Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Integrated modelling of efficient crop management strategies in response to MARK

economic damage potentials of the Western Corn Rootworm in Austria
Elisabeth Feusthuber, Hermine Mitter⁎, Martin Schönhart, Erwin Schmid
Institute of Sustainable Economic Development, BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The spread of the Western Corn Rootworm (WCR; Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) challenges farmers in intensive
Western Corn Rootworm maize production regions. We model efficient crop management strategies in response to economic damage
Integrated land use modelling potentials of the invasive WCR in Austria. A spatially explicit integrated modelling framework has been de-
Crop rotation veloped to calculate economic damage potentials from maize yield losses for a past (1975–2005) and a future
Efficient crop management strategy
(2010–2040) period with climate change. The economic damage potentials determine the choice of efficient crop
Climate change
management strategies considering insecticide applications, crop rotations with gradual maize limitations,
fertilization intensities and irrigation. The integrated modelling framework includes the crop rotation model
CropRota, the bio-physical process model EPIC, and the non-linear land use optimization model BiomAT. Typical
crop rotations are simulated by CropRota at the municipality level. They are input to EPIC to simulate crop yields
at the 1 km pixel resolution, which are part of the gross margin calculations entering BiomAT. Results of eco-
nomic damage potentials with a 10% maize yield loss range between 3 €/ha and 180 €/ha, depending on the
location, and increase to between 14 €/ha and 903 €/ha at 50% maize yield loss. The analysis of economic
damage potentials shows a high regional variability. Moreover, the model results show that a decrease in maize
shares combined with moderate fertilization levels is more efficient for WCR control than insecticide use.
However, further crop management strategies have to be developed in order to reduce maize yield and economic
losses.

1. Introduction
Maize yields are at risk due to animal pests, weeds, and pathogens
(Oerke, 2006). The invasive Western Corn Rootworm (WCR; Diabrotica
virgifera virgifera) has become a major maize pest in Europe and its
prevalence is likely to increase under climate change (Diffenbaugh
et al., 2008). Considerable damage has been observed and specific WCR
control is indispensable in regions with intensive maize production.
Integrated pest management (IPM) aims at preventive and need-based
pest control activities and thus prescribes relevant management mea-
sures (Barzman et al., 2015). The efficiency of such management
measures under current and future climate conditions can be analyzed
in integrated modelling approaches by linking climate impacts, bio-
physical processes, agronomic measures and economic evaluation of
damage and abatement costs.
1.1. The Western Corn Rootworm (WCR) in Europe and Austria
The primary habitat and food source of juvenile larvae of WCR are
maize roots, which limits the larvae's ability to complete their life cycle
on most other crops (Spencer et al., 2009). Despite of that, the dispersal
and egg deposition of highly mobile WCR adults has to be observed
carefully (Levay et al., 2015; Meinke et al., 2009). In Europe, the WCR
has been observed and monitored since the early 1990s (Kiss et al.,
2005). Originating from Belgrade in Serbia, the pest spread in eastern
Europe and was first confirmed in Austria in 2002 (Cate, 2002). The
Austrian WCR monitoring shows a distribution of the pest across major
crop production regions (see https://geogis.ages.at/GEOGIS_
DIABROTICA.html for an interactive map). Currently, WCR pressure
is predominant in regions with high maize shares, i.e. where the maize
production area is large relative to the total cropland (Fig. 1).
Schaafsma et al. (1999) suggested to designate regions with maize
shares above 50% as ‘high-risk regions’. When the first WCR adults
were detected, about 21% of maize growing areas in Austria were de-
clared as high-risk regions, with a clear focus in south-eastern Styria
(Baufeld and Enzian, 2005), a hotspot of WCR observations today.
Hotspots of maize production develop in favorable bio-physical
conditions and in intensive, maize-based livestock feeding regions. In

