www.sciencetarget.

com
Effect of Various Shading Methods on Cucumber (Cucumis
sativus L.) Growth and Yield Production
Taleb R. Abu-Zahra* and Mazen A. Ateyyat
Department of Plant Production and Protection, Faculty of Agricultural
Technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, As Salt 19117 Jordan
Abstract. Greenhouse shading may have a time-dependent effect on fruit
production, water and nutrient uptake in plants. A plastic house experiment was
International Journal of conducted in Jordan Valley, Jordan to discover the impact of four shading
Environment and
Sustainability [IJES]
treatments on cucumber “189 Cultivar” growth and yield production. These
ISSN 1927-9566 treatments were Green Shadow 1 (GS1), Whitewash (Calcium Carbonate), Mud
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 10-17 and Control (no shading).
(2016)
Results showed that permeability was reduced by using GS1 or whitewash as
shading materials. The GS1 treatment produced the highest vegetative growth,
while whitewash produced the highest fruit yield. However, using GS1 improved
fruit freshness and dry weight and maintained fruit quality. Also, as the light
intensity increased, fruit freshness and dry weight increased; while the control
treatment delayed flowering, decreased the production period and increased the
mite infestation. Therefore, there is a need for shading the plastic houses in this
area of Jordan during summer months.
Keywords. Cucumber, GS1, Plastic House, Shading, Whitewash, Mite
*Correspondence:
talebabu@yahoo.com

1. Introduction
The use of shadings in vegetable production is
connected with the limitations of light that
reaches plants (Siwek and Lipowiecka, 2004).
Shade-houses favor plant growth. Since plants
are less stressful, direct sunlight was avoided,
temperature is lower, humidity is higher and
evapotranspiration is low (Hashem et al., 2011).
In hot climates, shade can be applied over a
greenhouse to improve fruit quality, increase
fruit set and improve yield (Gent, 2008). How-
ever, in climates with more moderate temper-
atures, shade typically reduces the yield of
vegetables grown in a greenhouse (Cockshull et
al., 1992). Light is considered to be the most
important environmental factor for growth and
development, especially in protected farmland
(Yang et al., 2012; Runkle, 2008). Shading a
greenhouse may have a time-dependent effect
on fruit production and water and nutrient
uptake in plants. After six weeks of shading
applications, yield was reduced by 30%
compared to no-shade treatments (Gent, 2008).
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is one of the
most profitable vegetable crops grown under
protected cultivation systems all over the world,
and it belongs to the guard family Cucurbitaceae
(Ibeawuchi et al., 2008; El-Wanis et al., 2012). It
is a sub-tropical vegetable crop that grows suc-
cessfully under conditions of high light, high
humidity, high soil moisture, temperature and
fertilizers in green houses (El-Aidy et al., 2007).
In a study conducted by Siwek (Siwek et al.,
2010), cucumber yield was the lowest under
shady conditions. Cucumbers grown in shaded
plots produced larger marketable yields and a
lower percentage of cull fruit than plants grown
in the open, but the total number of fruit and
the fruit size of cucumbers was not affected by
shading in the spring (Valli et al., 1965). Shaded
plants had greater leaf area, although they had
less vegetative biomass and lower dry matter
than non-shaded plants (Sandri et al., 2003).
Regarding yield, the best results were obtained
using whitewash (Siwek et al., 2010). In another
experiment, the results showed that white net
International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 2016, 5(1): 10-17 11

