Figure 1.

Relationship between grain protein (expressed as N) and grain price (A$ t−1).

 


Figure 2.

Association between a climate change rationale and the economic, environmental, and social outcomes from the application of a new technology or practice. Coding detailed in Table 4 caption. Prop.=proportion.

 


Figure 3.

Association between a climate change rationale and a combination simple addition of coding scores (1–6) of the economic, environmental, and social outcomes from the application of a new technology or practice. Prop. = proportion.

 


Figure 4.

Gross margin (A$) and wheat yield N response curves for applications of N fertilizer at rates of 0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, and 300 kg ha−1 for wheat grown at Katanning and two sites at Dalby, Australia. The solid line indicates the maximum mean annual gross margin at a N fertilizer cost of A$1 kg−1 The dotted line indicates the maximum mean annual gross margin at a N fertilizer cost of A$2 kg−1

 


Figure 5.

Estimates of mean gross margin (A$) and risk (expressed as variance in yield t ha−1) for wheat grown at Katanning and two sites at Dalby, Australia, for a range of fixed N fertilizer application rates 0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, and 300 kg ha−1 Performance of key environmental indicators, that is, leaching, drainage, runoff) also shown for the three highest mean gross margin estimates normalized across the eight N application rates (where 0 indicates the worst performance and 1 indicates the best performance in terms of environmental outcomes).