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hermine.mitter@boku.ac.at (H. Mitter).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.07.011
Received 30 March 2017; Received in revised form 14 July 2017; Accepted 14 July 2017
0308-521X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Feusthuber et al.
Fig. 1. Average share of maize on cropland at the municipality level in 2012–2014.
Source: IACS (BMLFUW, 2015a).
Austria, industrial demand for grain maize was almost as high as the
amount used for livestock feeding in the last decade (Sinabell et al.,
2014). Profitability of maize production is attributed to high yield po-
tential and little labor demand compared to the production of other
crops (AWI, 2016). Economic damage from WCR establishment is thus
related to yield loss as well as additional variable costs and labor de-
mand for pest control (Kehlenbeck and Krügener, 2014).
1.2. WCR control
IPM is defined as a sustainable and profitable crop protection
method (Boller et al., 2004). It has been promoted for European crop
production in the Directive 2009/128/EC (European Parliament and
the Council of the European Union, 2009), which has been im-
plemented in Austria at regional level (see e.g. Burgenländisches
Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz, 2012; NÖ Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz,
2012; Steiermärkisches Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz, 2012). A survey
among agricultural extension experts in several European countries
outlines a range of potential WCR control measures within IPM (Meissle
et al., 2010). Irrigation and fertilization may strengthen root re-
generation after larval feeding and support the stabilization of maize
plants after lodging. A robust root system may also be developed by
early or very late planting dates (Meissle et al., 2010). Additionally, the
choice of maize hybrids matters as they show a variability in injury
tolerance and recovering potential (Urías-López and Meinke, 2001).
Biological control options, a key measure in IPM, have been studied in
field experiments by Pilz et al. (2009). Entonompathogenic nematodes
have shown a comparable efficacy to soil insecticides, whereas en-
tomopathogenic fungi resulted in a lower efficacy (Pilz et al., 2009).
Investigations on the phenology of the pest provide knowledge on the
crop-pest-interactions (Spencer et al., 2009) and reveal the spectrum of
WCR management measures (Furlan and Kreutzwieser, 2014). Varia-
bility in the efficacy of measures is observed between study locations
and years and indicates a large impact of the environment and popu-
lation dynamics on actual maize yield losses (Dun et al., 2010; Toepfer
and Kuhlmann, 2005). Besides WCR-specific agents, crop rotations are
seen as an important crop management measure to interrupt the life
cycle of WCR (Kehlenbeck and Krügener, 2014; Schuster, 2016; Szalai
et al., 2014). This is because continuous cultivation and high regional
densities of maize are required for the establishment of WCR popula-
tions. Specialist pests like the WCR are more affected by land use
changes than generalists (O'Rourke and Jones, 2011). This makes crop
94
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
rotations highly efficient, as continuous production of a single crop can
increase its susceptibility to diseases or insect pests (Schaafsma et al.,
1999; Tilman et al., 2002). Bertossa et al. (2013) report on a successful
reduction of WCR by crop rotations in Swiss field trials, but they sug-
gest that immigration from other fields may contribute to the final
number of adults on a rotated field. Moreover, combining pest control
methods is inevitable as a high selection pressure of effective methods
can promote the development of resistant pests (Pimentel, 2005).
The spectrum of WCR control measures indicates that effective
control requires profound knowledge on agro-ecosystems, including
knowledge on pest phenology and behavior as well as on climatic
conditions (Furlan and Kreutzwieser, 2014; Meissle et al., 2010).
Moreover, climate change will likely amplify crop pests and diseases.
Impacts from climate change scenarios on soil temperature and induced
effects on the phenology of WCR have been simulated for Austrian
fields until 2050 and show a shift to earlier pest occurrence (Eitzinger,
2012). Results indicate that the first larvae occur 10–19 days and the
first beetle 16–24 days earlier compared to current conditions at an
average temperature increase of about 2 °C. Consequently, monitoring
of soil temperature is suggested as a tool to improve WCR prediction
and control.
1.3. Economic damage of WCR infestation
Economic implications of WCR for maize production regions have
been assessed by Baufeld and Enzian (2005). They analyzed maize
production data for selected EU member states and Switzerland based
on the above-mentioned classification by Schaafsma et al. (1999), who
define regions with maize shares exceeding 50% of cropland as high-
risk regions. High-risk regions have a significant share of cropland in
continuous maize, which can foster a rapid growth of WCR populations.
In these regions, WCR population densities approach economic
thresholds faster due to a higher colonization rate, compared to low-
risk regions (Baufeld and Enzian, 2005).
Pest spread and the anticipated arrival of WCR in climatically sui-
table production regions in Europe have been simulated by Wesseler
and Fall (2010) in order to quantify potential economic damage in a no-
control situation for several EU member states, which is proposed as an
upper limit of costs for pest control programs. The authors suggest that
spread control by national authorities can delay WCR infestation. WCR
control strategies are analyzed in more detail by Kehlenbeck and
Krügener (2014). They calculate cost-benefit-ratios for WCR
E. Feusthuber et al.
eradication and WCR containment strategies for Germany at the na-
tional and regional level. With respect to environmental impacts from
pesticide applications, containment strategies result in lower cost-ben-
efit ratios than eradication strategies. Yield loss is shown to be the most
critical factor for all strategies. An eradication strategy is only pro-
mising in areas with low maize production and thus useful at single
outbreak events. In infested regions, crop rotations are shown to be a
more beneficial strategy (Kehlenbeck and Krügener, 2014).
Economic impacts of WCR management at farm level have been
calculated by Köhler and Schätzl (2014). A break-even analysis depicts
different sensitivities of cash crop and forage production farms to maize
yield losses from WCR infestation. The highest costs for WCR control
are found for biogas-producing farms, which commonly compete for
maize supply with livestock farms. Measures such as the purchase or
backfitting of machinery, a shift in labor demand and absent markets
for new cultivars can hamper the adoption of alternative crop produc-
tion activities (Köhler and Schätzl, 2014).
The competitiveness of selected WCR control measures was studied
by Dillen et al. (2010), including genetically modified varieties (Bt
maize) which are not approved in most European countries. The results
for Hungary predict the frequency at which a single WCR control
measure would be beneficial. For example, crop rotation has been
identified as beneficial solution in 69% of the simulated years for land-
constrained farmers. Bt maize is valuable for monoculture. Finally, the
cost-effectiveness of control measures also depends on the farm char-
acteristics and the farmer's attitude (Stallman and James, 2015).
In a review on economic implications of invasive species manage-
ment, a comparison of costs and potential damage was identified as
most critical for determining economically optimal crop protection
measures (Epanchin-Niell and Hastings, 2010). Evaluating the optimal
choice of pest control measures is difficult due to uncertainties in da-
mage determination. However, the examples in the previous paragraph
show that quantitative approaches are useful to support the develop-
ment of efficient WCR control measures and related policies.
1.4. Aims and structure of the article
This article aims at developing an integrated modelling framework
(IMF) to assess economic damage potentials occurring from WCR in-
festation as well as efficient crop management strategies for WCR
control in Austria. Changing availability of chemical control agents due
to legal bans as well as recurrent damages emphasize the need for al-
ternative WCR control measures in order to keep WCR populations at
low levels and to reduce the risk of high economic damage. Several
WCR control measures are discussed in detail in the scientific literature
and among agricultural experts. However, integrated quantitative as-
sessments of these measures are still lacking, especially at a high spatial
resolution. Insights on WCR management under specific crop produc-
tion conditions may advance knowledge on potential economic im-
pacts, regional WCR control design, and the performance of specific
control measures. We build on the work by Feusthuber et al., 2017 (in
print) who conclude that the consideration of regional heterogeneities
in both maize management and climate conditions is key for analyzing
WCR damage potentials. Furthermore, recent changes in legal and
policy regulations highlight the societal demand for research results on
future WCR damage potentials and efficient crop management strate-
gies in Austria. Therefore, we aim at investigating spatially explicit
economic damage potentials occurring from WCR infestation under
past and potential future climate conditions. Moreover, we aim at
modelling efficient crop management strategies for WCR control and
marginal opportunity costs of maize abandonment for a past
(1975–2005) and a future period (2010–2040) with three climate
change scenarios at high spatial resolution.
In our analysis, typical crop production systems in Austria are
analyzed in order to compute economic damage potentials of WCR
infestation and develop alternative crop management strategies for
95
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
WCR control. In particular, we include alternative crop rotation systems
at high spatial resolution, which represent different upper limits of
maize cultivation in a rotation. The proposed crop rotation systems
have not been examined in previous economic pest control studies.
Grain sorghum is included in the analysis due to its favorable char-
acteristics as a maize substitute. Furthermore, we model climate change
impacts on crop production potentials and present the implications on
the efficiency of WCR control strategies.
The article is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present the
single models and linkages in the IMF as well as the dataset and ap-
plication design. Section 3 presents results, which are discussed with
respect to the applied methods in Section 4. Finally, we conclude and
address future research demand in Section 5.
2. Material and methods
2.1. An integrated modelling framework (IMF)
We combine the crop rotation model CropRota (Schönhart et al.,
2011b), the statistical climate change model for Austria ACLiREM
(Strauss et al., 2012, 2013), the bio-physical process model EPIC
(Williams, 1995), and the economic land-use optimization model
BiomAT (Mitter et al., 2015b; Stürmer et al., 2013) to conduct a spa-
tially explicit analysis of economic WCR damage potentials and effi-
cient crop management strategies. The IMF is applied for the Austrian
cropland and for past and potential future climate conditions. Fig. 2
portrays the sequence of the four stand-alone models in the IMF, data
incorporation and the model interfaces. Outputs from CropRota and
EPIC are implemented in BiomAT, which is driven by scenarios (see
Section 2.3).
2.1.1. CropRota
CropRota is applied to generate typical crop rotations at the muni-
cipality level. Historical crop shares from a statistical database at mu-
nicipality level and an agronomic score matrix valuing pre crop-main
crop sequences of 23 crops are used in CropRota to derive typical crop
rotations with relative weights (see Table 4 in the Appendix for the full
list of crops considered in CropRota). The relative weights are an in-
dicator for the spatial extent of each crop rotation in a municipality.
The score matrix reflects an average level of agronomic crop compat-
ibilities, but no specific regional or phytosanitary requirements. Cro-
pRota has been identified effective for modelling empirically-based
crop rotations and has been developed and validated by Schönhart et al.
(2011b).
In this analysis, the typical or reference crop rotation system “REF”
represents average cropland use in 2012–2014 in the Austrian muni-
cipalities. Maize dominated crop rotations (including maize mono-
culture) are found in the major production regions of grain and silage
maize. Grain maize is mainly cultivated in central Upper Austria, the
Lower Austrian alpine foreland, northern Burgenland, and south-
eastern Styria. Silage maize is of major importance in western Upper
Austria, the Lower Austrian alpine foreland, and in the inner alpine
valleys of Vorarlberg, Tyrol, Carinthia, and Styria. Up to 23 different
crop rotations are computed per municipality. Each crop rotation
consists of one to six crops in a sequence.
Alternative crop rotation systems with different upper limits on
grain and silage maize shares have been modelled in CropRota to ac-
count for crop rotation legislation of the Austrian federal provinces. In
particular, “75M” and “66M” refer to upper limits for maize in three out
of four years (75%) and two out of three years (66%), respectively. The
most restrictive regulations limit maize to each second year (“50M”) or
fourth year (“25M”). In addition, we have derived maize-free crop ro-
tations (“00M”) for each municipality to account for total maize
abandonment. These alternative crop rotation systems are deviations
from REF, where maize is substituted by grain sorghum with up to 25%
in the crop rotation as well as by increasing shares of winter wheat,
E. Feusthuber et al.
Fig. 2. Integrated modelling framework (IMF).
winter barley or spring barley. In total, we have developed six mutually
exclusive crop rotation systems in this analysis, i.e. REF, 75M, 66M,
50M, 25M, and 00M. Particular crop sequences at municipality level
may be similar or even identical in the reference and one or more al-
ternative crop rotation systems. For instance, a crop rotation where
corn and winter wheat are in a sequence could be part of all crop ro-
tation systems except for “00M”. Shares of grain sorghum in REF refer
to observed grain sorghum production, whereas the shares in the al-
ternative crop rotation systems are computed according to the above-
mentioned assumption. Other policy regulations usually comprise ad-
ditional measures on security zones, crop protection, harvest, second
growth control and machinery hygiene, which are not considered in
this analysis.
2.1.2. ACLiReM
The statistical climate change model for Austria
(ACLiReM—Austrian Climate change Model using Linear Regression;
Strauss et al., 2012, 2013) provides climate data for a past (1975–2005)
and a future period (2010–2040) with climate change scenarios at a
spatial and temporal resolution of 1 km and 1 day. In ACLiREM, a na-
tional temperature trend of about 0.05 °C per year was estimated based
on historical weather station data from 1975 to 2007. This temperature
trend was extrapolated to the future period and is the basis for all cli-
mate change scenarios. For precipitation, the statistical analyses did not
show any significant trend (Strauss et al., 2013). Therefore, three sce-
narios were developed to capture the currently expected bandwidth of
climate projections in Austria until 2040, as suggested by climate data
from Regional Climate Models (RCMs) for Austria (see e.g. Loibl et al.,
2009, 2011; Gobiet et al., 2012, 2014). Mean daily precipitation sums
are assumed to resemble the past (“SIMILAR”) or change by ± 20%
(“WET” and “DRY”), respectively (Strauss et al., 2013). ACLiReM
considers small-scale climate patterns and models their development
until 2040. It is thus an interesting alternative to RCMs, which typically
face high uncertainties in mountainous regions like Austria
(Schiermeier, 2010; Strauss et al., 2013). However, ACLiREM is limited
by the assumption on the linear temperature trend, which may lead to
inaccurate estimations of the damage effect of high temperature on crop
and maize yields (see e.g. Sánchez et al., 2014; Schlenker and Roberts,
2006, 2009).
96
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
2.1.3. EPIC
The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate model (EPIC) has
been developed for the simulation of bio-physical processes in agro-
ecosystems accounting for climate-soil-crop-management interactions
(Williams, 1995). EPIC is applied to Austrian cropland at 1 km pixel
resolution, which constitutes homogenous units of climate-soil-topo-
graphy characteristics (Stürmer et al., 2013). The reference and alter-
native crop rotations generated at municipality level are assigned to the
pixels within each municipality according to their relative weights in
the particular crop rotation system. Timing of crop cultivation (e.g.
sowing and harvesting dates) is specified in EPIC by referring to frac-
tions of potential heat units required for the maturation of crops. Each
crop rotation is modelled with three fertilizer application levels under
rain-fed conditions, i.e. “high”, “moderate”, “low”, and with irrigation
“airr”. The latter is combined with a high fertilization level only. The
crop rotations are simulated in EPIC over a period of 31 years including
a past (1975–2005) and a future period (2010–2040) with three climate
change scenarios (see Section 2.3). EPIC provides outputs on crop yields
and environmental indicators. It should be noted that crop yield re-
ductions due to WCR infestation or other pests and diseases are not
considered in EPIC. Spatial variation of crop yields results from the bio-
physical conditions at the 1 km pixel level as well as the particular crop
rotation and crop management. Fractional maize yield losses due to
WCR infestation are calculated based on EPIC outputs of REF (see
Section 2.3).
2.1.4. BiomAT
BiomAT is a spatially explicit bottom-up agricultural land use op-
timization model for Austria (Mitter et al., 2015b; Stürmer et al., 2013)
and extended by a non-linear objective function in this analysis. A Posi-
tive Mathematical Programming (PMP) approach (Howitt, 1995) is
used to calibrate BiomAT to the REF crop rotation system. As typical for
PMP, we apply a two-step procedure. First, we solve a linear model with
calibration constraints to derive shadow prices for all crop rotation
systems and cropland pixels. Second, the derived shadow prices are
used as parameters in the non-linear objective function. The resulting
non-linear model then reproduces the observed cropland use without
the calibration constraint. The derived shadow prices are also used in
the analysis of climate change scenarios, insecticide efficiency and
maize yield loss assumptions. BiomAT is written in the General Alge-
braic Modeling System (GAMS). The dimensions of the model are i
E. Feusthuber et al.
pixels with i = {1, … , 36498}, m crop management variants with m =
{high, moderate, low [fertilization], irrigation} and r crop rotations sys-
tems with r = {REF, 75M, 66M, 50M, 25M, 00M}.
Eqs.(1)–(3) represent the non-linear BiomAT.
η ∼∝
i, rXi, r
⎧∑ 0 intensity levels. In case of a severe beetle infestation, the insecticide is
⎪ i, r ∝ x 0 (∝−1) , x i, r > 0
max NR = ∑ (GMi, m, r Xi, m, r )−
⎨
i, r
∼
i , m, r ⎪ ∑i, r ηi, r Xi, r , x i0, r = 0
⎩
∑ Xi,m,r ≤ bi ∀i
m, r
∼
∑ Xi,m,r = Xi, r ∀ i, r
m (3)
∑ Xi,m,r = x i0, r ∀ i, r
m
The total net return (NR, in €) of crop production is maximized in
the objective function (1). The first part of this function sums the
product of gross margins (GM) and the cropland use variable (X) in
pixel i, considering crop management m and crop rotation system r. The
second part of the objective function represents the PMP cost function:
∼ The integrated modelling framework presented in Section 2.1. is
the product of shadow prices (η) and the cropland use variable X (to
the power of the PMP parameter ∝, which we assume 2), which is di-
vided by the observed land use (x0) represented by the REF crop rota-
tion system in pixel i. The non-linear part of the cost function is used if
the observed cropland is greater than zero (i.e. REF). Otherwise, the
linear part is used in the model for mathematical reasons to avoid a
division by zero in the non-linear part of the cost function (i.e. xi , r0 = 0
for 75M, 66M, 50M, 25M, and 00M). Eq.(2) restricts X to the cropland
endowment b (in ha) in all pixels i.
The shadow prices (η) of cropland use in pixel i and crop rotation
system r are derived in a linear BiomAT model by maximizing net re-
turns (∑i, m, r GMi, m, r Xi, m, r ) subject to constraint 4, which forces the
model to take positive values for the REF crop rotation system and zero
values for all other crop rotation systems (i.e. 75M, 66M, 50M, 25M,
00M). Hence, shadow prices (η) are available for all crop rotation sys-
tems r and pixels i. The gross margins (GM) consist of revenues from
crop production minus variable production costs. Policy premiums are
included in the gross margins if immediately attributable to the land use
(e.g. decoupled direct payments).
2.2. Data
The database of the Integrated Administration and Control System
(IACS) includes 36,498 cropland pixels of 1 km resolution
(Guggenberger et al., 2012), which represent about 1.35 million ha of
cropland in Austria in 2014 (BMLFUW, 2015b). Thereof, about
277,800 ha or 21% are used for the production of grain maize and si-
lage maize. Historical cropping data are available from IACS data at the
municipality level (BMLFUW, 2015a) and are input to CropRota (see
Section 2.1.1). Each cropland pixel contains information on mean ele-
vation and slope as well as on soil properties including silt, sand and
clay contents, depth, humus content, pH, CaCO3 content and the con-
tent of coarse fragments per soil layer (BMLFUW, 2016). All of them are
input in EPIC.
We employ standard variable production costs for gross margin
calculations from the Austrian Federal Institute of Agricultural
Economics (AWI, 2016). The database provides 5-year average pro-
ducer prices (2010–2014) and variable production costs for standard
crop management in Austria. Variable production costs comprise costs
for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, labor, insurance, drying and
irrigation (AWI, 2016). Costs for pesticides are distinguished between
wet and dry cropping conditions using a threshold of 650 mm of annual
precipitation (Strauss et al., 2013). The application rates and costs of
optional insecticide treatment for WCR control are provided by the
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
provincial Chamber of Agriculture in Styria (Fragner, 2016, personal
comm.). In particular, Biscaya, an insecticide based on the active in-
gredient Thiacloprid, can be applied at a rate of 0.3 l/ha using a high-
clearance tractor. One application of Biscaya is considered in intensive
maize crop rotations systems and with low and moderate fertilization
approved for two-time application, which we include in the fertilization
(1) application levels high and high with irrigation. Standard crop man-
agement data are not available for grain sorghum, which is considered
as alternative crop to maize in some crop rotations. We therefore esti-
(2) mate variable production costs based on information provided by
Eberdorfer (2016, personal comm.), who have experience on grain
sorghum varieties and management from field experiments. Table 4 in
the Appendix presents variable production costs, labor demand and
commodity prices for all crops. Agri-environmental premiums are
(4) considered in gross margin calculations for moderate and low fertili-
zation applications (50 €/ha and 115 €/ha, respectively). Additionally,
a single farm payment of 283 €/ha cropland is included.
2.3. IMF application design
applied to assess spatially explicit economic damage potentials from
WCR and efficient crop management strategies for WCR control. In our
analysis, we consider the past (1975–2005) and the future period
(2010–2040) with three climate change scenarios, i.e. SIMILAR, WET,
and DRY.
2.3.1. Economic damage potentials from WCR infestation
We calculate potential economic damage from WCR infestation
based on spatially explicit maize crop yield simulations from EPIC. Crop
damage usually occurs when crop growth is reduced by the pest and no
or insufficient pest control measures are applied. It should be noted that
historically observed WCR infestation and induced yield losses were not
considered in the analysis, because systematic recording of damages in
maize due to WCR is not available for Austria. For the damage calcu-
lations, we therefore consider six levels of maize yield losses using the
maize yields of the REF crop rotation system (i.e. 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%,
70% and 100% yield loss). The economic damage is computed for each
pixel by the difference of gross margins with and without maize yield
losses in the crop rotations. Production costs and producer prices are
assumed to remain constant and depict a crop management planning
process without expected WCR infestation. The maize harvesting costs
are omitted under the assumption of a 100% yield loss level.
2.3.2. Crop management strategies for WCR control
Pest control strategies include acute and preventive measures. They
differ in costs and duration with respect to feasible effects on pest
control. We seek for efficient crop management responses to WCR da-
mage potentials at the pixel level. Thereby, economic damage potential
in maize production from six maize yield loss levels (see Section 2.3.1)
acts as driver for crop rotational and management responses including
insecticide application. We take into account variability in insecticide
efficiency by assuming two rates of prevented yield losses. Insecticide
application is limited to intensive maize crop rotation systems, i.e. 75M
and 66M. Insecticides are not applied in other crop rotations systems,
i.e. 50M, 25M, and 00M as well as REF. In BiomAT, insecticide effi-
ciency of 100% (90%) is considered as a 0% (10%) maize yield loss in
crop rotation systems 75M and 66M. Table 4 in the Appendix presents
costs for insecticide applications. Hence, BiomAT is solved for the
combinations of the six levels of maize yield losses and the two in-
secticide efficiency rates. Table 1 gives an overview on the specification
of crop management strategies for WCR control. The robustness of crop
management strategies is analyzed by comparing impacts from WCR on
maize production under climate change.
97
E. Feusthuber et al. Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

