Effects of Shade Nets on Microclimatic Conditions, Growth, Fruit Yield, and Quality of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): A Case Study in Carnarvon, Western Australia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Conditions
2.2. Installation of Temperature, Humidity, and Light Sensors
2.3. Measurements of Leaf Chlorophyll Content and Chlorophyll Fluorescence
2.4. Plant Height Measurement
2.5. Marketable Fruit Number and Yield
2.6. Total Soluble Solids and pH Measurements
2.7. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Shade Nets on the Microclimate
3.2. Shade Nets Affected Photosynthetic Parameters
3.3. Agronomic and Yield Attributes
3.4. Quality Traits
4. Discussion
4.1. Shade Netting Protected Eggplants from Extreme Light Conditions and Enhanced Crop Growth and Fruit Yield
4.2. The Underlying Physiological Mechanism of the Shade Effects on Eggplants
4.3. Future Perspective of Protected Cropping for the Vegetable Production under the Semi-Arid Conditions
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- DPIRD. Carnarvon Plantation Industry Production Statistics 2020; Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development: Perth, Australia, 2021.
- FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.faostat.fao.org (accessed on 14 October 2021).
- Kesavan, V.; Hill, T.; Morris, G. The effect of plant spacing on growth, cycling time and yield of bananas in subtropical Western Australia. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical and Subtropical Fruits 575, Cairns, Australia, 25 November–1 December 2000; pp. 851–857. [Google Scholar]
- Zaro, M.J.; Vicente, A.R.; Ortiz, C.M.; Chaves, A.R.; Concellón, A. Eggplant. In Handbook of Vegetable Preservation and Processing; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 500–515. [Google Scholar]
- Shafiq, I.; Hussain, S.; Raza, M.A.; Iqbal, N.; Asghar, M.A.; Raza, A.; Fan, Y.F.; Mumtaz, M.; Shoaib, M.; Ansar, M.; et al. Crop photosynthetic response to light quality and light intensity. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solankey, S.S.; Kumari, M.; Akhtar, S.; Singh, H.K.; Ray, P.K. Challenges and opportunities in vegetable production in changing climate: Mitigation and adaptation strategies. In Advances in Research on Vegetable Production under a Changing Climate; Solankey, S.S., Kumari, M., Kumar, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 13–59. [Google Scholar]
- Leonardi, C.; Guichard, S.; Bertin, N. High vapour pressure deficit influences growth, transpiration and quality of tomato fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2000, 84, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, N.; Nukaya, T.; Kamimura, T.; Zhang, D.; Kurimoto, I.; Takagaki, M.; Maruo, T.; Kozai, T.; Yamori, W. Control of vapor pressure deficit (VPD) in greenhouse enhanced tomato growth and productivity during the winter season. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 197, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naik, P.S.; Singh, M.; Ranjan, J. Impact of climate change on vegetable production and adaptation measures. In Abiotic Stress Management for Resilient Agriculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 413–428. [Google Scholar]
- Burgess, A.J.; Gibbs, J.A.; Murchie, E.H. A canopy conundrum: Can wind-induced movement help to increase crop productivity by relieving photosynthetic limitations? J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 2371–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gardiner, B.; Berry, P.; Moulia, B. Wind impacts on plant growth, mechanics and damage. Plant Sci. 2016, 245, 94–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabbi, B.; Chen, Z.-H.; Sethuvenkatraman, S. Protected cropping in warm climates: A review of humidity control and cooling methods. Energies 2019, 12, 2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Montagu, K. Protected Cropping–Review of Research and Identification of R & D Gaps for Levied Vegetables; Horticulture Innovation Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2018; p. 29. [Google Scholar]
- Serra, S.; Borghi, S.; Mupambi, G.; Camargo-Alvarez, H.; Layne, D.; Schmidt, T.; Kalcsits, L.; Musacchi, S. Photoselective protective netting improves “Honeycrisp” fruit quality. Plants 2020, 9, 1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wada, T.; Ikeda, H.; Matsushita, K.; Kambara, A.; Hirai, H.; Abe, K. Effects of shading in summer on yield and quality of tomatoes grown on a single-truss system. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2006, 75, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, G. An Investigation of Low Cost Protective Cropping; Horticulture Innovation: Sydney, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- López-Marín, J.; Gálvez, A.; González, A.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Fernandez, J. Effect of shade on yield, quality and photosynthesis-related parameters of sweet pepper plants. Acta Hortic. 2012, 956, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangino, G.; Plazas, M.; Vilanova, S.; Prohens, J.; Gramazio, P. Performance of a set of eggplant (Solanum melongena) lines with introgressions from its wild relative S. incanum under open field and screenhouse conditions and detection of QTLs. Agronomy 2020, 10, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torres, A.P.; Lopez, R.G. Commercial greenhouse production: Measuring daily light integral in a greenhouse. Purdue Agric. Ext. 2011, HO-238-W. [Google Scholar]
