## 3 Results
### Shading Effects on Crop Yields  
The different shading treatments studied affected the crop yields significantly. Both total yields (Table 1) and accumulated marketable yields (Figure 12) were significantly higher in the control treatment (0% of shadow) compared with the shadowed treatments (15%, 30% and 50%) for the whole studied period. Regarding the different shadow treatments the total yield and total marketable yield was significantly higher in the 15% shadow treatment than in the 30% and 50% shadow treatments (with an exception in the marketable yield in 141 d.a.t). Differences between 30% and 50% shadow treatments were only remarkable on data collected 131 and 239 d.a.t in regards to the total production and 131 and 161 d.a.t in regards to the marketable production. Besides, the shadow percentage was proportionally inverse to the yields obtained, meaning, the shadow percentage increase produced a linear reduction of yields. The studied levels of shadowing also produced a reduction of early production in 113 and 131 d.a.t data collection. The control treatment (0% shade) had a significantly higher early production rate \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**\% Shading**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Days after Transplant**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **113** & **131** & **141** & **161** & **181** & **209** & **222** & **239** \\ \hline
0\% & 1.02a & 3.5a & 5.3a & 8.5a & 12.9a & 15.7a & 17.3a & 18.8\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
15\% & 0.60b & 2.1b & 3.2b & 5.5b & 9.4b & 11.9b & 14.1b & 16.9b \\
30\% & 0.19c & 1.4c & 2.3c & 4.1c & 7.4c & 9.1c & 10.5c & 13.4c \\
50\% & 0.01c & 0.7d & 1.5c & 3.3c & 6.3c & 7.8c & 9.0c & 11.5d \\ Significance & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Analysis of the variance is performed according to the Yij model = u + \(\alpha\)i + \(\beta\)j + \(\epsilon\)ij. The nomenclature n.s., *** indicates not significant or significant for \(p\leq\) 0.001. Numerical values for each column followed by different letters denote statistical significance for \(p<\) 0.05 according to the corrected minimum significant differences (LSD) test.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Effects of shadow treatments in the total accumulated yield (kg:m\({}^{-2}\)) in a tomato crop. Figure 12: Shading effects on the temporal evolution of accumulated marketable yield (kg:m\({}^{-2}\)). Results comes from the analysis of the variance that is performed according to the Yij model = u + \(\alpha\)i + \(\beta\)j + \(\epsilon\)ij. The nomenclature n.s., *** and *** indicates not significant or significant for \(p\leq\) 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively. Numerical values for each column followed by different letters denote statistical significance for \(p<\) 0.05 according to the corrected minimum significant differences (LSD) test. The error bars correspond to the values of minimum significant differences according to the corrected LSD test. The nomenclature n.s., *** and *** indicates not significant or significant for \(p\leq\) 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively. compared with shadowed treatments (Table 1 and Figure 12). During the first harvesting season (113 d.a.t), plants in the 15% shadow treatment had a decrease of a total yield of 41% and 43% in marketable yield, in regards to values obtained in the control treatment (0% shade). In plants with the 30% shadow treatment, this reduction was 81% and 60% respectively. Finally, in the 50% shadow treatment, a low and insignificant production was recorded. Finally, shadow treatments caused a delay in the production at the end of the cropping season (239 d.a.t). In 174 d.a.t data collection, a cultural technique of terminal bud elimination was applied, to avoid new vegetative material development and to foster fruits development in the last tomato clusters. In shadowed treatments a higher production of green fruits in the last harvesting season was observed (Figure 13).