shade · Yield · Capsicum (peppers)
8 claims from these papers.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Performance Evaluation of Capsicum Crop in Open Field and under Covered Cultivation (2013)
increaseUnder shade net, capsicum crop yield increased by 80% over open field cultivation.
Effect of photovoltaics shading on the growth of chili pepper in controlled greenhouses (2022)no changeYield and growth of chili pepper were insignificantly higher in the shaded greenhouse than in the unshaded greenhouse.
What separates themTest system: field · controlled environmentCompare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 3
Performance Evaluation of Capsicum Crop in Open Field and under Covered Cultivation · 2013
- positive
EFFECT OF METHODS OF RAISING SEEDLINGS ON GROWTH AND SEED YIELD OF CHILLI (CAPSICUM ANNUUM L.) · 2014
- positive
- positive
- positive
Response of capsicum to different irrigation schedules under protected and open cultivation · 2017
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 3
Shade Effect on Growth and Productivity of Tomato and Chili Pepper · 2016
- negative
Effect of photovoltaics shading on the growth of chili pepper in controlled greenhouses · 2022
- no effect
- negative
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.