Effect of nitrogen supply on leaf appearance, leaf growth, leaf nitrogen economy and photosynthetic capacity in maize (Zea mays L.)

Leaf area growth and nitrogen concentration per unit leaf area, N-a (g m(-2) N) are two options plants can use to adapt to nitrogen limitation. Previous work indicated that potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) adapts the size of leaves to maintain Na and photosynthetic capacity per unit leaf area. This paper reports on the effect of N limitation on leaf area production and photosynthetic capacity in maize, a C4 cereal. Maize was grown in two experiments in pots in glasshouses with three (0.84-6.0 g N pot(-1)) and five rates (0.5-6.0 g pot(-1)) of N. Leaf tip and ligule appearance were monitored and final individual leaf area was determined. Changes with leaf age in leaf area, leaf N content and light-saturated photosynthetic capacity, P a,, were measured on two leaves per plant in each experiment. The final area of the largest leaf and total plant leaf area differed by 16 and 29% from the lowest to highest N supply, but leaf appearance rate and the duration of leaf expansion were unaffected. The N concentration of expanding leaves (N-a or %N in dry matter) differed by at least a factor 2 from the lowest to highest N supply. A hyperbolic function described the relation between P-max and N-a. The results confirm the 'maize strategy': leaf N content, photosynthetic capacity, and ultimately radiation use efficiency is more sensitive to nitrogen limitation than are leaf area expansion and light interception. The generality of the findings is discussed and it is suggested that at canopy level species showing the 'potato strategy' can be recognized from little effect of nitrogen supply on radiation use efficiency, while the reverse is true for species showing the 'maize strategy' for adaptation to N limitation. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Relationship between work performance and personality traits in Hong Kong organizational settings

Four hundred and thirty-seven employees from four Hong Kong organizations completed the Traditional Chinese versions of the Fifteen Factor Personality Questionnaire Plus (15FQ+) and the Cross-Cultural Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2) (indigenous scales) and provided objective and memory-based recent performance appraisal scores. A number of significant bivariate correlations were found between personality and performance scores. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that a number of the scales from the 15FQ+ contributed to significantly predicting four of the performance competency dimensions, but that the CPAI-2 indigenous scales contributed no incremental validity in performance prediction over and above the 15FQ+. Results are discussed in the light of previous research and a call made for continued research to further develop and increase the reliability of the Chinese instruments used in the study and to enable generalization of the findings with confidence.

Public and private psychiatry: Can they work together and is it worth the effort?

Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.