greenhouse cover optimized growth and yield (Calcium Carbonate; 1 kg/ 10 L water), mud and
of cucumber, recorded the highest vegetative control (no shading). Both GS1 and whitewash
growth (plant height, number of leaves, total were sprayed using a pressure pump and a
leaves area, total fresh and dry weights) and water spout over the three plastic houses’
significantly increased total yield (Hashem et al., cover. The mud treatment was applied by
2011). dissolving a clay soil collected from the farm
area in tap water and was dispersed by hand
Shade density had no significant effect on
over the three plastic houses according to the
marketable yield because the marketable
method applied by farmers. The control plastic
fraction increased with shade density (Lin and
houses were kept without any covering. A few
Jolliffe, 1996). In Spain, mobile shade increased
days after applying the shading treatments,
marketable yield by 10 percent when used only
cucumber cultivar “189” transplanting was
on days with intense sunlight (Lorenzo et al.,
done at the beginning of May 2015.
2003). Growers should carefully monitor fertili-
zer salts, light, air temperature, humidity, car- The four treatments were conducted in a
bon dioxide and moisture. Inattention to these randomized complete block design with three
details can result in decreased production and replicates. All data obtained were statistically
poor quality fruit, such as bitter-tasting analyzed according to the design used in this
cucumbers (Vandre, 2014). experiment (Steel and Torrie, 1980). Mean
separation was done using Least Significant
In Jordan Valley, there is a gradual increasing
Difference at the 5% significant level.
acreage of cucumber cultivation under covers.
Farmers do shading during hot summer months Measured Parameters
(in May) primarily to limit the temperature rise
All of the measured parameters that included
in the plastic houses in order to protect the
environmental measurements (temperature,
quality of some crops from decline when
light intensity and relative humidity), vegetative
temperature is excessively high and to extend
measurements (plant length, plant freshness
the production period. This study was conduc-
and dry weight, leaf area, number of leaves/
ted to compare the traditional plastic houses’
plant and leaf length), flowering measurements,
shading methods with the innovation Green
yield measurements (total yield, yield/month,
Shadow 1 “GS1” to discover the best shading
yield/plant, average fruit freshness and dry
method for cucumber growth, yield, quality and
weight, number of fruits, number of fruits/plant
pest injuries under the Jordan Valley conditions.
and length of production period) and fruit
quality measurements (good quality yield %,
deformed fruit %, poor colored fruit % and
2. Materials and Methods
average fruit length) were done according to the
Description of the study area first experiment of the high lands (Abu-Zahra
and Ateyyat, 2015). While pest measurements -
The study was conducted at Mohammad Al-
the number of two-spotted spider mites - were
Edwan farm in the middle of the Jordan Valley
counted under the dissecting microscope in
about 50 km from Amman, the capital of Jordan,
which numbers per 10X magnification were
(31º76’39.26”N; 35º 59’26.85”E, and 380 m
considered as one field, three fields were taken
below the sea level) from the May to July 2015
per leaf. Three leaves were taken per plant, and
season. The climate in this region is hot and dry
three plants were chosen per plastic house each
during summer and warm and rainy in winter.
time (Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat, 2015).
Treatments and Experimental Design
Twelve plastic houses (0.5 dun/plastic house)
were installed over the farm area. Three plastic
houses were used for each treatment. Four
shading treatments were applied: Green
Shadow 1 (GS1; 1L/ 10 L water), whitewash

Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com

12 © Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat 2016 | Effect of Various Shading Methods
3. Results and Discussion
Plastic cover permeability
At the end of the experimental period, environ-
mental factors (temperatures, relative humidity
and light intensity) were recorded. The results
obtained are summarized in Table 1. Plastic
house temperature was significantly reduced by
using GS1 and/or whitewash treatments
compared to the mud and control treatments.
This means that the plastic houses’ permeability
was reduced by using GS1 or whitewash as
shading materials. A significant high relative
humidity percentage was observed in the
control treated plastic houses compared to
other treatments because using shading treat-
ments reduced temperatures that kept more
relative humidity inside the plastic houses. GS1
and whitewash reduced the light intensity
readings, which means that these treatments
(GS1 and whitewash) have a harmful effect on
the plastic cover
These results do not coincide with those
obtained in the high land experiment (Abu-
Zahra and Ateyyat, 2015), which may be due to
the differences in the climate (higher temper-
ature, dryer conditions, etc.) that reacted with
the covering materials and reflected on the
plastic houses’ permeability.
Table 1
Results of Final readings of Temperature,
Relative humidity, and Light intensity, after
removing the shading treatments*
Treatments Temperature Relative
(ºC) humidity
(%)
GS1 33.9 b** 40.1 b
Whitewash 34.1 b 38.1 b
Mud 34.8 a 41.4 b
Control 35.0 a 52.4 a
LSD 0.05 0.7 7.6
* Values are the mean of four replicates.
**: Means within each column having different letters are
significantly different according to LSD at 5 % level.
Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com
Vegetative Growth
The results of vegetative growth have been
illustrated in Table 2. Data obtained indicated
that there are significant differences in vege-
tative parameters. The highest results were
obtained by the GS1 treatment, while the lowest
results were obtained by the control treatment.
Results obtained showed that vegetative growth
was improved by the use of shading materials
because in the control treatment the light
intensity was very high, which induced an
increase in the temperature to be more than
optimum and adversely reflected on cucumber
vegetative growth (Iglesias and Alegre, 2006).
On the other hand, the results of the present
study are in agreement with Lorenzo (Lorenzo
et al., 2003) in which vegetative growth of the
cucumber plants under shade cover was higher.
The results obtained proved that shading is
recommended and required in this area of
Jordan during summer months.
Flowering Measurements
Significant differences were observed in the
number of days required for 50 % of cucumber
plants in bloom (Figure 1.). Flowering date was
accelerated by the use of shading materials and
delayed by the use of control treatment, which
coincides with results obtained by Nageib
(Nageib et al., 2012) and with the high land
experiment (Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat, 2015).
b ab b a
Light
intensity
(Lux)
976 b
1051 b
1492 a
1548.3 a
339.5
Figure 1: Effect of shading methods on
cucumber number of days for 50 % of plants in
bloom. Means with the same letter are not
significantly different using LSD at 0.955 C.L.
International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 2016, 5(1): 10-17 13

Yield Measurements
Total Yield
Yield results are summarized in Table 3. The
highest significant total yield per plastic house
(2605 kg) was obtained by using the whitewash
as shading material, while the lowest total yield
per plastic house (1275.2 kg) was obtained by
the GS1 shading method. Also, the same results
were observed in the total yield per plant and
yield per month in which the best results were
obtained by whitewash and the lowest were
obtained by the GS1 treatment. These results
are supported by results obtained earlier (El-
Gizawy et al., 1992; El-Nemr, 2006) which found
that using shady conditions increased yield due
to higher photosynthesis associated with suit-
able radiation under shady conditions.

Table 2
Effect of shading methods on cucumber vegetative growth parameters*
Treatments Av. No. of Av. Plant fresh Av. Plant dry Av. plant Av. Leaf area Av. Leaf
leaves/plant wt. (gm) wt. (gm) length (cm) (cm2) Length (mm)
GS1 26.0 a** 975.8 a 113.5 a 230.0 a 318 a 173 a
Whitewash 23.3 b 915.0 b 103.8 ab 204.7 b 276 b 111 b
Mud 22.3 ab 586.5 c 113.5 a 187.7 b 262 b 99.3 b
Control 15.0 c 565.6 c 89.5 b 148.7 c 197 c 55.7 c
LSD 0.05 2.03 39.11 18.7 19.62 15.81 21.8
* Values are the mean of four replicates.
**: Means within each column having different letters are significantly different according to LSD at 5 % level.

Table 3
Effect of shading methods on cucumber yield measurements*
Treatments Total yield Total yield (kg)/plant Yield (kg/month)/rep
(kg)/rep May June July
GS1 1275.2 c** 0.81 c 16.9 d 1218.3 b 40 b
Whitewash 2605.0 a 1.88 a 303.3 a 2056.7 a 125 a
Mud 1543.3 bc 1.26 b 205 b 1243.3 b 95 a
Control 1731.7 b 0.95 bc 180 c 1520.0 b 31.7 b
LSD 0.05 333 0.23 20.4 354 32.8
* Values are the mean of four replicates.
**: Means within each column having different letters are significantly different according to LSD at 5 % level.

Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com

14 © Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat 2016 | Effect of Various Shading Methods

Table 4
Effect of shading methods on cucumber fruit parameter measurements and number of production
days*
Treatments Av. fruit fresh wt. Av. fruit dry wt. Total no. of Total no. of Production period
(gm) (gm) fruits/rep fruits/plant (days)/rep
GS1 88.9 a** 20.6 a 34548 b 21 c 53.3 a
Whitewash 78.5 a 19.7 ab 33407 b 24 b 51.0 a
Mud 57.9 b 19.4 bc 26027 c 21.3 c 53.7 a
Control 44.0 c 18.3 c 49063 a 27 a 43.7 b
LSD 0.05 12.1 1.2 4304 1.9 2.9
* Values are the mean of four replicates.
**: Means within each column having different letters are significantly different according to LSD at 5 % level.

Table 5
Effect of shading methods on cucumber fruit quality measurements*
Treatments Qualified fruit (%)/rep Deformed fruit (%)/rep Poor colored fruit (%)/rep Av. Fruit length (cm)
GS1 99.5 a ** 0.37 c 0.14 b 16.3 a
Whitewash 99.4 b 0.48 b 0.17 ab 15.0 b
Mud 99.2 c 0.58 a 0.19 a 14.5 b
Control 99.4 ab 0.42 bc 0.15 b 12.8 c
LSD 0.05 0.11 0.086 0.035 1.05
* Values are the mean of four replicates.
**: Means within each column having different letters are significantly different according to LSD at 5 % level.

However, they are not in agreement with the
results obtained in the high land experiment
(Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat, 2015) due to differ-
ences in environmental conditions.
Fruit Weight and Number
The highest significant fruit freshness and dry
weight were obtained by the GS1 shading
treatment (Table 4) but without significant
difference with the whitewash treatment. On
the other hand, the lowest fruit freshness and
dry weight were obtained by the control
treatment. The high temperature and light
intensity in the control treated plastic houses
are responsible for the decrease in fruit
freshness and dry weight. These results
coincide with those obtained by Valli (Valli et
al., 1965). On the other hand, the opposite trend
was observed in the number of fruits per rep or
per plant in which the highest total number of
fruits were obtained by the control treatment
(Table 4), while the lowest number was
obtained by the mud shading treatment. The
results obtained showed that there is a reduc-
tion in the number of fruits in the shaded plastic
houses compared to non-shaded ones, which
may be due to shading causing a reduction in
uptake of water and nutrients and less photo-
synthesis associated with less radiation under
shaded plants that reflects on the number of
fruits (Gent, 2008; (El-Nemr, 2006).
Production Period
Shading treatments extended the production
period length (Table 4) compared to the control
treatment, which decreased the production
period. This may be due to shading protecting
chlorophyll from degradation by the high light
intensity and temperature (Zervoudakis et al.,
2012). The same results were also observed in
the previous experiment (Abu-Zahra and Atey-
yat, 2015).

Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com

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
Light intensity -0.549 0.647 0.630 0.012 0.631 -0.358 0.646
Temp. 0.402 -0.730 -0.775 0.552 -0.838 0.706 -0.843
R. H. -0.306 -0.737 -0.615 0.820 -0.683 0.520 -0.764
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
The only registered pest was the mite infes-
highest deformed fruit percentages were
tation (Figure 2.). All of the shading treatments
obtained by using the mud shading treatment.
resulted in a significant decrease in the
Otherwise, very low statistical differences were
population of the two-spotted spider mite,
observed in the fruit color parameter, even
Tetranychus urticae, on cucumber leaves
though the highest percentages of the poor
planted in plastic houses compared to the
colored fruit were observed in fruits produced
control treatment. The lowest decrease was
under mud shading cover, while the best results
observed in the mud shading treatment. This is
of fruit color were obtained by the GS1 and
because shading reduces temperature, which is
control shading treatments. On the other hand,
reflected in number of mites. This is nearly in
the tallest fruit (16.3 cm) was obtained by the
agreement with Abu-Zahra (Abu-Zahra and
GS1 treatment, while the shortest fruit (12.8
Ateyyat, 2015).
cm) was obtained by the control treatment
(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

16 © Abu-Zahra and Ateyyat 2016 | Effect of Various Shading Methods
Figure 2: Effect of shading methods on two-
spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae
Populations, on cucumber leaves planted in
plastic houses. Means with the same letter are
not significantly different using LSD at 0.955
C.L.
Results of Correlations
Results of correlations are summarized in Table
6 and 7. A positive significant correlation was
observed between light intensity with fruit
freshness and dry weight, fruit length and most
cucumber plant vegetative growth parameters.
All of these parameters were improved by in-
creasing light intensity. On the other hand, a
positive correlation was observed between
temperature and blooming date. Blooming date
was accelerated by increases in temperature.
References
Abu-Zahra, T. R. and Ateyyat, M. (2015), “The
Impact of Various Shading Methods on
Cucumber Growth and Production”,
International Journal of Tropical Agriculture,
32 (2): 191-197. (ISSN: 0254-8755)
Bowley, S. R. (1999), A Hitchhiker’s Guide to
Statistics in Plant Biology. A Division of
Plants et al., Inc., Ampersand Printing, 1st
edition, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, NIG
2W1. ISBN: 0-9685500-1-0
Cockshull, K. E., Graves, C. J. and Cave, C. R. J.
(1992), “The influence of shading on yield of
Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com
Also, fruit number was increased by increasing
relative humidity.
4. Conclusions
The results of the present study demonstrate
that the types of the shading treatments used
has an effect on plastic cover permeability. After
washing the cover materials, permeability was
reduced by using GS1 or whitewash as shading
materials. The best results of vegetative growth
and fruit weight were obtained by the GS1
treatment since it produced the highest vege-
tative growth and improved fruit freshness and
dry weight. The highest fruit yield was obtained
by the whitewash treatment. Using the GS1 or
control treatments was found to maintain fruit
quality. The control treatment delayed flow-
ering, decreased the production period and
increased the mite infection percentages. On the
other hand, a positive correlation between tem-
perature, fruit freshness and dry weight was
observed. The results prove that there is a need
for shading plastic houses in Jordan Valley
during summer months.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the “Scientific Research Sup-
port Fund” for financing this study, farmer
Mohammad Al-Edwan for holding the work, and
special thanks to Agr. Eng. Wafaa Al-Ghnemat
for doing the field and lab work.
glasshouse tomatoes”, Journal of Horticul-
tural Science, 67: 11-24
El-Aidy, F., El-Zawely, A., Hassan, N. and El-
