here is the relevant text from it:
And the above, IMHO, goes a long way toward explaining why some people can buy a ten-pack of seeds, grow them out, and wind up with six, seven, even more females while someone else might buy a ten-pack of the same strain and post complaints at every cannabis-related forum they can about how "those seeds are JUNK, they are almost all males!!!"
If you think about the conditions - and the time of year - when the different "sets" of conditions tend to occur, the seed-production process / time it takes, etc., these things suddenly make sense.
Err... I had something to say that was relevant to this thread when I began typing (honest, lol). I just wish I could remember what it was....
Ah no i didn't mean to pass the nitrogen/phosphorous rich soil leading to more females as my theory, but rather I think that this kind of condition to lead to a sexualy disparity, leaving no males around to pollinate. In that kind of doomsday scenario a variety that had the hermaphroditic trait ( and I would be careful to differentiate trait from tendency ) in it to asexually propagate would be able to carry on. There seems to be a desire among cash croppers to try to eliminate what they see as a "gene" that controls this trait ( but it actually seems like pretty much all cannabis has it ), but I feel like it would be a bit like shooting ourselves in the foot to try to eradicate such a useful survival mechanism. But that's what I was speaking of it as, not saying that hermaphroditic tending varieties were advantageous, so that's why I mentioned that plants in the wild have probably had to rely on this last resort measure more times in their recent lineage than have most of our "domesticated" varieties, so they may be closer to developing it as a tendency versus just a dormant trait. In other words, how often does a light timer get messed up and cause some indoor hybrid to go hermie compared to how often a freak weather pattern or some other anomaly in a normal growing season cause landrace strains to go hermaphroditic? Just by the very natures of the natural versus artificial selection being applied to each kind, the landrace will be closer to have a hermpahroditic "tendency" than a good stabilized cultivated variety will, but the cultivated variety still preserves the trait as it seems all cannabis does.
But when you mention species diversity, that's what concerns me about the scenario you detailed when someone brings back one of these modern fast-finishing strains. Yeah it may finish fast, but what happens when its genes combine with the local wild population and suppress the trait that allows them to asexually propagate under dire conditions? So for example with the Lambsread you mentioned, errant pollen could create a totally changed variety because of the AK-47, but then on top of that if AK-47 was bred specifically to resist asexual propagation, then what if that new AK-47 x Lambsread cross ends up getting some pollen on the wind and flies off a few miles and then contaminates another landrace population. Well then not only is that gene pool altered, but if it ever becomes endangered for some reason, then it may be less likely to be able to asexually propagate, won't propagate and then that area may end up devoid of natural weed populations, when ordinarily the variety could have self-pollinated for that season just to get it through to the next when it could be cross-pollinated.
That kind of genetic displacement isn't uncommon, but what's kind of interesting to think about is would that new variety then die off when faced with an inability to procreate when it would normally self-pollinate. In some ways I think that may be the answer to the question 'Why do landraces go hermie more?' because in a purely a Darwinian, natural-selection viewpoint, the plants which can self-pollinate will be successful and eventually replace the local population's gene pool with more of their own than from those newly introduced strains. But the contamination will always be there to some extent.
But what if that didn't happen. What if we end up creating strains that are so far off from their natural derivation, that when we cross them out with wild strains we actually do succeed in wiping out that hermaphroditic trait. Would cannabis be able to propagate and survive as well at that point? I guess what I'm saying is that we might owe its tenacity and how widespread it is to the fact that it has that survival mechanism, and eliminating that survival mechanism would simply mean that less members of a population survive, meaning less populations, and less genetic diversity over all. The horror scenario I imagine would be cannabis falling from a plant with landrace varieties on every continent, to one only able to crow in certain climates. Hopefully years of evolution will mean that a few thousand years of human meddling couldn't cause such a thing to happen, but still I think that people regard the ability for cannabis plants to self-pollinate in a negative light when it's really better for us. It maintains a huge diversity, of which we can go out, select what we want, and then bring it back into domestic settings to select for the traits we like, and breed out those hermie tendencies so we get nice seedless weed.
That idea of people saying one seed bank sucks because they get mostly males just makes me think of this too though. Like, my Panama x Malawi went hermie, and it really didn't have any stress triggers to cause it, and that might lead some people go, "Well ACE isn't making good strains then." Is that it, or are they getting Malawi that's so wild that it's still got that hermie trait close to the surface? Like a part of me feels like if you want to grow landraces, then you should just expect they might hermie up on you as part of the trade-off in having so much diversity to choose from worldwide.
