Effects of cultural system (organic and conventional) on growth, photosynthesis and yield components of sweet corn (zea mays L.) under semi-arid environment

Organic sweet maize consists of a new industrial crop product. Field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of cultural systems on growth, photosynthesis and yield components of sweet maize crop (Zea mays L. F-1 hybrid 'Midas'). A randomized complete block design was employed with four replicates per treatment (organic fertilization: cow manure (5, 10 and 20 t ha(-1)), poultry manure (5, 10 and 20 t ha(-1)) and barley mulch (5, 10 and 20 t ha(-1)), synthetic fertilizer (240 kg N ha(-1)): 21-0-0 and control). The lowest dry weight, height and leaf area index and sod organic matter were measured in the control treatment. Organic matter content was proportionate to the amount of manure applied. The control plots had the lowest yield (1593 kg ha(-1)) and the double rate cow manure plots the had,greatest one. (6104 kg ha(-1)). High correlation between sweet corn yield and organic matter was registered. Moreover, the lowest values of 1000-grain weight were obtained with control plot. The fertilizer plot gave values which were similar to the full rate cow manure treatment. The photosynthetic race of the untreated control was significantly lower than that of the other treatments. The phorosynthetic rate increased as poultry manure and barley mulch ram decreased and as cow manure increased. Furthermore the untreated control had the lowest stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content. Our results indicated that sweet corn growth and yield in the organic plots was significantly higher than those in the conventional plots.

Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper.