Near the beginning of the question period for this recent lecture at the University of Minnesota, I suggested that:
1) nobody has done a good comparison of ideotype breeding with breeding for yield, and
2) many plant breeders who use the word "ideotype" ignore tradeoffs.
The main point of Donald's 1968 paper, which coined the term, "ideotype" was that there are often tradeoffs between individual-plant competitiveness and the collective performance of plant communities, so we can improve the latter by sacrificing the former. That's a major theme of my book, as well.
But both my numbered points above turn out to be wrong, at least partly.
Yuan et al. (2011) compared ideotype breeding with breeding for yield. I criticized some of their choices for "ideotype traits" in my third lecture at the International Rice Research Institute, but it's still an impressive study.
And, rereading Rasmusson's 1984 paper on ideotype breeding, I find extensive discussion of tradeoffs, though he doesn't explicitly mention the tradeoff between competitiveness and yield potential hypothesized by Donald (1968).
I am correcting these errors in an perspective I'm writing for the journal, Evolution.