Ann. Bangladesh Agric.

(2020) 24 (2) : 85-94 ISSN 1025-482X (Print)

www.doi.org/10.3329/aba.v24i2.55786 2521-5477 (Online)

EVALUATION OF GROWTH AND YIELD OF SWEET PEPPER (Capsicum

annuum) VARIETIES UNDER NET PROTECTED CONDITIONS
M. S. Islam1, A. Akter2, M. Z. Akhi3 and B. Debnath4
Abstract
An experiment was conducted at the experimental field of Horticulture Department,
Sylhet Agricultural University, Bangladesh during winter season of 2013-2014 to
evaluate growth and yield of sweet pepper varieties under net protected condition. The
two-factor experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design with three
replications. Three popular sweet pepper varieties viz. BARI Mistimorich-1, California
Wonder and Yolo Wonder were grown under three protected systems viz. fine net (120
mesh), coarse net (40 mesh) and open field. Considering the effect of varieties, the
highest value for all the parameters viz. fruit length (10.01 cm), fruit diameter (5.90
cm), number of fruits/plant (13.61), fruit yield per plant (0.77 kg), fruit yield (21.31 t/ha)
were found in California Wonder followed by BARI Mistimorich-1 and Yolo Wonder.
Again, considering the effect of net protection system, maximum values for parameters
viz. early flowering, fruit length (10.58 cm), fruit diameter (6.29 cm), number of fruits/
plant (16.14), fruit yield/plant (0.94 kg) and per hectare (26.86 t/ha) were recorded under
fine net protection system. Under fine net covering plants produced better quality fruit
than open field condition. The earliest flowering (60.67 days), the highest number of
fruits per plant (19.18) and the maximum fruit yield (35.71 t/ha) were observed in BARI
Mistimorich-1grown under fine net system followed by California Wonder grown under
coarse net protected system. Benefit cost ratio (BCR) for fine net (5.28) and coarse
net (6.75) protected system were much higher than that of open field (1.64) condition
indicating bright future for sweet pepper cultivation under net protected system.
Keywords: Sweet pepper, protected cultivation, fine net, variety, fruit yield.

Introduction world (Shoemaker and Teskey, 1955). Sweet

Sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L. 2n = 24) pepper is popularly known as bell pepper or
belongs to the family Solanaceae is an important capsicum and may be eaten as cooked, raw
nutritious vegetables grown extensively in as well as salad. Capsicum is rich in vitamin
almost every countries especially temperate C, vitamin A, carbohydrates, proteins, fiber,
countries of the world (Greenleaf, 1986). unsaturated fatty acid (Lal et al., 2014; Zende,
It is believed to be originated in tropical 2008) and also known as medicinal plants due
South America, after that introduced by the to having capsaicin, capsanthin, carotinoids
Portuguese in India and distributed throughout and antioxidantal properties (Aminifard
the tropical and sub-tropical countries of the et al., 2012). This crop is well adapted to

1, 3 & 4
Department of Horticulture, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, Bangladesh. 2Department of Agricultural
Science, Comilla Govt. College, Cumilla, Bangladesh. *Corresponding author: shahidulhrt@gmail.com
86 Evaluation of Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper

temperature ranged from 16-25°C. This is In the near past no intervention was taken to
very sensitive to environmental factors viz. evaluate sweet pepper varieties or production
both biotic and abiotic factors (Bhatt et al., technologies at Sylhet region. Considering
1992). Fruit setting is largely affected by high the facts, the present study was undertaken
temperature at night than day temperature. On to evaluate three promising sweet pepper
the contrary, blossom dropping also occurred varieties under three different net protection
at below 16° C night temperature and above systems in Sylhet.
32° C day temperature (Rylski and Spigelman,
1982; Boswell, 1964). In Bangladesh, from Materials and Methods
December to January night temperature is The present study was conducted at the
gradually decreased below 10° C or less which experimental field of Horticulture Department,
is detrimental to both vegetative and fruiting Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, during
stage of sweet pepper. Again severe powdery winter season of 2013-2014. This experimental
mildew and mite infestation are common area belongs to the “Khadimnagar” soil series
for plants when subjected to longer periods of Eastern Surma-Kushiara Floodplain under
of temperatures between 10 to 15° C and the Agro ecological Zones-20 (FAO, 1988).
daytime RH between 85 to 95% (Elad et al., The two-factor experiment was laid out in
2007). Among various agronomic practices, a randomized complete block design with
proper vegetative and reproductive growth as three replications. Factor one consisted of
well as optimum yield can be ensured using three popular sweet pepper varieties viz. V1 =
protected net covering (Jeon and Chung, BARI Mistimorich-1, V2 = California Wonder
1982). Shaded nets could potentially alter and V3 = Yolo Wonder and the other factor
the crop’s physiological and biochemical having three protection systems viz. P1 = fine
processes, metabolite profiles and ultimately net (120 mesh), P2 = coarse net (40 mesh) and
growth, development, yield and quality (Ilic P3 = open field. Seeds of all the varieties were
et al., 2017). For instance, photoselective sown in the seedbed on 15 October 2013. After
nettings have been shown to influence the germination, seedlings having around 2-3 true
biosynthesis of bioactive compounds in sweet leaves were transplanted in poly bags. Then,
peppers (Mashabela et al., 2015; Selahle et al., 35-day-old seedlings having 4-5 true leaves
2015). These also provide protection against were transplanted in the experimental plots. In
disease, pest infestation and cold injury as each plot there were two rows accommodating
night temperature can be increased inside 8 plants per row. The size of unit plot was
3.2 m × 1.0 m and 60 × 40 cm spacing was
the net than outside (Shahak, 2008). Sweet
maintained. The height of the net protection
pepper is a high value crop and its demand structure was around 1.0 meter. Each plot was
is increasing day by day. But all the varieties fertilized with well decomposed cowdung,
may not perform equally in all regions of urea, triple super phosphate (TSP), muriate of
Bangladesh. So, to meet the growing demand potash (MoP), gypsum and ZnO at the rate of
and to increase the export potentiality BARI 10 ton, 220 kg, 330 kg, 200 kg, 110 kg and 5 kg
Mistimorich-1, California Wonder and Yolo per hectare, respectively (Rashid et al., 2006).
Wonder are popularly growing in our country. Half of the quantity of cow dung was applied
M. S. Islam, A. Akter, M. Z. Akhi and B. Debnath 87

at final land preparation. The rest amount of Days to flowering

cowdung, entire quantity of TSP, ZnO, gypsum The earliest flowering was recorded in BARI
and one third each of urea and MoP were Mistimorich-1 (64.44 days) similar to that of
applied during pit preparation and remaining California Wonder (64.77 days). On the other
urea and MoP were applied in two equal splits hand, the late flowering was recorded in Yolo
at 25 and 50 days after transplanting as top Wonder (65 days). This finding is at par with
dressed. Irrigation, weeding, mulching, staking, that of Anon (2010) where days to flowering
etc. were done as and when required. Data were varied from 66 to 69 days among four sweet
recorded on different parameters viz. days to pepper inbred lines.
flowering, fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm),
Fruit length (cm)
number of fruits /plants, individual fruit weight
It was not significantly affected due to
(g), fruit yield/plant (kg) and total fruit yield (t/
varieties. However, the highest fruit length
ha) to evaluate the effect of both varieties and
was found in California Wonder (10.01 cm)
net protected cultivation system. Then recorded
and the lowest in Yolo Wonder (9.22cm).
data were compiled and statistically analyzed
Among eight sweet pepper inbred lines it
using MSTAT-C software. Economic analysis
ranged from 6.40 to 8.12 cm as was reported
was done to compare the feasibility of sweet
by Anon (2009).
pepper cultivation under open field and or net
protected condition. Fruit diameter (cm)
Variation in fruit diameter was not found.
Results and Discussion However, the highest fruit diameter was
Main effect of varieties measured at California Wonder (5.90 cm)
All the parameters were significantly affected while the lowest was observed in Yolo
due to varieties except days to flower and fruit Wonder (5.58 cm) which was closely related
size (Table 1). to BARI Mistimorich-1 (5.83 cm).

