Re: [CH] Chile-Heads Digest V5 #83
Brent Thompson (brent@hplbct.hpl.hp.com)
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:05:58 -0700
> Her rational was that they are in nature an annual plant and that the
> yield during the second season is never as good as the first season's
> yield.
1) Chiles are perenneial in their native, preferred habitat -- though of
course it is true they have become so widespread they are grown in climates
where they cannot survive the winter, hence to persons in those "unnatural"
climates it is "natural" that chiles should be only annuals.
2) Chile plants grow to produce ever greater numbers of fruits
year-after-year, IF they are not stressed in winter. If your plants never
_ever_ experience temperatures below 50 degrees F. (or maybe about 40 F.
for C. pubescens plants), I bet you'll have no questions next year whether
2nd year crop was significantly greater than first year or not (presuming
no disease/bug/other problems of course). If they do experience colder
temps, then degree of damage will depend upon factors such as particular
variety of chile, how cold, duration of cold, water/wind/other stresses
also experienced, etc., and then results of that damage can vary from
almost no detectable effect on the plant all the way down to dead, with
every possible imaginable intermediate step also possible, such as
suspended animation, so slow to re-leaf no flowers ever come, flowers but
only after mid-summer, etc.
--- Brent