Light Intensity Question

Whether or not it is related to irrgation is simple.. if it devaites form a couple simple steps, it could be related. It's also possible 2 coinciding things are causing problems, lol. This isn't necessarily either-or proposition. 1) fully saturate. Never partially water. Never spritz the top. Never half-ass the watering. Never choose the volume given... always give what it takes to fully saturate. A little runoff is fine, but in soil runoff is leaching nutrients you paid for in that soil. Easy to minimize as you get used to it. 2) wait for top 1" to dry and repeat. ("dryback" - get enough dryback and it's safe to irrigate) if that ever causes temporary droop after watering, the medium requires more drainage/aeration amendments in future. Perlite and vermiculite are good options. These basic steps that are mostly the same for all normal potted plants is never the cause of problems. It's the correct way to do it. Anyway, easy to eliminate if watering is related... if deviating, fix those irrigation practices. ------------- With the given info, it's more dififcult to rule out light provided... think of light as speed (rate), and distance is how much light is applied. Speed x time = distance. So, photons per second x time = DLI This is simplified, as DLI also makes comparing gardens of diffrerent sizes or hours of light operation apples to apples. 35 dli is always 35 dli whether it is applied over 12 hour or 18 hours --- 1m^2 or 6 m^2. DLI is what matters in regard to how much ligh you provide. It's the best way to assess how much light you give per day (read the wiki, don't need to memorize the math, but try to understand the gist of it) i can't find any specs on square 3 LED 360w grow light... I can see you are on an 18/6 schedule. So, you should be following what it recommends for 'vege' phase. If it's focused on a smaller footprint recommended for 'flower' and running 100%, it's probably the light (150% too much). If that's the case, then ~67% power will probably be a good starting point. As long as other factors don't change, it's inversely 1:1 related to hours of operation. 18h vs 12h requires 2/3rds power to match same DLI - relative to any 1 light or lights of equal efficacy. Depending on efficacy, you don't need more than 22-30watts per sq ft over 18 hours. I'd wager this is probably a less efficient light, but i could be wrong. I have a no-name led that is high efficacy, so it's not impossible. Better efficacy is lower wattage required, obviously. this too can help guage whether or not it is the light. ~12 sq ft of solid coverage, if it's a lower efficacy.. if focused on an area smaller than that, also makes the light more likely a problem. If you have accurate light specs. dividing umol/s PAR ("PPF") production of the light by area in meters-squared, that'll give you a rough estimate of PPFD. Google for a DLI table and reference PPFD with hours of operation for a DLI value. If it's drastically different than 35-40 DLI, again... points toward too much light. Providing more than 35-40 dli with ambient co2 is just wasting a shit-ton of electricity. A plant 'can' adapt to higher levels of light but it does not make use of all that extra light. It'll simply make use of less light to avoid damaging itself. There's no circumventing this without adding more co2 and tightly controling climate at optimal temp/rh levels. Even that has a ceiling... 65 is a theoretical max and more likely a bit short of that in any common sense context. tolerating more light does not mean it is using more light.