Table 1 Apparently, the impact of climate change declines at increasing maize

Specification of crop management strategies for WCR control. abandonment level.
Crop rotation Maize limit Insecticide Insecticide
system application efficiency 3.2. Economic damage potentials from different maize yield loss levels

REFa No No NA Regions with high shares of maize on cropland, which are particu-
75M Maize in max. 3 Yesb 100%
larly susceptible to economic damage from WCR infestation, are pre-
out of 4 years 90%
66M Maize in max. 2 Yesb 100% sented in Fig. 1. The results of our calculations show a large spatial
out of 3 years 90% variability in the damage potential of WCR on gross margins (Fig. 4).
50M Maize in max. 1 No NA For instance, a maize yield loss of 10% reduces gross margins by 3 €/ha
out of 2 years
to 180 €/ha with an average of 49 €/ha at the national level. At 50%
25M Maize in max. 1 No NA
out of 4 years
maize yield loss, gross margins would be reduced by 14 €/ha to 903 €/
00M No maize No NA ha with an average of 244 €/ha. A maize yield loss of 100% would
reduce gross margins between 29 €/ha and 1803 €/ha with an average
“Reference crop rotation system” in Fig. 2. of 488 €/ha. A total maize yield loss can be a consequence of a large
a

b
One insecticide application in fertilization levels low and moderate; two insecticide
WCR population on a field in combination with adverse weather con-
applications in fertilization levels high and high with irrigation.
ditions. The spatial variability of economic damage potential of maize
yield losses corresponds with regional maize densities shown in Fig. 1.
3. Results
For example, regions with a high maize share are observed in the South-
East of Austria, a region which is prone to high maize yield losses due to
3.1. Marginal opportunity costs of maize abandonment
WCR pressure, thus showing a high economic damage potential (Fig. 4).
These results are confirmed by WCR monitoring results, which identify
We compute marginal opportunity costs of gradually reducing
the South-East of Austria as national hotspot.
maize areas in the cropland pixels by 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and
The results of economic damage potentials with 50% maize yield
100% based on the crop rotation system REF which is substituted by
losses are summarized for past and future periods with climate change
crop rotation system “00M”. The boxplots in Fig. 3 show that median
scenarios SIMILAR, WET and DRY in Fig. 5. The figure shows economic
and variability of marginal opportunity costs are increasing with the
damage potentials by quartiles of maize shares on cropland in the
level of maize area abandonment. For instance, at 10%, 50% and 100%
municipality (i.e. maize shares on cropland ≤ 25% (Quartile
maize area abandonment levels, the medians are 182 €/ha, 907 €/ha
1), > 25–50% (Quartile 2), > 50–75% (Quartile 3), and > 75%
and 1813 €/ha, the lower quartiles 124 €/ha, 618 €/ha, and 1235 €/ha,
(Quartile 4)). Quartiles 3 and 4 are considered as high-risk regions as
the higher quartiles 273 €/ha, 1364 €/ha, and 2728 €/ha, and the
described in Section 1.1.
means 206 €/ha, 1030 €/ha and 2060 €/ha, respectively. It should be
The mean damage in Quartiles 1 and 2 is highest in DRY, i.e. 182 €/
noted that outliers are not presented in Fig. 3 and may originate from
ha and 236 €/ha. By contrast, the mean damage is highest in SIMILAR
different sources. The spatial distribution of marginal opportunity costs
(377 €/ha) in Quartile 3, and highest in the past (536 €/ha) in Quartile
at a reduction of maize areas by 50% are presented in Fig. 8 in the
4. The variability in economic damage is similar within the climate
Appendix. The map reveals a considerable spatial variability with
scenarios among the Quartiles 1 to 4. The lower quartiles are between
comparably low opportunity costs in maize production hotspots such as
90 €/ha in Quartile 1 and 308 €/ha in Quartile 4. The upper quartiles
south-eastern Styria. It indicates that maize crop substitutes such as
are between 211 €/ha in Quartile 1 and 763 €/ha in Quartile 4. The
grain sorghum provide reasonable gross margins in these hotspots
median damage among climate scenarios is between 138 €/ha in
areas. In other areas, the gross margin differences between maize and
Quartile 1 and 540 €/ha in Quartile 4. It should be noted that climate
substitute crops (see Section 2.1.1) are rather large.
change impacts only affect crop yields and not the life cycle of WCR in
The impacts of climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET and DRY on
our analysis.
marginal opportunity costs of maize area abandonment are shown in
Fig. 9 in the Appendix. In general, climate change leads to lower
3.3. Efficient crop management strategies for WCR control
average but higher variability of marginal opportunity costs of maize
abandonment. For instance, at a reduction of maize areas by 10–20%,
We model efficient crop management strategies for the past and the
the marginal opportunity costs are lower in almost 75% of the cropland
future period with three climate change scenarios driven by six maize
pixels compared to the past period. However, the spatial variability of
yield loss levels. The results for the past are presented at an aggregated
marginal opportunity costs is higher (see Fig. 9 in the Appendix).
level for Austria in Table 2. The results for the future period with

Fig. 3. Boxplots of marginal opportunity costs in €/ha for

the past period (1975–2005) by increasing abandonment of
maize areas in Austria. Note: Outliers are not presented.