- Lalk, G.T.; Bi, G.; Zhang, Q.; Harkess, R.L.; Li, T. High-tunnel production of strawberries using black and red plastic mulches. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, G.N.; Panozzo, J.; Spangenberg, G.; Kant, S. Phenotyping approaches to evaluate nitrogen-use efficiency related traits of diverse wheat varieties under field conditions. Crop Pasture Sci. 2016, 67, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strasser, R.J.; Srivastava, A.; Tsimilli-Michael, M. The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. In Probing Photosynthesis: Mechanisms, Regulation and Adaptation, 1st ed.; Yunus, M., Pathre, U., Mohanty, P., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 445–483. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, N.R. Chlorophyll fluorescence: A probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 89–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bletsos, F.; Thanassoulopoulos, C.; Roupakias, D. Effect of grafting on growth, yield, and Verticillium wilt of eggplant. HortScience 2003, 38, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mozafarian, M.; Ismail, N.S.B.; Kappel, N. Rootstock effects on yield and some consumer important fruit quality parameters of eggplant cv. ‘Madonna’ under protected cultivation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lantzke, N. Vegetable crops. In Research Highlights 2021, Primary Industries Development; Paterson, J., Page, L., Eds.; Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development: South Perth, Australia, 2021; pp. 255–265. [Google Scholar]
- Dorais, M. The use of supplemental lighting for vegetable crop production: Light intensity, crop response, nutrition, crop management, cultural practices. In Proceedings of the Canadian Greenhouse Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, 9 October 2003. [Google Scholar]
- LEDTonic. DLI (Daily Light Integral) Chart—Understand Your Plants’ PPFD & Photoperiod Requirements. Available online: https://www.ledtonic.com/blogs/guides/dli-daily-light-integral-chart-understand-your-plants-ppfd-photoperiod-requirements (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Kozuka, T.; Horiguchi, G.; Kim, G.T.; Ohgishi, M.; Sakai, T.; Tsukaya, H. The different growth responses of the Arabidopsis thaliana leaf blade and the petiole during shade avoidance are regulated by photoreceptors and sugar. Plant Cell Physiol. 2005, 46, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fan, X.X.; Xu, Z.G.; Liu, X.Y.; Tang, C.M.; Wang, L.W.; Han, X.L. Effects of light intensity on the growth and leaf development of young tomato plants grown under a combination of red and blue light. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 153, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prabhu, M.; Natarajan, S.; Veeraragavathatham, D. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Indian J. Agric. Res. 2008, 42, 232–234. [Google Scholar]
- Henry, R.J. Innovations in plant genetics adapting agriculture to climate change. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 56, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Ma, H.; Wei, M.; Xing, Y. Breeding of vegetable crops for protected growing conditions. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Growing Media and Hydroponics 481, Windsor, ON, Canada, 19–26 May 1997; pp. 695–700. [Google Scholar]
- Shamshiri, R.R.; Jones, J.W.; Thorp, K.R.; Ahmad, D.; Che Man, H.; Taheri, S. Review of optimum temperature, humidity, and vapour pressure deficit for microclimate evaluation and control in greenhouse cultivation of tomato: A review. Int. Agrophys. 2018, 32, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Körner, O.; Challa, H. Process-based humidity control regime for greenhouse crops. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2003, 39, 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruda, N. Impact of environmental factors on product quality of greenhouse vegetables for fresh consumption. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 227–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chavan, S.G.; Maier, C.; Alagoz, Y.; Filipe, J.C.; Warren, C.R.; Lin, H.; Jia, B.; Loik, M.E.; Cazzonelli, C.I.; Chen, Z.H. Light-limited photosynthesis under energy-saving film decreases eggplant yield. Food Energy Secur. 2020, 9, e245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, T.; Yu, H.; Li, Q.; Chai, L.; Jiang, W. Improving plant growth and alleviating photosynthetic inhibition and oxidative stress from low-light stress with exogenous GR24 in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) seedlings. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, C.; Lopez, R.G. Supplemental radiation quality influences cucumber, tomato, and pepper transplant growth and development. HortScience 2020, 55, 804–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcelis, L.; Broekhuijsen, A.; Meinen, E.; Nijs, E.; Raaphorst, M. Quantification of the growth response to light quantity of greenhouse grown crops. In Proceedings of the V International Symposium on Artificial Lighting in Horticulture, Lillehammer, Norway, 21–24 June 2005; Volume 711, pp. 97–104. [Google Scholar]