Table 1. Effect of sweet pepper varieties on yield and yield attributes

Fruit Individual
Days to Fruit length Number of Fruit yield/ Fruit yield
Genotype diameter fruit weight
flowering (cm) fruits/ plant plant (kg) (t/ha)
(cm) (g)
V1 64.44 9.32 5.83 12.07b 58.82a 0.71b 20.38b
V2 64.77 10.01 5.90 13.61a 56.58a 0.77a 21.31a
V3 65.00 9.22 5.58 11.94b 49.41b 0.59c 16.86c
F-test ns ns ns ** ** ** *
CV% 2.47 6.78 8.85 4.81 6.71 3.92 5.35

Means followed by same letter(s) in a column do not differ significantly by LSD

**=Significant at 1% level of probability, *= Significant at 5% level of probability, ns= Not significant, V1,
V2 and V3 indicate BARI Mistimorich-1, California Wonder and Yolo Wonder, respectively.
88 Evaluation of Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper

Number of fruits /plant noticed by other researchers (Anon, 2010;

Number of fruit per plant was significantly Sattar et al., 2018) when grown at Gazipur.
influenced by three different sweet pepper
Fruit yield (t/ha)
varieties (Table 1). Maximum number of fruits
Fruit yield per hectare varied significantly
per plant was found in California Wonder
among the varieties. It ranged from 16.86 t
(13.61) followed by BARI Mistimorich-1 to 21.31 t. Maximum fruit yield was found
(12.07) while it was found the lowest in in California Wonder (21.31 t/ha) followed
Yolo Wonder (11.94). Sattar et al. (2018) by BARI Mistimorich-1 (20.38 t/ha) and it
reported that the number of fruits per plant was minimum in Yolo Wonder (16.86 t/ha).
was significantly differed from 5.07 to 22.97 It might be due to the genetical factors of the
among eight sweet pepper inbred lines. variety concerned. Differential yield (9.70
-29.09 t/ha) was also recorded by Sattar et al.
Individual fruit weight (g) (2018) when studied with eight sweet pepper
The highest individual fruit weight was inbred lines.
observed in BARI Mistimorich-1 (58.82 g)
followed by California Wonder (56.58 g). Main effect of net protections
The lowest fruit weight was found in Yolo Significant variation was observed for all the
Wonder (49.41 g). Anon (2010) found variable parameters under study due to net protection
individual fruit weight (65-77 g) among eight system (Table 2).
sweet pepper inbred lines.
Days to flowering
Fruit yield/plant (kg) The earliest flowering was observed in plant
The maximum fruit yield was noticed in grown under fine net (61days) followed
California Wonder (0.77 kg) followed by by coarse net and open field (66.00 days)
BARI Mistimorich-1 (0.71 kg). But the condition. Days to flowering was differed
minimum yield was found in Yolo Wonder when plants were grown under different
(0.59 kg). Similar variation in fruit yield protective systems as was reported by Halim
among several sweet pepper genotypes was and Islam (2013).

Table 2. Main effect of net protections on yield and yield attributes of sweet pepper
Fruit Fruit
Days to Number of Individual fruit Fruit yield/ Fruit yield
Net protection length diameter
flowering fruits/ plant weight (g) plant (kg) (t/ha)
(cm) (cm)
P1 61b 10.58a 6.29a 16.14a 58.24b 0.94a 26.86a
P2 66a 9.96a 5.71ab 13.55b 63.47a 0.86b 24.07b
P3 66a 8.02b 5.31b 7.94c 32.74c 0.26c 7.62c
F-test ** ** ** ** ** ** **
CV% 2.47 6.78 8.85 4.81 6.71 3.92 5.35