98
E. Feusthuber et al. Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

Fig. 4. Average economic damage potentials as reduction of gross margins in €/ha with 50% maize yield loss on Austrian cropland for the past period (1975–2005). Note: No cropland in
white area.

climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET, and DRY are presented in
Table 5 in the Appendix.
In the calibrated reference situation, i.e. REF and the past period,
grain maize is produced on 16% of total cropland or 212,804 ha, and
silage maize on 5% or 65,003 ha in Austria. A 10% maize yield loss
would lead to a 7% reduction of maize areas in Austria. At the 50%
maize yield loss level, crop rotation systems 75M, 66M, 50M, 25M, and
00M would be adjusted between 4% and 6% compared to the calibrated
reference situation and assuming 100% efficiency in insecticide appli-
cations (see Fig. 6). The maize area would decline by 30% with an
average reduction of 36% in gross margins (not shown in the table).
With maize yield losses above 50% and reduced insecticide efficiency
(i.e. 90%), the model expands the adoption of alternative crop rotations
systems with maize shares of 50% or less, i.e. 50M, 25M or 00M. At an
assumed yield loss level of 100%, maize is produced on 62% of the
reference maize area (i.e. 171,188 ha) in the past period. Insecticide
applications are not profitable on many locations even at 100% maize
yield loss in spite of insecticide efficiency of 100%.
The rate at which crop yields can be sustained by the application of
an insecticide is considerably important for crop management choices.
We model two insecticide efficiency rates of 100% and 90%, whereby
the total maize areas decrease more at 90% than at 100% insecticide
efficiency (except at 10% maize yield loss). Interestingly, the total net
return from crop production does not change considerably between the
two insecticide efficiencies. Gross margins are partially compensated by
a reduction in fertilizer use in granting access to agri-environmental
payments.
The economic damage potentials from maize yield losses incentivize
higher adoption of moderate and low fertilization intensity levels,
which increase by 14% compared to the reference situation (see Fig. 7).
The change in crop rotations causes a shift in crop distribution, which is
determined by our specification of alternative crop rotations in Section
2.1.1. At a maize yield loss level of 100% and an insecticide efficiency
of 100%, grain sorghum is the most important maize substitute with
50,770 ha (+452%). In addition, soybean increases by 51,975 ha
(+ 28%), winter barley by 86,898 ha (+24%), faba bean by 8242 ha
(+ 24%), and sunflower by 27,357 ha (+21%; not shown in the table).
3.4. Efficient crop management strategies under climate change
We assess efficient crop management strategies under the three
climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET, and DRY. The simulated crop
yields differ by climate change scenario, whereas prices, costs, and
policy premiums are kept constant. As a response to climate change

Fig. 5. Boxplots of economic damage potentials as reduction of gross margins in €/ha with 50% maize yield loss for past (1975–2005) and future periods (2010–2040) with climate
change scenarios SIMILAR, WET and DRY by quartiles of maize shares on cropland in municipalities. Note: Outliers are not presented.

99
E. Feusthuber et al. Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

Table 2
Efficient crop management strategies in % of total cropland for the past period (1975–2005) by assumptions on insecticide efficiency and maize yield loss level.

Crop rotation system REF 75M 66M 50M 25M 00M

Insecticide efficiencya 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90%
Maize yield loss level 0% 100.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 –
10% 94.6 97.2 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.9
20% 89.2 89.2 1.6 0.3 1.9 0.3 2.3 3.2 2.5 3.5 2.5 3.5
30% 84.0 84.0 2.4 0.4 2.8 0.4 3.3 4.7 3.7 5.2 3.8 5.3
50% 74.2 74.3 3.9 0.7 4.5 0.7 5.4 7.5 6.0 8.3 6.0 8.5
70% 66.6 66.6 5.0 0.9 5.6 1.0 6.9 9.6 7.9 10.8 8.0 11.1
100% 63.3 63.1 5.5 1.0 6.2 1.1 7.5 10.6 8.7 11.9 8.8 12.3

a
Insecticides are only applied in crop rotation systems 75M and 66M where insecticide efficiency of 100% (90%) is considered as a 0% (10%) maize yield loss. No additional maize
yield loss is considered in crop rotation systems 50M, 25M, and 00M under both insecticide efficiency rates.

impacts and compared to the past, model results reveal an increase in
alternative crop rotation systems (see Table 5 in the Appendix), higher
fertilization and irrigation intensities (see Fig. 7), and higher average
gross margins, regardless of the climate change scenario and the yield
loss level.
The share of the REF crop rotation system is reduced in all three
climate change scenarios in favor of alternative crop rotation systems
(see Table 2 and Table 5 in the Appendix). It implies that crop rotation
choices are affected by climate change impacts even without specific
pest pressure. It should be noted that an increase in maize area beyond
REF is not considered in this analysis. Hence, grain maize areas decline
by 8% to 9% or 16,500 ha (SIMILAR) to 18,100 ha (DRY) and silage
maize areas by 16% to 18% or 10,100 ha (WET) to 11,900 ha (DRY)
among the climate scenarios and assuming no maize yield loss (see
Table 3). However, the rate of decline in maize areas increases with the
level of maize yield losses.
In climate change scenario SIMILAR, average grain maize yields
increase by 4% and silage maize yields by 6%, in comparison to the past
period. The adoption of maize-free crop rotations increases significantly
(see e.g. Fig. 6). Without maize yield losses, the shares of high fertili-
zation and irrigation increase by 80% and 44% at the expense of
moderate and low fertilization, compared to the past period. However,
fertilization intensities slightly shift from high to moderate and low
levels with increasing yield losses (see Fig. 7). The distribution of fer-
tilization levels is similar for the two insecticide efficiency levels. At
zero maize yield loss, maize area decreases by 10% in SIMILAR com-
pared to the past (see Table 3). At 100% maize yield losses, maize area
is reduced by 34% compared to the past, which is in line with the al-
ternative crop rotation choices in SIMILAR.
In scenario WET, grain maize yields increase by 3% and silage maize
yields by 7% on average, compared to the past. Average gross margins
from crop production are the highest among all scenarios. The dis-
tributions of crop rotation systems among the maize yield loss levels are
similar to climate change scenario SIMILAR. Irrigated cropland is
halved compared to the past, and reduced by two thirds compared to
SIMILAR. The adoption of low fertilization levels slightly decreases
compared to SIMILAR, whereas the share of high fertilization without
irrigation is largest among all climate change scenarios. At the same
time, the share of high fertilization strongly increases compared to the
past period at the expense of high fertilization with irrigation and low
fertilization. Although maize area in WET is slightly reduced without
maize yield losses compared to SIMILAR (see Table 3), the respective
area is larger at all other maize yield loss levels.
In scenario DRY, grain maize and silage maize yields increase at a
similar rate of 5% on average, compared to the past period. Average
gross margins increase compared to the past, but at a much lower rate
than in SIMILAR and WET. The adoption of alternative crop rotation
systems is analog to SIMILAR and WET, but there is a significant shift in
irrigation. The share of irrigated cropland increases by 233% (i.e.
391,000 ha) compared to the past period, and by 130% (i.e.

Fig. 6. Percentage shares of crop rotation systems with 50%

maize yield loss for the past (1975–2005) and future
(2010–2040) periods with climate change scenarios
SIMILAR, WET, and DRY by 90% and 100% insecticide ef-
ficiency rates.

100
E. Feusthuber et al. Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

Fig. 7. Shares of crop management intensities including low, moderate and high fertilization levels and irrigation for the past (1975–2005) and future (2010–2040) periods with climate
change scenarios SIMILAR, WET, and DRY by maize yield loss levels.

