In article ,
Sacha writes:
| Jaques d'Alltrades14/4/04 2:23
| | The message
| from Malcolm contains these words:
| In article , Sacha
| writes
|
| I posted an answer upthread, drawn from personal experience.
|
| To which I have just responded. I was now asking Rusty. I'm genuinely
| interested though as yet unconvinced.
|
| Well, I haven't the time to enter into arguments about it or google for
| you. It's been well-known and well publicised to my knowledge ever since
| I began listening to GQT.
|
| I think this is one of those things that many gardeners 'know' but haven't
| studied scientifically. However, as I said upthread, if anyone is
| interested enough to pursue the matter, there are a lot of books on the
| subject.

It has been studied scientifically, and is 'correct', though the
phenomenon isn't quite as simple as that and the explanation isn't
necessarily that one. I don't have a reference, I am afraid.

One other aspect is that plants not under stress often put their
energy into growth and, in many plants, rapid growth and flowering
are more-or-less exclusive. You can see this with spinach, fat
hen and lots of such plants, where a period of stress will stop
their rapid growth and they will then flower (irrespective of
size!)

But exactly what the interactions are I don't know, and I am not
sure that botanists do, either. What is certain is that the
gardeners' rule is effectively correct - stress and flowering are
often linked. Note that, as with many such effects, this applies
to plants adapted to 'seasonal' climates (including the savanna);
those adapted to the humid tropics are more likely to sulk if
stressed.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.