Abstract
Abstract One-year-old peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Redhaven] trees were grown outdoors under 4 different shade levels (100%, 36%, 21%, and 9% of full sun). Shoot length, internode length, and node number were unaffected by shade, but heavy shade (9% full sun) reduced stem diameter 24%. Compared to those in full sun, average leaf areas were increased 18%, 30%, and 20% by 36%, 21%, and 9% shade, respectively. Shading caused a more horizontal leaf orientation and lower specific leaf weight. Both average and maximum photosynthetic rate per unit area or per mg chlorophyll decreased with shading, but increased with shading when expressed per unit dry weight. Chlorophyll content per unit leaf area increased with shading, but stomatal resistance was unaffected. Leaves from shade treatments became light-saturated between 400 and 600 µEs -1 m -2 ; full-sun leaves became light-saturated at 700-900 µEs -1 m -2 .
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Shade left shoot length, internode length and node number of young peach trees unchanged.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- shadee1
- Outcome
- Shoot length, internode length, and node numbere1
- Direction
- unaffectede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e1“Shoot length, internode length, and node number were unaffected by shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Heavy shade (9% full sun) reduced stem diameter of young peach trees by 24%.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- heavy shade (9% full sun)e2
- Outcome
- stem diametere2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 24%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e2“heavy shade (9% full sun) reduced stem diameter 24%”
Claim · model-written summary
Average leaf area of peach trees under 36% shade was 18% higher than in full sun.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- 36%e3
- Outcome
- average leaf areae3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 18%e3
- Comparator
- full sune3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e3“Compared to those in full sun, average leaf areas were increased 18%, 30%, and 20% by 36%, 21%, and 9% shade, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Average leaf area of peach trees under 21% shade was 30% higher than in full sun.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- 21%e3
- Outcome
- average leaf areae3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 30%e3
- Comparator
- full sune3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e3“Compared to those in full sun, average leaf areas were increased 18%, 30%, and 20% by 36%, 21%, and 9% shade, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Average leaf area of peach trees under 9% shade was 20% higher than in full sun.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- 9%e3
- Outcome
- average leaf areae3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 20%e3
- Comparator
- full sune3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e3“Compared to those in full sun, average leaf areas were increased 18%, 30%, and 20% by 36%, 21%, and 9% shade, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading caused a more horizontal leaf orientation in young peach trees.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Shadinge4
- Outcome
- leaf orientatione4
- Direction
- more horizontale4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e4“Shading caused a more horizontal leaf orientation”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading lowered specific leaf weight of young peach trees.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Shadinge5
- Outcome
- specific leaf weighte5
- Direction
- lowere5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e5“Shading caused a more horizontal leaf orientation and lower specific leaf weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Average and maximum photosynthetic rate of young peach trees decreased with shading when expressed per unit area or per mg chlorophyll.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- shadinge6
- Outcome
- average and maximum photosynthetic ratee6
- Direction
- decreasede6
- Qualifier
- per unit area or per mg chlorophylle6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e6“average and maximum photosynthetic rate per unit area or per mg chlorophyll decreased with shading”
Claim · model-written summary
Average and maximum photosynthetic rate of young peach trees increased with shading when expressed per unit dry weight.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- shadinge7
- Outcome
- average and maximum photosynthetic ratee7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Qualifier
- when expressed per unit dry weighte7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e7“Both average and maximum photosynthetic rate per unit area or per mg chlorophyll decreased with shading, but increased with shading when expressed per unit dry weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll content per unit leaf area of young peach trees increased with shading.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- shadinge7
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll content per unit leaf areae7
- Direction
- increasede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e7“Chlorophyll content per unit leaf area increased with shading”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal resistance of young peach trees was unaffected by shading.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- shadinge6
- Outcome
- stomatal resistancee6
- Direction
- unaffectede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e6“Chlorophyll content per unit leaf area increased with shading, but stomatal resistance was unaffected”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaves from shade treatments became light-saturated at 400 to 600 µEs -1 m -2, lower than full-sun leaves.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- shade treatmentse5
- Outcome
- light-saturatede5
- Direction
- lowerinferrede5
- Value
- 400 and 600 µEs -1 m -2e5
- Comparator
- full-sun leavese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e5“Leaves from shade treatments became light-saturated between 400 and 600 µEs -1 m -2 ; full-sun leaves became light-saturated at 700-900 µEs -1 m -2”
Claim · model-written summary
Full-sun leaves of young peach trees became light-saturated at 700 to 900 µEs -1 m -2.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- light-saturatede5
- Value
- 700-900 µEs -1 m -2e5
- Qualifier
- full-sun leavese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Young Peach Trees”
e5“Leaves from shade treatments became light-saturated between 400 and 600 µEs -1 m -2 ; full-sun leaves became light-saturated at 700-900 µEs -1 m -2”
The same questions in other papers
shade · disease · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
shade · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- negative
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.