317,000 ha) compared to SIMILAR. Referring to the situation without
maize yield loss, cropland with low or moderate fertilization levels
decline by 42% compared to the past and by 25% compared to SIMILAR
and WET. At high yield loss levels (i.e. 50% upwards), maize area in
climate change scenario DRY increases compared to SIMILAR and WET,
whereas the area decreases at lower yield loss levels. However, maize
area decreases in DRY compared to the past period at all yield loss
levels (see Table 3).
4. Discussion
In this article, an integrated modelling framework is applied to
analyze economic damage potentials from WCR infestation and effi-
cient crop management strategies at 1 km spatial resolution for Austria.
The discussion is divided into two subsections. First, we discuss the
contribution of the integrated modelling results for managing WCR
infestation. Second, we discuss challenges of integrating crop pests into
economic modelling approaches and comment on the applied methods
and model assumptions as well as related uncertainties.
4.1. Efficient WCR control strategies in Austrian crop production
High regional maize shares and the recurrent use of maize in crop
rotations predetermine the economic damage potential of a highly
mobile pest with a high reproduction potential like WCR. For farmers,
the risk of economic damage from maize yield losses can be balanced
with the adoption of diversified and eventually less profitable crop
rotations. However, WCR control is rarely undertaken by farmers who
have not experienced yield losses so far (Kehlenbeck and Krügener,
2014). The model results include high maize yield loss levels of 50%,
70% and 100%, which demonstrate a substantial damage potential on
Austrian maize fields. High damage potentials usually occur at hotspots

Table 3
Impact of climate change on total maize area (ha), total maize production (t), and average and standard deviation of maize yields (t/ha) with 0% maize yield loss level and 100%
insecticide efficiency. Model results are shown for the past (1975–2005) and future (2010–2040) periods with climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET, and DRY.

Climate scenario Total maize area (ha) Total maize production (t) Average (std. dev.) maize yields (t/ha)

Grain maize Silage maize Grain maize Silage maize Grain maize Silage maize

PAST 212,804 65,003 2,085,370 2,734,193 9.7 (4.6) 41.9 (18.1)

SIMILAR 196,277 54,521 1,932,544 2,354,353 9.9 (4.9) 43.8 (19.7)
WET 195,086 54,857 1,883,903 2,376,852 9.8 (4.8) 44.1 (19.9)
DRY 194,671 53,070 1,967,650 2,313,792 10.0 (5.0) 43.2 (19.4)

101
E. Feusthuber et al.
with considerable WCR populations, but are balanced at the regional
scale. The crop rotations 75M and 66M combined with insecticide ap-
plications show a relatively low adoption rate in our scenarios. This is
surprising as we assume high insecticide efficiencies at 90% and 100%,
respectively. However, our model results suggest that the application of
insecticides to prevent maize yield losses is economically unfavorable
for many locations compared to a reduction of maize shares in the crop
rotations. At lower maize yield loss levels, the crop rotation system REF
is dominating, which is reasonable as the damage potential does not
exceed the costs of reduced maize shares in combination with addi-
tional costs for insecticide applications. At higher maize yield loss le-
vels, the diversification of crop rotation distributions towards 50M,
25M and 00M reveals that it is more efficient to reduce maize shares in
the crop rotation than to apply insecticides. The results on insecticide
efficiency reinforce that benefits from insecticide applications diminish
at lower efficiency levels, even for crops with high gross margin po-
tentials like maize. Contrary to the model set-up, limited information
challenges the identification of optimal WCR control measures for
farmers (Epanchin-Niell and Hastings, 2010). With regard to the prin-
ciples of IPM, pheromone traps can overcome information gaps by
predicting a potential need of insecticide applications. Traps cost about
50 € each (i.e. average costs for trap, lure and labor; Kehlenbeck and
Krügener, 2014), which is less than the costs of a single insecticide
application on 1 ha of cropland. They may serve as a valuable tool to
reduce costs in regions with potential demand for chemical WCR con-
trol.
In addition to crop rotations, fertilization intensity levels and irri-
gation are part of crop management choices. Options in crop manage-
ment strategies for WCR control include adjustments in rotational
maize shares, fertilization levels, irrigation, and insecticide treatments.
In the past period, the adoption rate of crop managements with high
fertilization levels decreases with increasing maize yield loss levels and
declining shares of maize in the crop rotations. The fertilization in-
tensity increases in our climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET, and
DRY. For instance, crop managements with high fertilization including
irrigation are applied on > 50% of the cropland with maize in the ro-
tation in scenario DRY. This result is in-line with other studies sug-
gesting intensification as a main climate change adaptation response on
Austrian cropland (Mitter et al., 2015a). Increasing levels of maize yield
losses foster the adoption of crop rotations with low maize shares if
control agents are not cost-effective even under assumed 100% in-
secticide efficiency. Additionally, high levels of fertilization intensities
under climate change scenarios indicate divergent crop production and
crop management strategies. However, the choice of fertilization in-
tensities is primarily economically driven.
Lower maize shares in the crop rotations, as suggested by the model
results, are a challenge for farms which strongly depend on maize
production, e.g. for feeding livestock or for biogas production.
However, we have not differentiated between farm types in the analysis
even though previous investigations have shown that the efficiency of
WCR control strategies may vary by farm types involved in the culti-
vation of maize (see e.g. Dillen et al., 2010; Köhler and Schätzl, 2014).
The production potential of grain sorghum as maize substitute is con-
firmed by our results. In the farming practice, cultivation methods for
grain sorghum have to be tested and improved in order to promote its
adoption by farmers. A key determinant for grain sorghum establish-
ment is its suitability in livestock feeding diets and the technical im-
plementation into existing farm facilities (Mayer, 2016, pers. comm.).
Operational constraints on highly specialized livestock producing farms
can also reduce the substitution opportunity of maize (Guggenberger
et al., 2012).
Our results indicate high opportunity costs of maize abandonment
on a range of locations. These findings confirm that established invasive
pests can cause high damage as well as high control costs (Epanchin-
102
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
Niell and Hastings, 2010). Consequently, strict control policies not only
reduce yield losses, but also trigger high compliance costs (Carrasco
et al., 2012). Hence, an integrated WCR control strategy should target
regional demands and support alternative crop production opportu-
nities.
4.2. Integrated modelling for the assessment of WCR control
Spatially explicit assessments of pest management are multifaceted
as they include theories and methods from different scientific dis-
ciplines. Our integrated modelling framework aims at the inclusion of a
specific crop-pest complex into economic land use optimization. Crop
management modelling at the national level is feasible at the 1 km
spatial resolution as bio-physical conditions and land use data are
available at this resolution. This may be insufficient for the analysis of
pest management at the farm or field level because of individual phy-
tosanitary needs and farm endowments. Other yield reducing factors
(i.e. weeds, pests, diseases, pollutants; van Ittersum et al., 2013) are
currently not considered in the analysis and are not available from
other sources. We assume certain maize yield loss levels for Austrian
cropland to assess economic damage potentials from WCR infestation
and to assess efficient crop management strategies for WCR control
under various climate change scenarios. This is a prerequisite simpli-
fication in the current structure of the IMF, but disconnects the ap-
proach from a particular pest and its life cycle. Already experienced
yield losses from WCR infestation are not considered in the analysis due
to data limitations. Hence, we show the responses in efficient crop
management by capturing the full spectrum of yield loss levels even
under past and potential future climate conditions. With respect to WCR
control, the IMF comprehensively covers the main control strategy (i.e.
crop rotations), which is sufficiently represented at the pixel level.
The non-linear objective function in BiomAT enables calibration of
historically based crop management choices by including a range of
alternative crop rotation systems. This is important as economic opti-
mization often results in a narrow set of production activities instead of
a realistic diversification (Heckelei et al., 2012). Furthermore, the
model results include efficient crop management responses under fu-
ture climate conditions. In this context, land use change is mainly
driven by crop yield changes, because dynamic crop rotations or other
crop management strategies like dynamic pest response or adaptation
to changing economic and political conditions are beyond the scope of
our model structure.
Further studies should address these to examine their relevance and
to assess diversified management results. For example, demand-based
insecticide applications can be analyzed by a dynamic modelling ap-
proach to comply with IPM principles. Regional WCR incidence could
be derived from monitoring results. Moreover, empirical investigations
of insecticide efficiencies could provide important information in
modelling exercises. Yet, the integration of a complete pest-agent-crop-
response network including economic assessment is difficult, but ne-
cessary to develop efficient management strategies. Similarly, maize
yield losses from a specific WCR infestation are difficult to monitor at
regional scale due to a broad range of influencing variables. Unlike in
our model assumptions, maize yield losses cannot be ruled out in crop
rotations with low maize shares (i.e. 50% maize or less). Our yield loss
assumptions are convenient to compute economic damage potentials in
assessing efficient crop management strategies of WCR control. In this
study, uniform cost structures and crop prices do not take into account
the heterogeneity of agricultural production in Austria including dif-
ferent farm sizes and production technologies as well as consequences
for maize supply from shifts in maize production. This would be re-
levant for farm size-dependent insecticide management shown by
Schaafsma et al. (1999). Other farm-specific management subjects
closely related to maize production like livestock feeding and policy
E. Feusthuber et al. Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