- Sonoike, K. Photoinhibition of photosystem I. Physiol. Plant. 2011, 142, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tikkanen, M.; Mekala, N.R.; Aro, E.M. Photosystem II photoinhibition-repair cycle protects photosystem I from irreversible damage. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg. 2014, 1837, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalaji, H.; Rastogi, A.; Živčák, M.; Brestic, M.; Daszkowska-Golec, A.; Sitko, K.; Alsharafa, K.; Lotfi, R.; Stypiński, P.; Samborska, I. Prompt chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool for crop phenotyping: An example of barley landraces exposed to various abiotic stress factors. Photosynthetica 2018, 56, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kyparissis, A.; Drilias, P.; Manetas, Y. Seasonal fluctuations in photoprotective (xanthophyll cycle) and photoselective (chlorophylls) capacity in eight Mediterranean plant species belonging to two different growth forms. Funct. Plant Biol. 2000, 27, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ain-Lhout, F.; Barradas, M.D.; Zunzunegui, M.; Rodríguez, H.; Novo, F.G.; Vargas, M. Seasonal differences in photochemical efficiency and chlorophyll and carotenoid contents in six Mediterranean shrub species under field conditions. Photosynthetica 2004, 42, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lu, W.; Tong, Y.; Yang, Q. Leaf morphology, photosynthetic performance, chlorophyll fluorescence, stomatal development of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) exposed to different ratios of red light to blue light. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhu, H.; Li, X.; Zhai, W.; Liu, Y.; Gao, Q.; Liu, J.; Ren, L.; Chen, H.; Zhu, Y. Effects of low light on photosynthetic properties, antioxidant enzyme activity, and anthocyanin accumulation in purple pak-choi (Brassica campestris ssp. Chinensis Makino). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, Y.; Chen, J.; Cheng, Y.; Raza, M.A.; Wu, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Q.; Wang, R.; Wang, X.; Yong, T. Effect of shading and light recovery on the growth, leaf structure, and photosynthetic performance of soybean in a maize-soybean relay-strip intercropping system. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumbauer, D.A.; Schmidt, C.B.; Burgess, M.H. Leaf lettuce yield is more sensitive to low daily light integral than kale and spinach. HortScience 2019, 54, 2159–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, G. Understanding and Managing Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Vegetable Industry Productivity and Profits; Project Number: VG12041; Horticulture Australia Ltd.: Sydney, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- López-Marín, J.; González, A.; Gálvez, A. Effect of shade on quality of greenhouse peppers. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on High Technology for Greenhouse Systems: GreenSys 2009, Quebec, QC, Canada, 14 June 2009; pp. 895–900. [Google Scholar]
- Munné-Bosch, S.; Vincent, C. Physiological mechanisms underlying fruit sunburn. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2019, 38, 140–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skendžić, S.; Zovko, M.; Živković, I.P.; Lešić, V.; Lemić, D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. Insects 2021, 12, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Yakir, D.; Antignus, Y.; Offir, Y.; Shahak, Y. Colored shading nets impede insect invasion and decrease the incidences of insect-transmitted viral diseases in vegetable crops. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2012, 144, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Poehling, H.M. UV-blocking plastic films and nets influence vectors and virus transmission on greenhouse tomatoes in the humid tropics. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1069–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahak, Y. Photoselective netting: An overview of the concept, research and development and practical implementation in agriculture. In Proceedings of the International CIPA Conference 2012 on Plasticulture for a Green Planet 1015, Tel Aviv, Israel, 15 May 2012; pp. 155–162. [Google Scholar]
- Suarez-Romero, A. Retractable Roof Greenhouse: Potential for Solanaceae Production in Semi-Arid Regions. Master’s Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- NSW-DPI. Evaporative Cooling in Greenhouses. Available online: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/horticulture/greenhouse/structures-and-technology/evap-cooling. (accessed on 10 January 2022).