Means followed by same letter(s) in a column do not differ significantly by LSD

*=Significant at 1% level of probability, P1, P2 and P3 indicate fine net, coarse net and open field,
respectively.
M. S. Islam, A. Akter, M. Z. Akhi and B. Debnath 89

Fruit length (cm) might be due to producing more number of

The highest fruit length was measured in fruits per plant in fine net. This finding is
plant grown under fine net (10.58 cm) while closely related to the findings of Paul (2009),
it was the lowest in open field condition (8.02 Islam and Halim (2014). Ilic et al. (2017)
cm). This result was also well supported reported that pericarp fruit thickness was
with the findings of Halim and Islam (2013). significantly higher in peppers grown under
For instance nettings have been shown to red net house and black net house compared
influence the to the open field which might determine the
fruit weight.
biosynthesis of bioactive compounds in
sweet peppers (Mashabela et al., 2015; Fruit yield /plant (kg)
Selahle et al., 2015) which ensure growth and Significant variation in case of fruit yield
development of the plant. In the present study per plant was found due to the main effect of
fruit growth in relation to length and diameter different net protection system (Table 2). The
was significantly higher than control plot. maximum fruit yield was observed from fine
Fruit diameter (cm) net (0.94 kg) while it was the lowest in open
The highest fruit diameter was observed the field (0.26 kg). Plants of coarse net protection
plant growing under fine net system (6.29 cm) system produced 0.86 kg/plant. Fruit yield
followed by coarse net (5.71 cm) while it was depends on total number of fruits and fruit
the lowest in open field (5.31 cm). Under fine size. In the present study plants grown under
net covering plant might attain desirable fruit net protected condition produced higher
size for having congenial growing condition. number and heavier fruits caused higher yield
Number of fruits /plant than that of open field. These result had the
The highest number of fruits per plant was harmony with the study done by Wien et al.
observed in plants protected with fine net (1989) and Islam and Halim (2014).
(16.14) followed by the coarse net (13.55)
Fruit yield (t/ha)
while it was the lowest in open field (7.94)
condition. The present findings are in line with Fruit yield under different protection systems
the findings of Paul (2009). Islam and Halim ranged from 7.62 to 26.86 t/ha. The plant
(2014) also reported variation in number of grown in fine net protection yielded maximum
fruits per plant when California Wonder was closely followed by the coarse net protection
grown under four different tunnel covers made (24.07 t/ha), while it was minimum in open
on polyethylene and nylon net. field.
Individual fruit weight (g) Interaction effect between varieties and net
Maximum individual fruit weight was found protections on yield and yield attributes
for course net (63.47 g) which was followed Interaction effect between varieties and net
by fine net (58.24 g) and minimum was found protection was found significant for all the
for open field (32.74 g). Individual fruit weight parameters except days to flowering and fruit
was lower in fine net than course net. These diameter (Table 3).
90 Evaluation of Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper

Days to flowering Yolo Wonder planted in coarse net protection

Though almost similar number of days system (11.07 cm) which was statistically
was required for flowering for all treatment identical to California Wonder planted in fine
combinations, the earliest flowering (60.67 net system (10.37 cm). The lowest fruit length
days) was observed in BARI Mistimorich-1
(6.43 cm) was recorded from Yolo Wonder
planted in fine net protection system followed
planted in open field. Result suggested that
by the California Wonder and Yolo Wonder
fruit length might be influenced by both
(61.67 days) when grown in fine net protection
varieties and different net protection system.
system. The late flowering was recorded from
BARI Mistimorich-1 and Yolo Wonder (67.33 Fruit diameter (cm)
days) planted in coarse net protection system. Fruit diameter of different treatment
Fruit length (cm) combinations ranged from 4.67 to 6.37 cm
Fruit length was significantly differed among being the highest in California Wonder
the nine different treatment combinations planted in fine net protection system while the
(Table 3) due to the combined effect of lowest was recorded in Yolo Wonder planted
varieties and net protection system. Among in open field.
the treatment combinations, the highest fruit Number of fruits/plant
length (11.20 cm) was observed in BARI Among the treatment combinations, the
Mistimorich-1 planted in fine net protection. highest number of fruits per plant was
The second highest fruit length was recorded in observed in BARI Mistimorich-1 grown

