Page 25 - IJES Special Issues for AIEC2016
P. 25

International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 2016, 5(1): 10-17                                 15

Table 6
Results of correlation coefficient of shading methods:

Corr. Total yield/rep Fruit fresh wt. Fruit dry wt. Fruit no./rep Fruit length                   Blooming  Plant length
                                                                                                 -0.358    0.646
Light intensity -0.549  0.647   0.630                   0.012  0.631                             0.706     -0.843
                                                                                                 0.520     -0.764
Temp.      0.402        -0.730  -0.775                  0.552  -0.838

R. H.      -0.306       -0.737  -0.615                  0.820  -0.683

Tabulated Corr. At 0.05 = 0.553, above it significant, below it not significant (Bowley, 1999).

Table 7
Results of correlation coefficient of shading methods:

Corr.      Plant fresh  Plant dry wt. Leaf area   No. of       Good                              Deformed  Poor
           wt.                                    leaves       quality fruit                     fruit     colored fruit
Light      0.634        0.198   0.629             0.534        0.670                             -0.683    -0.560
intensity
Temp.      -0.661       -0.537  -0.905            -0.817       -0.110                            0.129     0.0324
R. H.      -0.572       -0.649  -0.748            -0.837       0.292                             -0.253    -0.3998

Tabulated Corr. At 0.05 = 0.553, above it significant, below it not significant (Bowley, 1999).

Fruit Quality Measurements                        which may be responsible for the fruits’ lack of
                                                  quality, according to Gent (Gent, 2008). Also,
The results of fruit quality are summarized in    cucumbers grown in shaded plots produced
Table 5. The highest fruit quality (99.5 %) was   larger marketable yields and a lower percentage
obtained by the GS1 treatment, but without        of cull fruit than plants grown in the open (Valli
significant difference with the control treat-    et al., 1965). These results almost coincide with
ment, while the lowest fruit quality was          those obtained in the high land experiment
obtained by the mud shading treatment (99.2       (Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat, 2015).
%). A very low deformed fruit percentage was
observed in fruits produced under the GS1         Pest Measurements
shading method (best fruit quality), while the
highest deformed fruit percentages were           The only registered pest was the mite infes-
obtained by using the mud shading treatment.      tation (Figure 2.). All of the shading treatments
Otherwise, very low statistical differences were  resulted in a significant decrease in the
observed in the fruit color parameter, even       population of the two-spotted spider mite,
though the highest percentages of the poor        Tetranychus urticae, on cucumber leaves
colored fruit were observed in fruits produced    planted in plastic houses compared to the
under mud shading cover, while the best results   control treatment. The lowest decrease was
of fruit color were obtained by the GS1 and       observed in the mud shading treatment. This is
control shading treatments. On the other hand,    because shading reduces temperature, which is
the tallest fruit (16.3 cm) was obtained by the   reflected in number of mites. This is nearly in
GS1 treatment, while the shortest fruit (12.8     agreement with Abu-Zahra (Abu-Zahra and
cm) was obtained by the control treatment         Ateyyat, 2015).
(Table 5.) These results suggest that shading is
more beneficial under high sunlight intensity.
The reduction in marketable yield resulting
from the control treatment is proportional to
the increase in light intensity and temperature,

                                                               Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30