I had some minor worries that people would find my post kind of lengthy. But if it's getting quoted in its entirety, lol, it must not be a problem.
I love a good doomsday scenario! Sooner or later, we won't be thinking up, hearing, or reading them - we'll be living one. Hopefully, one that leaves the planet in a state that it can eventually recover from. I also hope that it takes a shorter time for the next species that is smart enough to tie its own shoes to evolve than it did for ours. After all, they'll only have about five billion years (and that's starting from... wait for it, lol... NOW) until Sol starts to expand, and another 2½ billion or so years before that expansion has grown to encompass Terra. I've just about decided to stop trying to fight the politics, economics, greed, pollutions, et cetera - because doing so stinks of trying to hold back the inevitable :rolleyes3 . Anyway...
I haven't been a "cash cropper" for, IDK, 20+ years, but I'm all for eliminating hermaphroditism in domesticated cannabis strains. I have always preferred my bud to be sinsemilla. (I wouldn't mind seeing "feminized" strains disappear, either.)
I had some Thai seeds many years ago that I grew out and worked with. I managed to - or seemed to manage to - decrease the incidence of hermaphroditism, but not eliminate it. I get the impression that the gene which causes it... is NOT a recessive one
. But I could be wrong. I only kept the line going for about five, maybe six years. I've been kicking myself, off and on, ever since.
I love a good doomsday scenario! Sooner or later, we won't be thinking up, hearing, or reading them - we'll be living one. Hopefully, one that leaves the planet in a state that it can eventually recover from. I also hope that it takes a shorter time for the next species that is smart enough to tie its own shoes to evolve than it did for ours. After all, they'll only have about five billion years (and that's starting from... wait for it, lol... NOW) until Sol starts to expand, and another 2½ billion or so years before that expansion has grown to encompass Terra. I've just about decided to stop trying to fight the politics, economics, greed, pollutions, et cetera - because doing so stinks of trying to hold back the inevitable :rolleyes3 . Anyway...
I haven't been a "cash cropper" for, IDK, 20+ years, but I'm all for eliminating hermaphroditism in domesticated cannabis strains. I have always preferred my bud to be sinsemilla. (I wouldn't mind seeing "feminized" strains disappear, either.)
I had some Thai seeds many years ago that I grew out and worked with. I managed to - or seemed to manage to - decrease the incidence of hermaphroditism, but not eliminate it. I get the impression that the gene which causes it... is NOT a recessive one
. But I could be wrong. I only kept the line going for about five, maybe six years. I've been kicking myself, off and on, ever since.
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
I dunno man... Cannabis sex genes is a super complicated subject, but it's very strange because basically all cannabis has the ability to produce staminant flowers if sprayed with STS or CS, but other varieties seem to produce hermaphrodites with no provocation. In my opinion it's probably two things 1) There is a gene that makes plants tend toward hermaphroditism but 2) That all cannabis has this biological ability and so it may be a change brought on by epigenetics as well. Epigenetics is basically what causes two plants of the same phenotype to act differently under different light schedules, and so I think it makes sense this is why STS and CS are able to cause otherwise pistillate plants to produce staminant flowers. And making feminized seeds wouldn't work if the pistillate gene wasn't recessive (a homozygous recessive genotype creates a "true breeding" trait in plants, so in this case, "all female" means all pistillate ) so that means the staminant gene must be dominant. Genes don't work exactly cut and dry though, and a "blending" is possible. You can have situations where you have flowers that come out either white or red in normal circumstances come out pink in others. Likewise, naturally occurring hermophrodite plants could be the result of gene blending even when the plant should have been entirely staminant due to the presence of that dominant genotype, or pistillate due to a homozygous pair of that recessive genotype.
So I don't think it's actually possible to eliminate hermaphrodites being a possibility with the genetic code, because hermaphroditic plants are made possible by the very nature of cannabis's genetic code being dioceious. It's actually one of the very few plants in the world that operates on a X and Y chromosome system like we do. From what I've read there may also be a "Z" chromosome that controls staminant expression, and that could also be what causes hermaphrodites. I only found one study on that and it was a bit over my head with the technical jargon. I've read a few older studies out of Japan (way back in 1926) where they found some varieties would produce 100% hermaphrodite plants and that definitely seems like a gene, but in offspring where some turned out hermaphrodite, and some pistillate, and some staminant, it seems that the hermaphrodites were always the cause of epigenetics ( they described "mutilating" the buds to make it happen ) or through some kind of gene blending.
