Modelling post-emergent hemp phenology (Cannabis sativa L.): Theory and evaluation
Abstract
Temperature and photoperiod can be used to simulate post-emergent hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) phenology. With reference to hemp in Italy, our main objective was to model field crops grown under a range of temperature and day length regimes. Dates of emergence and 50% of flowering were collected at Cadriano (Bologna) from serially sown field experiments (1996-1999, 2003-2005) on five cultivars: Carmagnola (late maturity), Felina 34 (medium maturity), Fibranova (late maturity), Futura (medium-late maturity), and Tiborszallasi (medium-late maturity). The database of phenological records was segregated into calibration and validation subsets. A phenology model was developed which utilises the beta function for response to hourly air temperature, and a switch-off function for response to day length. The life cycle of hemp from emergence to 50% of flowering was defined in terms of physiological development days (chronological days at the optimum photoperiod and temperature) and considered in three phases: juvenile phase (BVP), photo-sensitive phase (PIP), flower development phase (FDP). Critical temperatures (Tb, base; To, optimum, Tc, ceiling), which did not vary widely across phases and cultivars, were estimated as common values: Tb = 1.9 °C for BVP and 11.3 °C for the other phases, To = 26.4 °C and Tc = 40.0 °C for all phases. Other parameters, i.e. day length of half-maximum development rate at PIP, and physiological development days for FDP, were also estimated as common values for all cultivars. Different genotypes were mainly characterised for the sensitivity to photoperiod (shape parameter n) and BVP length. With n approximately 50, Felina 34 and Futura are regarded as low sensitive cultivars. Tiborszallasi was estimated as the highest sensitive cultivar (n close to 70), whereas Carmagnola and Fibranova showed an intermediate sensitivity (n approximately 62). Felina 34 also differentiated for its relatively short BVP length at optimum conditions, i.e. approximately 13 days; duration of about 20 days was the estimate for the other cultivars. Model performance against calibration dataset was good (percent relative root mean square in the range approximately 6-20%), and comparison against independent data also confirmed the general applicability of this model. Owing to the importance of flowering date in hemp management techniques, these results can be used in decision support for hemp production though further evaluation of the model under a variety of latitudes is required.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Hemp is sensitive to photoperiod, meaning it grows and flowers according to photoperiod rather than physiological maturity.
“Another important factor to consider is that hemp is sensitive to the photoperiod, meaning that it grows and flowers according to photoperiod or daily hours of sunlight received rather than physiological maturity (Amaducci et al. 2008).”
From A critical review of industrial fiber hemp anatomy, agronomic practices, and valorization into sustainable bioproducts (2025) · cites this paper as Amaducci et al. 2008
Cites
Agronomy of fibre hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in Europe.
Struik, P. C., Amaducci, S., Bullard, M. J., Stutterheim, N. C., Venturi, G., & Cromack, H. T. H. (2000) · Industrial Crops and Products · doi:10.1016/s0926-6690(99)00048-5 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Campbell, B. J., Berrada, A. F., Hudalla, C., Amaducci, S., & McKay, J. K. (2019) · Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment · doi:10.2134/age2018.11.0057 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Self-citationBasak, M., Broadway, M., Lewis, J., Starkey, H., Bloomquist, M., Peszlen, I., Davis, J., Lucia, L. A., & Pal, L. (2025) · BioResources · doi:10.15376/biores.20.2.basak · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Another important factor to consider is that hemp is sensitive to the photoperiod, meaning that it grows and flowers according to photoperiod or daily hours of sunlight received rather than physiological maturity (Amaducci et al. 2008).”
- Authors
- Amaducci, S., Colauzzi, M., Bellocchi, G., & Venturi, G.
- Affiliations
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
- University of Bologna (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Amaducci, Stefano
- Venue
- European Journal of Agronomy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 90-102
- ISSN
- 1161-0301 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015510314
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Agronomy (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Plant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
- Keywords
- Cannabis sativa, phenological models, temperature sensitivity, photoperiodism, flowering time, critical temperature, beta function, cultivar susceptibility, juvenile stages, day length, model validation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review