Table 3. Interaction effect between varieties and net protection system on yield and yield
attributes of sweet pepper
Fruit Individual
Days to Fruit length Number of Fruit yield/ Fruit yield
Treatment diameter fruit weight
flowering (cm) fruits/ plant plant (kg) (t/ha)
(cm) (g)
V1P1 60.67 11.20a 6.33 19.18a 64.65b 1.24a 35.71a
V1P2 67.33 8.63cd 5.57 11.44d 62.94b 0.72d 20.57c
V1P3 65.33 8.13d 5.60 5.57f 30.52f 0.17f 4.86e
V2P1 61.67 10.37ab 6.37 14.62bc 54.04d 0.79cd 22.57c
V2P2 66.00 10.17a-c 5.67 15.67b 68.92a 1.08b 28.8b
V2P3 66.67 9.50b-d 5.67 10.55d 40.76e 0.43e 12.57d
V3P1 61.67 10.17a-c 6.17 14.60bc 52.74d 0.77cd 22.29.c
V3P2 67.33 11.07ab 5.90 13.57c 58.95c 0.80c 22.86c
V3P3 66.00 6.43e 4.67 7.68e 23.44g 0.18f 5.43e
F-test ns ** ns ** ** ** **
CV% 2.47 6.78 8.85 4.81 6.71 3.92 5.35
Means followed by same letter(s) in a column do not differ significantly by LSD
** = Significant at 1% level of probability, ns = Not significant; Where, V1 = BARI Mistimorich-1, V2 =
California Wonder, V3 = Yolo Wonder; P1 = Fine net, P2 = Coarse net, P3 = Open
M. S. Islam, A. Akter, M. Z. Akhi and B. Debnath 91

in fine net protection system (19.18) while Fruit yield (t/ha)

the second highest (15.67) was recorded Significant variation was observed for fruit
in California Wonder grown in coarse net yield per hectare due to the interaction effect of
protection system. The lowest number of fruit varieties and net protection systems (Table 3).
per plant was recorded in BARI Mistimorich- Fruit yield was maximum (35.71 t/ha) in V1P1
1planted in open field (5.57). Under open field (BARI Mistimorich-1when grown in fine net
condition, all the varieties produced lower system), followed by California Wonder (28.8
number of fruits and higher number of fruit in t/ha) when grown under coarse net protection
fine net protection system. This might be due system and the lowest fruit yield (4.86 t/ha)
to having more congenial microclimate and was calculated in V1P3 (BARI Mistimorich-1
more protection against biotic stress in fine when grown in open field). Result of the study
net condition than open field condition. indicated that sweet pepper yield (t/ha) was
lower under open field condition irrespective
Individual fruit weight (g)
of varieties. This variation might be attributed
Maximum individual fruit weight was found in
due to shade-nets provide physical protection
California Wonder (68.92 g) grown in coarse
against hail, wind, bird and insect-transmitted
net protection system followed by BARI
virus diseases (Shahak, 2008). Ahemd et al.
Mistimorich-1 (64.65 g) grown in fine net
(2016) opined that reducing the transmitted
system. On the contrary, minimum individual
solar radiation under shading reduces the
fruit weight was found in Yolo Wonder (23.44
canopy and air temperatures as well as the
g) grown in open field. This result was closely
transpiration rate in the greenhouses. This
related to the findings of Halim and Islam
consequently increases the water use efficiency
(2013), who found maximum individual fruit
and enhances the crop productivity up to 40%.
weight of 65.2 g grown under poly house.
Pictorial view of fruit of different sweet
Fruit yield /plant (kg)
pepper varieties grown in open field and under
Among nine different treatment combinations
the maximum fruit yield was found in BARI net protection system has been displayed
Mistimorich-1(1.24 kg) grown under fine in Fig. 1. In case of open field, small sized
net protection system followed by California and deformed fruits were found which were
Wonder (1.08 kg) when grown in coarse net unable to fulfil the consumer preferance. On
protection system. While the fruit yield was the contrary under net protection system plant
minimum in BARI Mistimorich-1(0.17 kg) produced better quality fruit viz. smooth skin
in open field condition which was closely surface, uniform size and shape, uniform skin
followed by Yolo Wonder (0.18 kg), grown in color, bigger fruit. Ilic et al. (2017) observed
open field. Result indicated that in open field that shade-nets can increase the total yield
condition having various biotic and abiotic and improve fruit quality (mass, pericarp
stresses, plants produced the lowest yield. thickness and vitamin C content). They added
Islam and Halim (2014) obtained the lowest that shading reduced the appearance of sweet
fruit yield per plant in open field while it pepper cracking and eliminated sunscalds on
was the highest when the plants grown under sweet pepper fruits and accordingly, increased
tunnel cover with polythene and nylon net. the marketable sweet pepper production
92 Evaluation of Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper

a. Open field b. net protection system

Fig. 1. Fruits of different sweet pepper varieties in open field and under net protection system

by about 25% compared to non-shading that plants grown under the fine net or coarse
conditions. So production of sweet pepper net protection systems gave the higher gross
under protection system is better than open return than control. BCR was also higher in
field in Sylhet region where climatic condition fine net (5.28) and coarse net (6.75) protection
is unpredictable than other part of the country. system than open field system (1.64). Among
The economic analysis of sweet pepper the inputs used, net and bamboo were the
grown under different net protection systems expensive which was 64% of the total cost. To
has been presented in Table 4. Plants grown reduce bamboo and net cost expense, the same
in fine net protection system (P1) required materials might be used for the next season.
the highest total cost compared to coarse
net protection system. The lowest total cost Conclusion
was required for open field condition. But From the present study, it was found that,
benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis showed California Wonder and BARI Mistimorich-1

Table 4. Benefit cost analysis of different sweet pepper varieties grown under different
net systems
Cost of
Yield Rate/ Gross return Net return Benefit
Treatment production
(t/ha) kg(Tk.) (Tk.”000”/ha) (Tk.”000”/ha) cost ratio
(Tk”.000”/ha)
Fine net 26.86 140 3760.4 3049 711.4 5.28
Coarse net 24.07 140 3369.8 2870.9 498.9 6.75
Open Field 7.62 25 190.50 74.4 116.1 1.64
M. S. Islam, A. Akter, M. Z. Akhi and B. Debnath 93