(A) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variety | SPAD-Mid-Season | SPAD-Late Season | ||||||||
OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | |
Fantastic | 56.9 | 54.0 | 52.8 | 53.5 | 54.3 a | 61.4 | 58.2 | 59.4 | 54.7 | 58.4 a |
Longo | 54.9 | 54.6 | 57.6 | 56.6 | 55.9 ab | 62.5 | 58.0 | 59.0 | 55.9 | 58.9 a |
Lydia | 57.9 | 58.0 | 57.9 | 57.8 | 57.9 b | 63.8 | 61.4 | 60.5 | 60.0 | 61.4 b |
Monarca | 55.2 | 56.4 | 53.8 | 53.2 | 54.7 a | 65.3 | 57.9 | 59.8 | 55.7 | 59.7 a |
Mean | 56.2 a | 55.7 a | 55.5 a | 55.3 a | 63.3 c | 58.9 ab | 59.7 b | 56.6 a | ||
ANOVA | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | ||||
s.e.d | 0.67 | 0.97 | 1.94 | 1.26 | 0.82 | 1.16 | ||||
p | 0.575 | 0.005 | 0.346 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.386 | ||||
l.s.d (p = 0.05) | - | 2.00 | - | 2.91 | 1.69 | - | ||||
(B) | ||||||||||
Variety | Fv/Fm-Mid-Season | Fv/Fm-Late Season | ||||||||
OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | |
Fantastic | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.79 a | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.76 a |
Longo | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.78 a | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.81 a |
Lydia | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.80 a | 0.71 | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.81 | 0.76 a |
Monarca | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.79 a | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.81 a |
Mean | 0.81 b | 0.79 ab | 0.78 a | 0.78 a | 0.78 a | 0.80 a | 0.76 a | 0.80 a | ||
ANOVA | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | ||||
s.e.d | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.07 | ||||
p | 0.021 | 0.064 | 0.457 | 0.694 | 0.218 | 0.855 | ||||
l.s.d (p = 0.05) | 0.02 | - | - | - | - | - |
Variety | Plant Height (cm) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | |
Fantastic | 134.9 | 149.5 | 162.5 | 160.7 | 151.9 a |
Longo | 156.3 | 160.3 | 180.6 | 183.5 | 170.2 c |
Lydia | 137.3 | 157.7 | 174.2 | 171.5 | 160.2 b |
Monarca | 129.7 | 146.8 | 150.5 | 151.6 | 144.6 a |
Mean | 139.6 a | 153.6 b | 166.9 c | 166.9 c | |
ANOVA | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | ||
s.e.d | 2.5 | 3.5 | 7.0 | ||
p | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.607 | ||
l.s.d (p = 0.05) | 5.8 | 7.2 | - |
Variety | Marketable Fruit Yield (t ha−1) | Fruits per Plant | Fruit Weight (g) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | |
Fantastic | 22.8 | 31.2 | 40.4 | 39.0 | 33.3 c | 8.0 | 10.9 | 12.6 | 13.6 | 11.3 a | 450.3 | 452.2 | 499.2 | 446.9 | 462.2 a |
Longo | 16.7 | 23.1 | 32.9 | 23.4 | 24.0 a | 10.7 | 13.5 | 20.0 | 16.4 | 15.2 b | 246.6 | 266.5 | 256.4 | 223.5 | 248.3 a |
Lydia | 22.2 | 34.6 | 42.5 | 45.9 | 36.3 c | 12.9 | 17.1 | 21.5 | 26.0 | 19.4 c | 268.1 | 315.0 | 308.0 | 275.5 | 291.7 b |
Monarca | 18.6 | 30.2 | 33.5 | 30.6 | 28.2 b | 7.5 | 10.3 | 12.7 | 12.9 | 10.8 a | 384.5 | 458.0 | 413.6 | 372.1 | 407.1 c |
Mean | 20.1 a | 29.8 b | 37.3 c | 34.8 d | 9.8 a | 12.9 b | 16.7 c | 17.2 c | 337.4 a | 372.9 b | 369.3 b | 329.5 a | |||
ANOVA | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | ||||||
