The legalization continues to change the cannabis industry, and we see an influx of creative innovation, funding, and research with more entities entering the field. As more traditional cultivation factors like lighting and fertilization are reaching very optimized levels, the cannabis industry seeks crop steering alternatives to improve plant growth and quality. One promising avenue is thigmomorphogenesis, a natural plant response to mechanical stimulation that can be adapted to high-input agriculture commonly seen in controlled environment production settings. By applying induced mechanical stress to cannabis plants, growers can stimulate physiological changes that may enhance both yield and quality. The two growing management investigated in this study were Mechanical Vibration Training (MVT) and High Stress Training (HST). MVT was carried out using a grid exposing the plants to 200 Hz vibration. MVT is a newer technique that is still in development, as Thigmo-priming has been shown to change plant morphology and chemistry and even increase the magnitude and recovery time of future stress responses. HST is a practice that involves damaging the vascular bundles, pith, and cortex of the main stem while leaving the epidermis intact. Many industry leaders claim that the advantages of using HST include higher canopy, increased biomass, cannabinoid concentrations, and more effective IPM strategies. However, scientific validation for these claims is still being determined. This study aimed to compare each growing management under the overall category of Thigmomorphogenesis against control (no artificial mechanical stimulation) and tease out any synergism between the treatments. We hypothesized that applying mechanostimulation to cannabis plants would enhance their growth and increase secondary metabolite production. The controlled-environment growth units housed the treatments consisting of 1-Control, 2-MVT, 3- HST, and 4-MVT+HST. The mechanically stimulated treatments in combination or alone presented significant differences when compared to control in parameters such as stem diameter, plant height, NDVI, chlorophyll concentration, and photosynthetic efficiency. For after-harvest parameters, MVT treatment presented the highest main inflorescence weight and a 4% higher biomass/stem ratio. Trichome density and cannabinoid/terpene levels via HPLC and NIR are still being processed. Morphological and physiological differences between treatments indicated the potential use of mechanical stimulation to maximize cannabis production. More studies must be conducted to refine this growing technique.

Learning Objectives:

• New crop steering approaches to increase cannabis yield and quality
  
  
• Plant stress can maximize cannabinoid production