performed well under both net protected Elad, Y., Y. Messika, M. Brand, D. R. David and A.
conditions. Pending further trial it may be Sztejnberg. 2007. Effect of microclimate
said that the above two sweet pepper varieties on Leveillula taurica powdery mildew of
could be cultivated under both net protection sweet pepper. Phytopathol. 97(7): 813-
systems in Sylhet region. 824.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization).
Acknowledgements 1988. Production Year book. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United
The Authors cordially express their Nation, Rome, Italy. 42: 190-193.
appreciation to Krishi Gobeshona Foundation
Greenleaf, W. H. 1986. Pepper Breeding. In:
for financial support to conduct this research Bassett, M. J. (ed.) Breeding Vegetable
work under KGF-BKGET 1st call project (TF Crops. Pp. 67-134. Avi Publishing,
01-C). Westport, Connecticut.
Halim, G. M. A. and M. S. Islam. 2013. Performance
References of sweet pepper under protective
Ahemd, H. A., A. A. Al Faraj and A. M. Abdel- structrure in Gazipur Bangladesh. Int. J.
Ghany. 2016. Shading greenhouses to Environ. 1(1): 1-8.
improve the microclimate, energy and
Islam, M. S. and G. M. A. Halim. 2014. Effect of
water saving in hot regions: a review. Sci.
different tunnel covers on growth and
Hortic. 201: 36–45.
yield of sweet pepper. J. Sylhet Agril.
Aminifard, M. H., H. Aroiee, A. Ameri and H.
Univ. 1(1): 11-14.
Fatemi. 2012. Effect of plant density and
nitrogen fertilizer on growth, yield and Ilic, Z. S., L. Milenkovic, L.Unic,S. Barac,J.
fruit quality of sweet pepper (Capsicum Mastilovic, Z. Kevresan and E. Fallik.
annum L.). Afr. J. Agric. Res. 7(6): 859- 2017. Effect of shading by coloured nets
866. on yield and fruit quality of sweet pepper.
Anonymous. 2009. Annual Report 2008-2009. Zemdirbyste. 104(1):53–62.
Olericulture Division, Bangladesh Jeon, H. J. and H. D. Chung. 1982. Effect of
Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur shade on the flowering, yield and fruit
110 P. composition of different red pepper,
Anonymous. 2010. Annual Report 2009-2010. Capsicum annuum L. cultivars. J. Korean
Olericulture Division, Bangladesh Soc. Hortic. Sci. 23(4): 253-260.
Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur Lal, M., H. S. Kanwar and R. Kanwar. 2014.
116 P. Impact of spacing and training on seed
yield of capsicum, Capsicum annuum L
Bhatt, R. M., N. K. Srinivasa Rao and N. Anand.
under protected conditions. Int. J. Farm
1992. Response of bell-pepper (Capsicum Sci. 4(3): 42-48.
annuum L.) to irradiance-photosynthesis,
Mashabela, M. N., K. M. Selahle, P. Soundy, K.
reproductive attributes and yield. Indian
M. Crosby and D. Sivakumar. 2015.
J. Hortic. 56(1): 62-66.
Bioactive compounds and fruit quality of
Boswell, V. R. 1964. Pepper production. In: Spices. green sweet pepper grown under different
(ed.) Longman Scientific Technical, John colored shade netting during postharvest
Willy and Sons Inc. New York 331 P. storage. J. Food Sci. 80: 2612–2618.
94 Evaluation of Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper

Paul, T. K. 2009. Technology of sweet pepper Shahak, Y. 2008. Photo-selective netting for
production in Bangladesh. PhD Thesis. improved performance of horticultural
Dept of Horticulture, BSMRAU, Salna, crops. A review of ornamental and
Gazipur 225 P.
vegetable studies carried out in Israel.
Rashid, M. A., S. Ahmad, G. M. A. Halim and Acta Hortic. 770: 161–168.
S. N. Alam. 2006. Improved production
technology of vegetable crops (In Shoemaker, J. S. and B. J. E. Teskey. 1955. Pract.
Bengali). Olericulture Division, HRC, Hortic. John Willey and Sons, Inc. New
BARI, Gazipur 158 P. York 371 P.
Rylski, I. and M. Spiegelman. 1982. Effects of Wien, H. C., K. E. Tripp, A. R. Harnandez and A. d.
different diurnal temperature combination
Turner. 1989. Abscission of reproductive
on fruit set of sweet pepper. Sci. Hortic.
17: 101-106. structures in pepper: causes, mechanism
and control. Pp. 150-165. In: Green S. K.
Sattar, M. A., M. S. Alam and F. Islam. 2018.
Performance of sweet pepper genotypes (ed.) Tomato and pepper production in
during late winter. Research Report 2017- the tropics. AVRDC, Taiwan.
2018, Olericulture Division, HRC, BARI, Zende, U. M. 2008. Investigation on production
Gazipur 250 P.
techniques in capsicum under protected
Selahle, K. M., D. Sivakumar, J. Jifon, P. Soundy. cultivation. M. Sc. degree. College of
2015. Postharvest responses of red and
Agriculture, Dharwad, University of
yellow sweet peppers grown under photo-
selective nets. Food Chem. 173: 951–956. Agricultural Sci., Dharwad, India.