Land equivalent ratio (LER) is a most widely used indicator of yield advantage of multi-crop farms over sole-crop farms, and usually measured using crop biomass yield per unit area. Most often, crop yields are compared between both systems using the same area. In this paper, we demonstrate that although the yield per unit area and the yield per plant are widely different, LER remains invariant. As a corollary, area time equivalent ratio and land use efficiency, derived from LER, also remain unchanged when using the two different measures of crop yields. We recommend that when the estimation of the exact land area is difficult due to complex crop planting designs, yield per plant estimate is much easier and equally valid for estimation of LER and its derivative indices.

Six multiple-cropping systems composed of: a) turnip (Brassica campestris spp. rapifera), corn (Zea mays L.), and snapbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.); b) turnip, peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), and snapbean; c) turnip, corn, and turnip; d) turnip, peanut, and turnip; e) snapbean, soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.); and f) turnip, cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.], and turnip were subjected to nematicide and weed control programs of cultivation or herbicides. Herbicide programs were superior to cultivation in control of weeds. Weeds remaining in the row following cultivation competed severely with crops. Weed species remaining were altered depending on the method of control and crop. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L. ♯3 CYPES) increased rapidly in all herbicide programs but not in cultivated plots. Pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.) were controlled by herbicides but increased in cultivated plots. Corn, peanut, soybean, and spring snapbean yields were higher in herbicide treatments than in cultivated treatments. Cucumber was the only crop that had increased yields for both main effects, herbicide and nematicide. Turnip was consistently injured in herbicide treatments, which was believed to be caused by residues from previous crops interacting with pathogens and possible allelopathic effects of decaying organic matter.

Field trials were conducted in 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 at Reidsville, Georgia, to evaluate the effects of previously applied residual herbicides on onion growth and bulb production. Before transplanting onion, preplant applications of imazapic at 18 and 36 g ai/ha, diclosulam at 7 and 14 g ai/ha, pyrithiobac at 27 and 54 g ai/ha, trifloxysulfuron at 6.6 and 13.2 g ai/ha, diuron at 224 and 448 g ai/ha, and cloransulam at 22 g ai/ha were made. An untreated control was included for comparison. Trifloxysulfuron at 13.2 g/ha, diclosulam at 14 g/ha, pyrithiobac at 54 g/ha, and cloransulam at 22 g/ha injured onion 26, 73, 86, and 86% in 2003/2004, respectively, and 13 to 44% injury in 2005/2006. These same herbicides also reduced yield. Imazapic and diuron injured transplanted onion 6% during both seasons but did not reduce yield. This research suggests imazapic and diuron restrictions could possibly be reduced. However, the onion rotational restrictions for diclosulam, pyrithiobac, trifloxysulfuron, and cloransulam are accurate.

Results from research on controversial topics are often interpreted according to the world view of the reader. With conflicting results from different researchers or institutions, it is likely that vested financial interests or adherence to conventional wisdom will lead to rejection of science-based conclusions. An example from the past is the comparison of multiple cropping with monocrop systems, where clear advantages of complex systems are discounted by those committed to the monoculture paradigm. A current example is comparison of organic with conventional farming systems and food products, where food price, suspicion about certification and philosophy about perceived ‘non-scientific’ results cloud the technical conclusions. An emerging example is comparisons of local versus global food systems, where multiple issues including comparative advantage and food preferences obscure the key questions of energy investment, food equity and local well-being. A proposed solution to this dilemma is to instead focus scarce research funds on improving the development of alternative agroecosystems, rather than invest human energy into futile comparisons that are unlikely to convince the skeptics. In this way, more creative alternatives can be explored and greater progress made toward food equity and sufficiency.