Impact of N, P, K, and Humic Acid Supplementation on the Chemical Profile of Medical Cannabis (Cannabis sativa L)

Abstract

Mineral nutrition is a major factor affecting plant growth and function. Increasing evidence supports the involvement of macro and micronutrients in secondary metabolism. The use of the appropriate nutritional measures including organic fertilizers, supplements, and biostimulants is therefore a vital aspect of medicinal plant production including medical cannabis. Due to legal restriction on cannabis research, very little information is available concerning the effects of nutritional supplements on physiological and chemical properties of medical cannabis, and their potential role in standardization of the active compounds in the plant material supplied to patients. This study therefore evaluated the potential of nutritional supplementations, including humic acids (HAs) and inorganic N, P, and K to affect the cannabinoid profile throughout the plant. The plants were exposed to three enhanced nutrition treatments, compared to a commercial control treatment. The nutrition treatments were supplemented with HA, enhanced P fertilization, or enhanced NPK. The results demonstrate sensitivity of cannabinoids metabolism to mineral nutrition. The nutritional supplements affected cannabinoid content in the plants differently. These effects were location and organ specific, and varied between cannabinoids. While the P enhancement treatment did not affect THC, CBD, CBN, and CBG concentrations in the flowers from the top of the plants, a 16% reduction of THC concentration was observed in the inflorescence leaves. Enhanced NPK and HA treatments also produced organ-specific and spatially specific responses in the plant. NPK supplementation increased CBG levels in flowers by 71%, and lowered CBN levels in both flowers and inflorescence leaves by 38 and 36%, respectively. HA was found to reduce the natural spatial variability of all of the cannabinoids studied. However, the increased uniformity came at the expense of the higher levels of cannabinoids at the top of the plants, THC and CBD were reduced by 37 and 39%, respectively. Changes in mineral composition were observed in specific areas of the plants. The results demonstrate that nutritional supplements influence cannabinoid content in cannabis in an organ- and spatial-dependent manner. Most importantly, the results confirm the potential of environmental factors to regulate concentrations of individual cannabinoids in medical cannabis. The identified effects of nutrient supplementation can be further developed for chemical control and standardization in cannabis.

Phytocannabinoids: Origins and Biosynthesis

“…The amount of cannabinoids formed correlates positively with increased temperatures and imposed heat stress, as well as with low soil moisture and poor mineral nutrient content [31,32]. The latter was indicated by a negative correlation between mineral supply and cannabinoid production [33,34]. Cannabinoid production may also provide an evolutionary advantage by functioning as sun-C2 carbon units derived from malonyl-CoA.…”

A Review on the Current State of Knowledge of Growing Conditions, Agronomic Soil Health Practices and Utilities of Hemp in the United States

“…A study reported that P uptake by hemp ranged from 52 to 67 kg ha −1 , and P fertilization had no effect on stem yield [67]. P enhancement treatment caused a 16% reduction of THC concentration but did not affect CBD concentration in the flowers [71]. P deficiency can also affect hemp ability to uptake other essential nutrients, and can subsequently reduce the plant health, immunity to disease, crop quality, and yield.…”

Metabolic Profiling of Cannabis Secondary Metabolites for Evaluation of Optimal Postharvest Storage Conditions

“…The natural phytocannabinoids and terpenoids present in Cannabis are biosynthesized in the plant by specific enzymes. The compositions and concentrations of these molecules depend on the plant’s tissue-type, age, variety, growth conditions and harvest time ( Berman et al, 2018 ; Hawley et al, 2018 ; Welling et al, 2018 ; Bernstein et al, 2019a , b ; Namdar et al, 2019 ). Importantly, they also change over time postharvest, as a result of different degradation routes ( Trofin et al, 2011 , 2012 ; Peschel, 2016 ; Zamengo et al, 2019 ).…”