It's a really fascinating subject, I would have figured that with the pace of legalization we'd have some more certain science on it by now.
Study I mentioned, if you're ineterested... It's old but still widely referenced.
"Sex Determination in Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.)
doi.org/10.1007/BF02983117
So I don't think it's actually possible to eliminate hermaphrodites being a possibility with the genetic code, because hermaphroditic plants are made possible by the very nature of cannabis's genetic code being dioceious. It's actually one of the very few plants in the world that operates on a X and Y chromosome system like we do. From what I've read there may also be a "Z" chromosome that controls staminant expression, and that could also be what causes hermaphrodites. I only found one study on that and it was a bit over my head with the technical jargon. I've read a few older studies out of Japan (way back in 1926) where they found some varieties would produce 100% hermaphrodite plants and that definitely seems like a gene, but in offspring where some turned out hermaphrodite, and some pistillate, and some staminant, it seems that the hermaphrodites were always the cause of epigenetics ( they described "mutilating" the buds to make it happen ) or through some kind of gene blending.
It's a really fascinating subject, I would have figured that with the pace of legalization we'd have some more certain science on it by now.
Study I mentioned, if you're ineterested... It's old but still widely referenced.
"Sex Determination in Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.)
doi.org/10.1007/BF02983117
Islandgrow
Well-Known Member
Genes are such an Interesting subject and the infinite possibilities once reaching f2 in a cross shows how fickle the genes are and that we have only an inkling of understanding the matters and issues of how the genes are "selected "to be used by the plant. In the end the plants will survive maybe just not in the manner in which humans want but in a way that they will be unbothered by us. And they will survive to perpetuate their own kind. Hahaha I love this topic and the possibilities.
Two separate things (IMHO). One is a response to stress, the other appears to be purely genetic in origin.
BtW, as far as I know, cannabis is not the only dioecious plant species for which gibberellic acid, silver thiosulfate, and colloidal silver works in this fashion. We heads are a creative bunch, lol, but I'm pretty sure that we didn't invent this particular thing.
I am somewhat familiar with the term. I am not convinced that this is what is occurring in either of those two things (I am not necessarily convinced that you are wrong, here, either - my personal jury is still out, so to speak).
You consider the determination of sex in a plant species to be a result of dominant/recessive gene(s), then? Hmm... I don't think it works that way.
See above.
See above (more or less; I don't consider the gene that causes hermaphroditism to be the same thing that determines sex of the organism).
Link, please? The only published papers that I've read about determinants of sex in cannabis stated that it was a simple XX or XY type of thing. Such as this one, which has (if I remember correctly) been posted on the forum at least once in the past:
Molecular Cytogenetic Characterization of the Dioecious Cannabis sativa with an XY Chromosome Sex Determination System
NOTE: Article is hosted at The National Center for Biotechnology Information, a ".gov" website. Apologies, but permissions for attaching .PDF files to our posts are, of course, not enabled - so I couldn't simply upload my own copy, lol.
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I found it through my university's online database and haven't been able to dig it up again. I'll see if I can, but to be honest, there's so much technical jargon in it I had to run it by my plant science teacher, so I'm not really sure either one of us is really going to be able to interpret it that well anyway. It was done by some Russian scientists if that helps you find it somewhere. I'll hunt for it.
I don't really know what else to tell you about gene blending. I learned about it in my plant science class, and not very in depth. But if it stands to reason red and white flowers can make pink flowers, then it's only logical staminant and pistillate genes can make monoceious plants instead of dioceious. The point of talking about how the pistillate gene is recessive isn't so much to say, "That is how sex determinism works in cannabis," but rather to say that is why things like CS, STS and other forms of eliciting self-mutilation work to create true-breeding pistillate offspring. If it weren't a homozygous recessive genotype influencing pstillate flowers, then the technique of pollinating a pistillate plant with pollen from a reversed plant would not result in 100% pistillate offspring. it doesn't actually comment on how the XY genes are used for sex determinism, but rather just points to the X gene being an 'xx' genotype for purely pistillate varieties. However, that doesn't mean that there can't be 'xY' genotypes where the staminant gene is in dominance, and as in human hermaphrodites there could be a number of different combinations of these alleles producing different genotypal sex expressions.
