Abstract
The effects of four shade nets with different colour transmission properties and shading intensities (two black nets with shading intensities of 40% and 49%, a green net with a shading intensity of 34%, and a mixed green and black shade net with a shading intensity of 40%) on the screenhouse microclimate, and on the growth and development of a tomato crop, were investigated. Experiments were carried out during Spring and Summer 2003 in New Anchialos, a coastal area of Eastern Central Greece. Tomato seedlings were planted in soil and the following environmental variables were recorded at regular intervals: solar radiation, air temperature and relative humidity, leaf temperature, and several variables related to crop growth and development. Air temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) values were similar under all four shade nets and without shading. However, canopy temperature and, accordingly, the canopy-to-air VPD were significantly lower under shading than without shading. Shading did not reduce the total plant dry matter content, but increased the leaf area index, the number of fruit per plant, and the total fresh tomato yield. Shading reduced losses caused by tomato cracking by 50%, and thus increased the marketable tomato fruit yield by approx. 50% compared to growth under non-shaded conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Air temperature was similar under shade nets and without shading.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- all four shade netse0
- Outcome
- Air temperaturee0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- without shadinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Air temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) values were similar under all four shade nets and without shading.”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Vapour pressure deficit was similar under shade nets and without shading.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- all four shade netse0
- Outcome
- vapour pressure deficit (VPD) valuese0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- without shadinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Air temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) values were similar under all four shade nets and without shading.”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly lowered canopy temperature.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- canopy temperaturee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- without shadinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“canopy temperature and, accordingly, the canopy-to-air VPD were significantly lower under shading than without shading”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly lowered canopy-to-air VPD.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- canopy-to-air VPDe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- without shadinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“canopy temperature and, accordingly, the canopy-to-air VPD were significantly lower under shading than without shading”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading did not reduce total plant dry matter content.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Shadinge0
- Outcome
- total plant dry matter contente0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading did not reduce the total plant dry matter content”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading increased leaf area index and fruit number per plant.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Shadinge0
- Outcome
- leaf area index, the number of fruit per plante0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading did not reduce the total plant dry matter content, but increased the leaf area index, the number of fruit per plant, and the total fresh tomato yield.”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading increased total fresh tomato yield.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- total fresh tomato yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased the leaf area index, the number of fruit per plant, and the total fresh tomato yield”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced tomato cracking losses by 50%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Shadinge0
- Outcome
- losses caused by tomato crackinge0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading reduced losses caused by tomato cracking by 50%”
t0“tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading increased marketable tomato fruit yield by approximately 50% relative to nonshaded conditions.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- marketable tomato fruit yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- approx. 50%e0
- Comparator
- growth under non-shaded conditionse0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased the marketable tomato fruit yield by approx. 50% compared to growth under non-shaded conditions”
t0“tomato crop”
The same questions in other papers
shade · soil: physics · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →trap barrier · soil: physics · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →shade · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →shade · organism · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
shade · quality: grain · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.