compliance can be assessed within bio-economic farm models like
FAMOS[space], an expanded version of FAMOS (FArM Optimization
System; Schmid, 2004; Schönhart et al., 2011a). Sector models would
enable the analysis of extensive impacts of land use change, especially
on supply and demand including price and cost structures. Further re-
search should focus on attitudes and behavioral dynamics of farmers,
which have been proven to be important by Carrasco et al. (2012). The
case of controlling invasive species can elicit an interesting set of pre-
ferences towards preventive and non-preventive strategies as has been
demonstrated by Finnoff et al. (2007). They discovered different risk
aversion characteristics for ecological and economic perspectives which
may be relevant for policy planners of pest control.
5. Conclusions
Farmers in maize-intensive production regions are increasingly
aware of risks to cropping systems resulting from pests and climate
change. Robust cropping systems and adequate policies have to be
designed to tackle the acceleration of insect population growth and
dispersal due to an increase in temperature (Lamichhane et al., 2014).
Our modelling framework covers Austrian cropland at a high spatial
resolution and captures observed historical cropland use, bio-physical
characteristics and economic evaluation of damages and abatement
costs. The IMF enables us to assess economic damage potentials from
WCR as well as efficient crop management strategies considering cli-
mate change. So far, impacts of a specific pest have rarely been con-
sidered in economic assessments due to limited data on pest population,
related losses and control efficiency.
The assessment of efficient crop management strategies including
crop rotational restrictions reveals a major trade-off in controlling WCR
infestations: In high-risk regions, the diversification of crop rotations
can be a tool to reduce the risk of economic damage, but might si-
multaneously modify the typical regional production characteristics.
Additionally, the model results indicate an increase in fertilization in-
tensity, which is larger in climate change scenarios than in adaptation
to maize yield loss under past climate conditions. In conclusion, WCR
control requires targeted crop management measures and adaptive
capacity of farmers, which can be enhanced by scientific analysis and
dissemination of the key findings. WCR policies should address regional
heterogeneity of economic damage potentials, which are closely cor-
related with maize shares and yield potentials in cropping systems.
While the implementation of WCR specific policies is proceeding in
Austria, empirical evidence on efficient strategies is not yet available.
Future research should integrate WCR specific policies into the full
setting of agricultural policies to assess additional crop management
adaptation options. Crop rotation analysis may be enhanced by com-
prehensively considering crop-pest-interactions to take into account
multiple (regional) crop protection requirements. Finally, WCR control
will benefit from advanced farm and farmer type specific information
systems with a high spatial and temporal resolution. WCR monitoring
may aid in damage prevention and the reduction of control costs.
Acknowledgements
The presented results are derived from the project “Water resources
under climatic stress. An integrated assessment of impacts on water
availability and water quality under changing climate and land use”
(Aqua-Stress; KR13AC6K11034) and the project “Combined weather
related risk assessment monitor for tailoring climate change adaptation
in Austrian crop production” (COMBIRISK; KR15AC8K12614). Both
projects are funded within the Austrian Climate Research Program
(ACRP) of the Climate and Energy Fund.

Appendix A

Table 4
Commodity prices, labor demand and variable production costs for standard crop management.

Crop Price (€/t) Labor (h/ha) Variable costs (€/ha) Crop protection expenditures (€/ha)

Dry regions Wet regions

Low Moderate High/airr Low Moderate High/airr

Winter wheat 163.9 6.7 373.8 34.3 38.2 69.6 80.1 115.1 150.8
Durum wheat 229.7 6.8 411.3 39.4 69.0 69.0 39.4 69.0 69.0
Rye 160.7 6.5 346.6 34.3 59.5 72.0 47.9 80.0 110.9
Winter barley 141.7 6.8 373.2 39.4 57.9 70.8 81.7 134.8 157.5
Summer barley 178.7 6.8 366.5 39.4 59.1 59.1 46.4 81.4 103.4
Oats 137.8 6.5 352.9 34.6 38.5 38.5 39.3 42.2 45.2
Triticale 141.3 6.5 366.7 34.3 59.9 72.5 80.4 96.1 144.3
Grain maize 161.8 5.9 820.6 72.7a 72.5a 72.5a 70.0a 70.0a 70.0a
Silage maize 26.0 7.4 698.4 72.5a 72.5a 72.5a 70.0a 70.0a 70.0a
Grain sorghum 137.5 5.9 746.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0
Field pea 179.8 5.1 393.4 101.3 115.1 115.1 111.0 111.0 111.0
Faba bean 185.4 4.8 380.6 102.0 127.8 127.8 106.0 131.8 131.8
Red clover 90.0 9.5 390.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Clover-grassland 90.0 9.5 390.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alfalfa 90.0 12.4 411.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Timothy 90.0 12.4 411.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Winter oilseed rape 370.1 7.6 363.2 126.0 151.8 203.7 144.6 184.8 250.0
Sugar beet 40.3 15.0 823.6 224.5 267.6 267.6 301.2 319.8 388.3
Potato 95.3 29.2 1715.4 427.5 458.4 458.4 427.5 458.4 458.4
Sunflower 326.2 7.7 445.7 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3
Soybean 375.1 4.8 376.3 97.7 97.7 97.7 78.8 78.8 78.8

103
E. Feusthuber et al. Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106

Vegetables 168.2 45.6 1865.8 175.7 265.2 367.6 175.7 265.2 367.6
Fallow 0.0 5.7 − 211.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Variable costs include costs for seeds, drying, insurances, and variable machinery costs and are taken from AWI (2016) and other data sources.
Crop protection expenditures include costs for herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, growth regulators, and application costs.
Fertilization costs are calculated by the nitrogen and phosphorus input demands simulated in EPIC at the 1 km pixel level (nitrogen: 1.1 €/kg, phosphorus: 1.6 €/kg). “High”, “moderate”
and “low” denote fertilization intensity levels; “airr” denotes high fertilization with irrigation.
Regional classification by mean annual precipitation:
Wet regions: > 650 mm mean annual precipitation.
Dry regions: ≤650 mm mean annual precipitation.
Commodity prices are averaged over five years (2010–2014), AWI (2016).
Labor hours are valued with 10 €/h.
Irrigation costs are taken from Heumesser et al. (2012): 213 €/ha.
a
Insecticide costs for WCR treatment are not included; one application of 0.3 l Biscaya is 22.5 €/ha and 40 €/ha for a high-clearance tractor.

Table 5
Efficient crop management strategies in % of total cropland for the future period (2010–2040) with climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET, and DRY by assumptions on insecticide
efficiency and maize yield loss level.