Now what I am wondering is when a plant naturally goes hermaphrodite, is that because they have something different than the 'xx' genotype, or has some kind of epigenetic influence caused them to rely on this biological function as a survival mechanism despite their geneitc code, and does relying on said mechanism turn it into an inherited trait for further generations? I haven't found any evidence of an actual hermaphrodite gene except for that mysterious "chromosome Z" article I can't find, so I guess what I'm saying is it might be impossible to eradicate the "gene" that causes cannabis to go hermaphrodite, because it might just be a product of cannabis' dioceious sex determinism.
I wish there was a more recent study than the K. Hirata piece, but so far that's the only one I know of that offers some insight into plants going hermaphrodite and whether it is genetically influenced or brought about in some other way.
"From the fact that in hemp, although the species is prevailingly dioceious, various intersexes may occur under abnormal conditions such as a short duration of daylight, or in the mutilation of certain parts of the plant early in the blooming season, and all from the fact that certain plants show intersexuality even under normal conditions, it is probable that the factor (or factors) for the opposite sex exist in any given individual, just as traces of the opposite Mendelian character are found in extracted dominants or recessive in certain cases. For we are not justified in assuming that a hermaphrodite factor ( or intersex factor ) is responsible for the occurrence of intersexuality. The fact which induces the opposite sex, seems to function only under special conditions. Granting so much we may now ask what these factors are, and in what manner they are concerned in the physiology of sex determination."
There must be some reason why plants start to go hermaphrodite regularly, but I do not think there being a "gene" is necessarily the correct answer... It's correct in the sense that there is something genetic in cannabis sex determination going on, but I don't think it actually helps understand how to "eradicate" that trait from our preferred cultivated varieties, and that's what I guess I'm getting at. There's this desire to eradicate this gene, and the notion that feminized plants "pollute" a gene pool with some crazy genotype, but it seems way more complex because even plants that do not naturally go hermaphrodite can be shocked into it.
I don't think the question should really be whether there's a gene that causes hermpahroditism, but rather why it becomes a tendency in some varieties, but is only possible as a survival mechanism in others.
Tortured, I am bothered by your use of the phrase "go hermaphroditic."
Simultaneous hermaphrodism is a term used for individuals BORN with both sex organs that mature and function normally.
Sequential hermaphrodism is used for an individual that ENTIRELY changes it's sex organ (such as a fish turning female when it becomes large enough)
There may be a few other flavors of hermaphrodism.
In my opinion, expressing a unique, non-traditional pollen producing organ, while maintaining a plethora of standard female sex organs does not fit in the general category of hermaphrodism.
It does fit the general category of geitonogamy (self-fertilization of a female organ from a male organ on a seperate flower of the same plant.)
I don't know the correct term for fertilization by 'nanners, but it should be something like Dioecious Geitonogamy.
Hermophrodism in traditionally single sexed creatures,is considered a genetic mistake (which is why they now call humans with this condition intersexed.)
Geitonogamy is a 'normal' sexual strategy, and in the case of cannabis a backup reproducton strategy, that should be considered normal and often desirable.
Simultaneous hermaphrodism is a term used for individuals BORN with both sex organs that mature and function normally.
Sequential hermaphrodism is used for an individual that ENTIRELY changes it's sex organ (such as a fish turning female when it becomes large enough)
There may be a few other flavors of hermaphrodism.
In my opinion, expressing a unique, non-traditional pollen producing organ, while maintaining a plethora of standard female sex organs does not fit in the general category of hermaphrodism.
It does fit the general category of geitonogamy (self-fertilization of a female organ from a male organ on a seperate flower of the same plant.)
I don't know the correct term for fertilization by 'nanners, but it should be something like Dioecious Geitonogamy.
Hermophrodism in traditionally single sexed creatures,is considered a genetic mistake (which is why they now call humans with this condition intersexed.)
Geitonogamy is a 'normal' sexual strategy, and in the case of cannabis a backup reproducton strategy, that should be considered normal and often desirable.
Quick reply (supper smells like it is burning - and is about eight hours late, regardless :rolleyes3 )...
