Abstract
Shading a greenhouse may have a time-dependent effect on fruit production and water and nutrient uptake in tomato plants ( Solanum lycopersicum L.) as a result of acclimation to light and a dependence on stored carbohydrate and nutrients. In 2 years in the northeastern United States, shadecloth was applied at the start of warm weather in June and the houses were shaded until late August. Simultaneous comparisons were made among greenhouse sections that were either not shaded or covered with reflective aluminized shadecloth that blocked 0.15, 0.30, or 0.50 of direct sunlight. The amounts of water, nitrogen, and potassium taken up per day were calculated for successive 3-week intervals after shade was applied. The effect of shade on these uptake rates was compared with the effect on the rate of fruit production. There was a linear decline in water, nitrogen, and potassium uptake with increasing shade density. In each 3-week interval, water uptake under 0.5 shade density was 25% and 20% less than under no shade in 2004 and 2005, respectively. The uptake of nitrogen and potassium uptake under 0.5 shade density was ≈25% less than that under no shade. Shading did not affect the rate of fruit production within 3 weeks of application, but after more than 6 weeks, it was 30% less under 0.5 shade density than under no shade. The use efficiencies of radiation, water, and nutrients for fruit production increased with shade density immediately after shade were applied. These effects of shade on apparent resource use efficiencies dissipated from 3 to 6 weeks after shade was applied, because the effect of shade density on fruit production became proportionally the same as the effects on water and nutrient uptake. The water and nutrient uptake of greenhouse tomato acclimated to the change in irradiance resulting from shade within 3 weeks, but the full effect of shade on fruit production was not seen until 6 weeks after the application of shade.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Water uptake declined linearly with shade density.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- increasing shade densitye0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- linear declinee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was a linear decline in water, nitrogen, and potassium uptake with increasing shade density.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen uptake declined linearly with shade density.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- increasing shade densitye0
- Outcome
- nitrogene0
- Direction
- linear declinee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was a linear decline in water, nitrogen, and potassium uptake with increasing shade density.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium uptake declined linearly with shade density.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- increasing shade densitye0
- Outcome
- potassium uptakee0
- Direction
- linear declinee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was a linear decline in water, nitrogen, and potassium uptake with increasing shade density.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.5 shade density water uptake was 25% less in 2004.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.5 shade densitye0
- Outcome
- water uptakee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- 2004e0
- Comparator
- no shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water uptake under 0.5 shade density was 25% and 20% less than under no shade in 2004 and 2005, respectively.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.5 shade density water uptake was 20% less in 2005.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.5 shade densitye0
- Outcome
- water uptakee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Qualifier
- 2005e0
- Comparator
- no shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water uptake under 0.5 shade density was 25% and 20% less than under no shade in 2004 and 2005, respectively.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen uptake was about 25% less at 0.5 shade.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.5 shade densitye0
- Outcome
- uptake of nitrogene0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- ≈25%e0
- Comparator
- no shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The uptake of nitrogen and potassium uptake under 0.5 shade density was ≈25% less than that under no shade.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium uptake was about 25% less at 0.5 shade.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.5 shade densitye0
- Outcome
- potassium uptakee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- ≈25%e0
- Comparator
- no shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The uptake of nitrogen and potassium uptake under 0.5 shade density was ≈25% less than that under no shade.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade did not affect fruit production rate within three weeks.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Shadinge0
- Outcome
- rate of fruit productione0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- within 3 weekse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading did not affect the rate of fruit production within 3 weeks of application”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
After six weeks fruit production was 30% less at 0.5 shade.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- 0.5 shade densitye0
- Outcome
- fruit productione1
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Qualifier
- more than 6 weekse0
- Comparator
- no shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after more than 6 weeks, it was 30% less under 0.5 shade density than under no shade.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
e1“rate of fruit production within 3 weeks of application”
Claim · model-written summary
Radiation use efficiency for fruit production increased initially with shade density.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- shade densitye0
- Outcome
- use efficiencies of radiatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- immediately after shade were appliede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use efficiencies of radiation, water, and nutrients for fruit production increased with shade density immediately after shade were applied.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency for fruit production increased initially with shade density.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- shade densitye0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use efficiencies of radiation, water, and nutrients for fruit production increased with shade density immediately after shade were applied.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient use efficiency for fruit production increased initially with shade density.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- shade densitye0
- Outcome
- nutrients for fruit productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use efficiencies of radiation, water, and nutrients for fruit production increased with shade density immediately after shade were applied.”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Initial resource use efficiency effects dissipated three to six weeks after shade application.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- apparent resource use efficienciese0
- Direction
- dissipatede0
- Qualifier
- from 3 to 6 weekse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These effects of shade on apparent resource use efficiencies dissipated from 3 to 6 weeks after shade was applied”
t0“Greenhouse Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
shade · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →shade · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →shade · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- 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.