Abstract
Abstract Two week‐old summer squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) were transplanted to container volumes of 0.35, 2.00, or 7.60 liters and were grown under full light or 47% shaded conditions to determine the growth and development responses of the crop relative to root and shoot stresses. Light regime had no apparent impact on plant leaf area production; however, leaf area of plants grown under both light regimes was reduced similarly by root restriction. Leaf area reductions were largely attributable to smaller individual leaf sizes. Specific leaf area did not respond to root restriction, but shading increased the amount of leaf area produced per unit of leaf dry weight for all soil volumes. Whole‐plant dry weight reductions due to root restriction were more pronounced in full light than in the shaded environment. There were no consistent differences in the percent of biomass allocated to roots, shoot, or leaves in response to either soil volume or light regime. Also, there were no effects of root restriction or light regime on timing, duration, and sex of flowers, or on timing of fruit set. Fruit dry weights at final harvest were reduced by increased root restriction under full light conditions; however, there were no differences in fruit dry weight among different container volumes under shaded conditions. The results from this study indicate that root restriction does reduce squash growth and yield; however, the effects of shading may be more important.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Light regime had no apparent effect on squash leaf area production.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- Light regimee0
- Outcome
- plant leaf area productione0
- Direction
- no apparent impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Light regime had no apparent impact on plant leaf area production”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Root restriction reduced squash leaf area similarly in both light regimes.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“leaf area of plants grown under both light regimes was reduced similarly by root restriction”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area reductions were largely due to smaller individual leaves.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf area reductions were largely attributable to smaller individual leaf sizes”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Root restriction did not change specific leaf area.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- root restrictione0
- Outcome
- Specific leaf areae0
- Direction
- did not responde0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Specific leaf area did not respond to root restriction”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade increased leaf area per unit leaf dry weight across soil volumes.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- amount of leaf area produced per unit of leaf dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- for all soil volumese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“shading increased the amount of leaf area produced per unit of leaf dry weight for all soil volumes”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Root restriction reduced whole plant dry weight more under full light than shade.
Verbatim
e0“Whole‐plant dry weight reductions due to root restriction were more pronounced in full light than in the shaded environment”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil volume and light regime produced no consistent difference in biomass allocation to roots, shoots or leaves.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- soil volume or light regimee0
- Outcome
- percent of biomass allocated to roots, shoot, or leavese0
- Direction
- no consistent differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“no consistent differences in the percent of biomass allocated to roots, shoot, or leaves in response to either soil volume or light regime”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Root restriction and light regime had no effects on flower timing, duration or sex.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- root restriction or light regimee0
- Outcome
- timing, duration, and sex of flowerse0
- Direction
- no effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“no effects of root restriction or light regime on timing, duration, and sex of flowers”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Root restriction and light regime had no effect on fruit set timing.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- root restriction or light regimee0
- Outcome
- timing of fruit sete0
- Direction
- no effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“no effects of root restriction or light regime on timing, duration, and sex of flowers, or on timing of fruit set”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
In full light, increased root restriction reduced final fruit dry weight.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- increased root restrictione0
- Outcome
- Fruit dry weightse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- under full light conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Fruit dry weights at final harvest were reduced by increased root restriction under full light conditions”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
Under shade, fruit dry weight did not differ among container volumes.
- Taxon
- Summer squasht0
- Treatment
- different container volumese0
- Outcome
- fruit dry weighte0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Qualifier
- under shaded conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“no differences in fruit dry weight among different container volumes under shaded conditions”
t0“Summer squash”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded shade effects may be more important than root restriction effects on squash growth and yield.
Verbatim
e0“root restriction does reduce squash growth and yield; however, the effects of shading may be more important”
t0“Summer squash”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
light · growth · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · phenology · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
shade · growth · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.