s.e.d | 0.8 | 1.9 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 9.3 | 10.5 | 21.1 | ||||||
p | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.221 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.011 | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.199 | ||||||
l.s.d (p = 0.05) | 1.83 | 4.01 | - | 1.09 | 1.60 | 3.19 | 21.40 | 21.76 | - |
(A) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variety | oBrix—Early Season Harvest | oBrix—Late Season Harvest | ||||||||
OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | |
Fantastic | 3.90 | 3.87 | 4.03 | 3.90 | 3.93 ab | 4.10 | 4.20 | 4.20 | 3.90 | 4.10 a |
Longo | 4.23 | 4.79 | 4.30 | 4.20 | 4.38 c | 4.90 | 4.20 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.53 b |
Lydia | 3.87 | 3.73 | 3.80 | 3.77 | 3.79 a | 4.40 | 4.00 | 3.90 | 3.60 | 3.98 a |
Monarca | 4.10 | 4.27 | 3.83 | 4.07 | 4.07 b | 4.30 | 4.00 | 4.10 | 3.70 | 4.03 a |
Mean | 4.03 a | 4.09 a | 3.99 a | 3.98 a | 4.50 a | 4.10 a | 4.20 a | 3.90 a | ||
ANOVA | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | ||||
s.e.d | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.20 | ||||
p | 0.81 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.10 | <0.001 | 0.07 | ||||
l.s.d (p = 0.05) | - | 0.14 | 0.29 | - | 0.18 | - | ||||
(B) | ||||||||||
Variety | pH—Early Season Harvest | pH—Late Season Harvest | ||||||||
OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | OF | 11% | 21% | 30% | Mean | |
Fantastic | 5.61 | 5.58 | 5.42 | 5.47 | 5.52 a | 5.18 | 5.09 | 4.92 | 5.05 | 5.06 a |
Longo | 5.44 | 5.43 | 5.55 | 5.50 | 5.48 a | 5.29 | 5.25 | 5.36 | 5.26 | 5.29 b |
Lydia | 5.39 | 5.49 | 5.49 | 5.40 | 5.44 a | 5.07 | 5.20 | 5.03 | 4.98 | 5.07 a |
Monarca | 5.39 | 5.56 | 5.41 | 5.44 | 5.45 a | 5.27 | 5.13 | 5.01 | 4.97 | 5.09 a |
Mean | 5.46 a | 5.52 a | 5.47 a | 5.45 a | 5.20 a | 5.17 a | 5.08 a | 5.06 a | ||
ANOVA | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | Shade | Variety | Shade × Variety | ||||
s.e.d | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.12 | ||||
p | 0.725 | 0.093 | 0.030 | 0.200 | 0.002 | 0.413 | ||||
l.s.d (p = 0.05) | - | - | 0.14 | - | 0.12 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nguyen, G.N.; Lantzke, N.; van Burgel, A. Effects of Shade Nets on Microclimatic Conditions, Growth, Fruit Yield, and Quality of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): A Case Study in Carnarvon, Western Australia. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080696
Nguyen GN, Lantzke N, van Burgel A. Effects of Shade Nets on Microclimatic Conditions, Growth, Fruit Yield, and Quality of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): A Case Study in Carnarvon, Western Australia. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(8):696. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080696
Chicago/Turabian StyleNguyen, Giao N., Neil Lantzke, and Andrew van Burgel. 2022. "Effects of Shade Nets on Microclimatic Conditions, Growth, Fruit Yield, and Quality of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): A Case Study in Carnarvon, Western Australia" Horticulturae 8, no. 8: 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080696