Last, first: Apologies. I have been known to get into the habit of using a poor term. Such as phototropic instead of the correct photoperiodic when referring to plants that are not auto-flowering ones. I'll have to work on that one. I did manage to convince myself to stop saying "go shim" upon realizing that it bothered some people.
Post above that: More information for me to read, consider, attempt to digest. I appreciate the opportunity, as always when given the chance to increase my knowledge. I am thinking that the sex of the cannabis plant is determined by "XX or XY" - but that this is a separate thing from the question of whether or not it will have a tendency to produce opposite-sex flowers in non-survival situations. And I wonder if this thing, whatever it may be, is somehow connected to one or more other traits that we find desirable in the species. That, although we often try to "breed it out," we end up adding it back again as we try to improve (or... "improve" ) any given strain/etc. in ways that we feel to be important. Like... if it is somehow tied to potency (that old Thai strain rocked my universe, lol), nearly psychedelic effect (ditto), shorter flowering period length (didn't seem to be a quality of the Thai, but...), or something else entirely, maybe?
Last, first: Apologies. I have been known to get into the habit of using a poor term. Such as phototropic instead of the correct photoperiodic when referring to plants that are not auto-flowering ones. I'll have to work on that one. I did manage to convince myself to stop saying "go shim" upon realizing that it bothered some people.
Post above that: More information for me to read, consider, attempt to digest. I appreciate the opportunity, as always when given the chance to increase my knowledge. I am thinking that the sex of the cannabis plant is determined by "XX or XY" - but that this is a separate thing from the question of whether or not it will have a tendency to produce opposite-sex flowers in non-survival situations. And I wonder if this thing, whatever it may be, is somehow connected to one or more other traits that we find desirable in the species. That, although we often try to "breed it out," we end up adding it back again as we try to improve (or... "improve" ) any given strain/etc. in ways that we feel to be important. Like... if it is somehow tied to potency (that old Thai strain rocked my universe, lol), nearly psychedelic effect (ditto), shorter flowering period length (didn't seem to be a quality of the Thai, but...), or something else entirely, maybe?
Islandgrow
Well-Known Member
I hope you type fast and that your food did not burn .hahaha
Fully agree with you on that we have no way of finding out which are linked . But if facing extinction and it produces a male staminate on a pistillate mother plant in flower the offspring will be female so I guess that is why those high thc sativas almost always shoot nanners late in flower . Due to a lack of suitable males? .
That's my take on it, just a holding action, more or less, until next (growing) season. I probably wouldn't hate opposite sex flowers (quite so much) if my eyesight hadn't gone from bad to worse. Details are a blur without magnification, so I'm going to miss some if they appear on one of my plants. And I want all the plants' energy spent on flower production unless I am specifically attempting to create seeds.
Yeah, it was charred pretty good, lol. But it was just a frozen pizza that my buddy gave me after buying four for $10 (sale) and realizing why they were on sale, so to speak. He knows I don't throw away food, even if I can't stand it. I managed to eat some of the crust (teeth weren't up to the rest) and all of the toppings.
OH, CRAP, forgot about it being upgrade day. Better post this, read the other thread I opened in its own tab, and turn off the laptop. Otherwise, habit will take over. Cannabis might not be addictive, but this forum sure is.
Yeah, it was charred pretty good, lol. But it was just a frozen pizza that my buddy gave me after buying four for $10 (sale) and realizing why they were on sale, so to speak. He knows I don't throw away food, even if I can't stand it. I managed to eat some of the crust (teeth weren't up to the rest) and all of the toppings.
OH, CRAP, forgot about it being upgrade day. Better post this, read the other thread I opened in its own tab, and turn off the laptop. Otherwise, habit will take over. Cannabis might not be addictive, but this forum sure is.
OK, so can anyone clarify this for me?......... Is the sex of the plant predetermined prior to planting or is there truth to the manipulation of the sex throughout the growing process. I believe I remember reading somewhere that higher levels of nitrogen lead to more females, and of course Sue with her banana peel. I kind of always assumed the sex was predetermined, but wasn't sure. Just curious
Well van. I do know environmental stress leads to a much higher male to female ratio... I believe growchy posted a link at some point in his purple journal
lazyfish
Well-Known Member
I think someone just pointed this all out a page or two back.... Some long posts there but good info.