Fig. 1. Weekly rainfall and applied irrigation (A), cumulative heat units (B), and quadratic regressions of weekly accumulated heat units against weeks after planting (C) from 1994 to 1997. Rainfall totals do not reflect irrigation applied. *, ** represent significance at P = 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Fig. 2. White blooms m-2 as a function of days after planting for control and flower removal treatments from 1994 to 1997. Numbers in parentheses indicate the probability level associated with significant differences on individual dates.
Fig. 3. Regressions of weekly mean minimum and maximum temperature (T) as a function of weeks after planting for control and flower removal treatments from 1994 to 1997. Regressions were performed using SAS Proc Regression with maximum R2 improvement techniques. ** represents significance at 0.01.
Fig. 4. Canopy photosynthesis per unit ground area as a function of days after planting for control and flower removal treatments from 1995 to 1997. Numbers in parentheses indicate the probability level (P) associated with significant differences on individual dates. The integrated area under the photosynthetic curve was expressed as a percentage of the control. NS signifies no significant difference.
Fig. 5. Chlorophyll concentration of tagged main stem leaves as a function of days after planting (DAP) for control and flower removal treatments from 1994 to 1997. Numbers in parentheses indicate the probability level associated with significant differences on individual dates.
Fig. 6. Chlorophyll concentration of tagged, first position, sympodial leaves as a function of days after planting for control and flower removal treatments from 1994 to 1996. Numbers in parentheses indicate the probability level associated with significant differences on individual dates.
Fig. 7. Anthocyanin concentration of tagged main stem leaves as a function of days after planting for control and flower removal treatments from 1994 to 1997. Absorbances were adjusted to indicate what 1.0 cm2 of leaf would have yielded. Numbers in parentheses indicate the probability level associated with significant differences on individual dates.
Fig. 8. Relationship between anthocyanin level and either chlorophyll a/b ratio (A) or chlorophyll concentration (B). Each symbol represents mean values of four replications within treatment, date, and year.
Fig. 9. Chlorophyll/anthocyanin ratio of tagged, main stem leaves as a function of days after planting (DAP) for control and flower removal treatments from 1994 to 1997. Numbers in parentheses indicate the probability level associated with significant differences on individual dates
Fig. 10. Relationship between canopy photosynthetic rate (Pn) and either chlorophyll concentration (A) or anthocyanin level (B), or chlorophyll/anthocyanin ratio (C). Each symbol represents mean values of four replications within treatment, date, and year. Dates were after 100 d after planting, when canopy photosynthetic rates were declining and their nearest date of corresponding pigment measurement.