Sawy, M. (2007), “Effect of Plastic Tunnel
Size on Production of Cucumber in Delta of
Egypt”, Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res., 5 (2): 11-24
El-Gizawy, A. M., Abdalla, M. M. F., Gomaa, H. M.
and Mohammed, S. S. (1992), “Effect of
Different Shading Level on Tomato Plants
Yield and Fruit Quality”, Acta Hort., 323: 349-
354
International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 2016, 5(1): 10-17
El-Nemr, M. A. (2006), “Effect of Mulch Types on
Soil Environmental Conditions and Their
Effect on the Growth and Yield of Cucumber
Plants”, J. Appl. Sci. Res., 2 (2): 67-73
El-Wanis, A., Mona, M., Abdel-Baky, M. H. and
Salman, S. R. (2012), “Effect of grafting and
salt stress on the growth, yield and quality of
cucumber grown in NFT system”, Journal of
Applied Sciences Research, 8 (10): 5059-5067
Gent, M. P. N. (2008), “Density and Duration of
Shade Affect Water and Nutrient Use in
Greenhouse Tomato”, Journal of American
Society for Horticultural Science, 133 (4):
619-627
Hashem, F. A., Medany, M. A., Abd El-Moniem, E.
M. and Abdallah, M. M. F. (2011), “Influence
of Green-House Cover on Potential Evapo-
transpiration and Cucumber Water Require-
ments”, Annals of Agricultural Science, 56:
49-55
Ibeawuchi, I. I., Iheoma, O. R., Obilo, O. P. and
Obiefuna, J. C. (2008), “Effect of Time of
Mulch Application on the Growth and Yield
of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) in Owerri,
Southeastern Nigeria”, Life Science Journal, 5
(1): 68-71
Iglesias, I. and Alegre, S. (2006), “The Effect of
anti-Hail Nets on Fruit Protection, Radiation,
Temperature, Quality and Profitability of
'Mondial Gala' apples”, J. Appl. Hort., 8 (2):
91-100
Lin, W. C., and Jolliffe, P A. (1996), “Light
Intensity and Spectral Quality Affect Fruit
Growth and Shelf Life of Greenhouse-grown
Long English Cucumber”, Journal of the
American Society for Horticultural Science,
121 (6): 1168-1173
Lorenzo, P., Guerro, M. C. S., Medrano, E., Garcia,
M. L., Caparros, I. and Giminez, M. (2003),
“External greenhouse mobile shading effect
on microclimate water use efficiency and the
yield of a tomato crop grown under different
salinity levels of the nutrient solution”, Acta
Horticultura, 609: 181-186
Nageib, M. M., Malaka, A. S., Salwa, A. K.,
Mansour, A. E., and Nagwa S. Z. (2012),
17
“Effect of Shading at Different Dormancy
Periods on Kanino Apricot Productivity”,
Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8 (8):
4290-4295
Runkle, E. (2008), Greenhouse shading options.
GPN. Available at: www.gpnmag.com
Sandri, M. A., Andriolo, J. L., Witter, M. and Ross,
T. D. (2003), “Effect of shading on tomato
plants grown under greenhouse”, Horticul-
tura Brasileira, 21:642-645
Siwek, P. and Lipowiecka, M. (2004), “Cucumber
cultivation under plastic covers economic
results”, Folta Horticulturae Ann., 16 (2): 40-
55
Siwek, P., Wojciechowska, R., Kalisz, A., Libik, A.
and Gryza, I. (2010), “Effect of shading with
various colored films on the yield and quality
of celery and butter head lettuce”, Ecological
Chemistry and Engineering, 17 (12): 1619-
1627
Steel, R. G. D., and Torrie, J. H. (1980), Principles
and procedures of statistics, McGraw-Hill,
New York. 2nd edition. ISBN: 0070610282
Valli, V. J., Bryan, H. H., Young, H. W. and Davis,
D. R. (1965), “The Effect of Shade on the Bio-
Climate and production of Vegetable Crops”,
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Journal eSeries No. 2236: 95-101
Vandre, W. (2014), Cucumber Production in
Greenhouses. Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. Available at:
www.uaf.edu/ces
Yang, X., Wang, X., Wang, L., Wei, M. (2012),
“Control of light environment: A key tech-
nique for high-yield and high-quality vege-
table production in protected farmland”,
Agricultural Sciences, 7: 923-928
Zervoudakis, G., Salahas, G., Ksapiris, G., and
Kontantopoulou, E. (2012), “Influence of
Light Intensity on Growth and Physiological
Characteristics of Common Sage (Salvia offi-
cinalis L.)”, Brazilian Archives of Biology and
Technology, 55 (1): 89-95
Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com