Intercropping is considered by its advocates to be a sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically advantageous cropping system. Intercropping systems are complex, with non-uniform competition between the component species within the cropping cycle, typically leading to unequal relative yields making evaluation difficult. This paper is a review of the main existing metrics used in the scientific literature to assess intercropping systems. Their strengths and limitations are discussed. Robust metrics for characterising intercropping systems are proposed. A major limitation is that current metrics assume the same management level between intercropping and monocropping systems and do not consider differences in costs of production. Another drawback is that they assume the component crops in the mixture are of equal value. Moreover, in employing metrics, many studies have considered direct and private costs and benefits only, ignoring indirect and social costs and benefits of intercropping systems per se. Furthermore, production risk and growers’ risk preferences were often overlooked. In evaluating intercropping advantage using data from field trials, four metrics are recommended that collectively take into account all important differences in private costs and benefits between intercropping and monocropping systems, specifically the Land Equivalent Ratio, Yield Ratio, Value Ratio and Net Gross Margin.
A method is described for integrating crop modelling and production economics to quantify optimum applications of multiple nutrients and yield gaps. The method is demonstrated for crop production in the high‐rainfall zone of southern Australia. Data from a biophysical crop model were used to overcome the persistent problem of inadequate experimental data. The Mitscherlich function was expanded to accommodate four variable inputs – nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur – and the expansion path was used to determine the economic optimum application of all four nutrients. Modelling revealed the state‐contingent yield potential and the extent to which unrealised yield could be explained by profit‐maximising behaviour and risk‐aversion by growers. If growers and their advisors were guided by the methods described, they would be better equipped to assess crop nutrient demands and limitations, predict yield potential, additional profit and the risks associated with high input systems in a variable climate. If scientists were more aware of the extra profits and the risks involved (as well as the quantitative relationships between inputs and outputs) when thinking about what to produce and how to do so, they would be more circumspect about the net benefits to be obtained from closing yield gaps.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.