Climate change scenario Crop rotation system REF 75M 66M 50M 25M 00M
a
Insecticide efficiency 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 90%

SIMILAR Maize yield loss level 0% 89.7 – 0.7 – 0.9 – 1.4 – 2.2 – 5.1 –
10% 84.3 84.6 1.1 0.7 1.3 0.8 2.1 2.2 3.3 3.5 7.9 8.2
20% 78.9 79.2 1.5 0.8 1.7 1.0 2.7 3.0 4.5 4.8 10.7 11.2
30% 73.6 74.0 1.8 1.0 2.1 1.2 3.4 3.7 5.6 6.0 13.5 14.1
50% 64.7 65.1 2.4 1.3 2.8 1.5 4.5 4.9 7.5 8.2 18.1 19.0
70% 58.0 58.2 2.9 1.6 3.4 1.8 5.3 5.9 8.9 9.8 21.5 22.7
100% 54.9 55.1 3.2 1.7 3.7 2.0 5.7 6.4 9.6 10.6 22.9 24.2
WET Maize yield loss level 0% 88.8 – 0.9 – 1.1 – 1.7 – 2.3 – 5.2 –
10% 83.6 83.9 1.3 0.8 1.5 0.9 2.3 2.5 3.4 3.7 7.9 8.2
20% 78.3 78.6 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.1 3.0 3.3 4.4 4.9 10.6 11.1
30% 73.1 73.6 2.0 1.1 2.5 1.3 3.7 4.0 5.5 6.1 13.2 13.9
50% 64.2 64.5 2.8 1.5 3.3 1.7 4.8 5.3 7.3 8.3 17.6 18.7
70% 57.3 57.6 3.4 1.8 4.0 2.0 5.7 6.4 8.8 10.0 20.8 22.2
100% 54.1 54.5 3.7 1.9 4.4 2.2 6.2 6.9 9.5 10.9 22.1 23.6
DRY Maize yield loss level 0% 88.0 – 0.9 – 1.0 – 1.6 – 2.6 – 5.9 –
10% 82.7 83.1 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.8 2.3 2.6 3.6 3.9 8.6 8.9
20% 77.2 77.6 1.7 0.9 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.4 4.8 5.3 11.3 11.8
30% 71.9 72.2 2.2 1.0 2.5 1.2 3.6 4.3 5.9 6.6 13.9 14.7
50% 62.8 63.2 2.9 1.3 3.4 1.5 4.8 5.8 7.9 8.9 18.2 19.3
70% 55.9 56.3 3.5 1.6 4.1 1.8 5.8 7.0 9.4 10.7 21.3 22.6
100% 53.4 53.5 3.7 1.7 4.4 1.9 6.1 7.5 10.0 11.5 22.4 23.9
a
Insecticides are only applied in crop rotation systems 75M and 66M where insecticide efficiency of 100% (90%) is considered as a 0% (10%) maize yield loss. No additional maize
yield loss is considered in crop rotation systems 50M, 25M, and 00M under both insecticide efficiency rates.

Fig. 8. Modelled marginal opportunity costs in €/ha at 50% maize abandonment on Austrian cropland for the past period (1975–2005). Note: No cropland in white area.

104
E. Feusthuber et al.
Fig. 9. Boxplots on percent changes in modelled marginal opportunity costs of the future period (2010–2040) with climate change scenarios SIMILAR, WET and DRY compared to the past
period (pixel level) at 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 70% and 100% maize abandonment in Austria. Note: Outliers are not presented.
References
AWI, 2016. IDB Deckungsbeiträge und Kalkulationsdaten. URL. http://www.awi.bmlfuw.
gv.at/idb (accessed 4.27.16).
Barzman, M., Bàrberi, P., Birch, A.N.E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B.,
Hommel, B., Jensen, J.E., Kiss, J., Kudsk, P., Lamichhane, J.R., Messéan, A., Moonen,
A.-C., Ratnadass, A., Ricci, P., Sarah, J.-L., Sattin, M., 2015. Eight principles of in-
tegrated pest management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s13593-015-0327-9.
Baufeld, P., Enzian, S., 2005. Maize growing, maize high-risk areas and potential yield
losses due to western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) damage in selected
European countries. In: Vidal, S., Kuhlmann, U., Edwards, C.R. (Eds.), Western Corn
Rootworm Ecology and Management. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, Cambridge, pp.
285–302.
Bertossa, M., Morisoli, R., Colombi, L., 2013. Die Bekämpfung des Maiswurzelbohrers in
der Schweiz - bis jetzt eine Erfolgsgeschichte. Agrar. Schweiz 4, 24–31.
BMLFUW, 2015a. INVEKOS Datenpool.
BMLFUW, 2015b. Grüner Bericht 2015. Bundesministerium für Land- und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Vienna.
BMLFUW, 2016. Austrian Soil Map - Digitale Bodenkarte von Österreich. URL. http://gis.
lebensministerium.at/eBOD/frames/index.php?&gui_id=eBOD (accessed 12.13.16).
Boller, E.F., Avilla, J., Joerg, E., Malavolta, C., Wijnands, F.G., Esbjerg (Eds.), 2004.
Integrated Production—Principles and Technical Guideline. IOBC WPRS Bull. 27(2).
Burgenländisches Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz, 2012. Official publication:
Landesgesetzblatt (LGBl.); Number: 46/2012; Publication date: 18/06/2012.
Carrasco, L.R., Cook, D., Baker, R., MacLeod, A., Knight, J.D., Mumford, J.D., 2012.
Towards the integration of spread and economic impacts of biological invasions in a
landscape of learning and imitating agents. Ecol. Econ. 76, 95–103. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.009.
Cate, P., 2002. The confirmation of WCR (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) in Austria: oc-
currence, expansion and future prospects. IWGO Newsl. 18–19.
Diffenbaugh, N.S., Krupke, C.H., White, M.A., Alexander, C.E., 2008. Global warming
presents new challenges for maize pest management. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044007.
Dillen, K., Mitchell, P.D., Tollens, E., 2010. On the competitiveness of Diabrotica virgifera
virgifera damage abatement strategies in Hungary: a bio-economic approach. J. Appl.
Entomol. 134, 395–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2009.01454.x.
Dun, Z., Mitchell, P.D., Agosti, M., 2010. Estimating Diabrotica virgifera virgifera damage
functions with field trial data: applying an unbalanced nested error component
model. J. Appl. Entomol. 134, 409–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.
2009.01487.x.
105
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
Eberdorfer, D., 2016, June 30. Telephone interview by E. Feusthuber. Versuchsreferat
Steiermark.
Eitzinger, J., 2012. CLIMSOIL—GIS Data Base and Methodology for Estimating Impacts of
Climate Change on Soil Temperatures and Related Risks for Austrian Agriculture
(Climate and Energy Fund, Final Report No. A963763).
Epanchin-Niell, R.S., Hastings, A., 2010. Controlling established invaders: integrating
economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol. Lett. 13,
528–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01440.x.
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2009. Directive 2009/128/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Establishing a
Framework for Community Action to Achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
Feusthuber, E., Mitter, H., Schönhart, M., Schmid, E., 2017. Integrated modelling of
measures to control the western corn rootworm in Austria. J. Aust. Soc. Agric. Econ.
26 (Vienna, in print).
Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Leung, B., Lodge, D., 2007. Take a risk: preferring prevention
over control of biological invaders. Ecol. Econ. 62, 216–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.025.
Fragner, H., 2016, June 21. Telephone interview by E. Feusthuber and documentation via
email. Landwirtschaftskammer Steiermark.
Furlan, L., Kreutzwieser, D., 2014. Alternatives to neonicotinoid insecticides for pest
control: case studies in agriculture and forestry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22,
135–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3628-7.
Gobiet, A., Suklitsch, M., Leuprecht, A., Peßensteiner, S., Mendlik, T., Truhetz, H., 2012.
Klimaszenarien für die Steiermark bis 2050. Wegener Center for Climate and Global
Change. University of Graz, Austria.
Gobiet, A., Kotlarski, S., Beniston, M., Heinrich, G., Rajczak, J., Stoffel, M., 2014. 21st
century climate change in the European Alps—a review. Sci. Total Environ. 493,
1138–1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.050.
Guggenberger, T., Hofer, O., Fahrner, W., Sucher, B., Wiedner, G., Bader, R., 2012.
Fachatlas Landwirtschaft - Entwicklung landwirtschaftlicher Geodaten im
Geographical Grid System Austria (No. 49). Veröffentlichungen HBLFA Raumberg-
Gumpenstein.
Heckelei, T., Britz, W., Zhang, Y., 2012. Positive mathematical programming approa-
ches—recent developments in literature and applied modelling. Bio-based Appl.
Econ. 1, 109–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10567.
Heumesser, C., Fuss, S., Szolgayová, J., Strauss, F., Schmid, E., 2012. Investment in ir-
rigation systems under precipitation uncertainty. Water Resour. Manag. 26,
3113–3137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0053-x.
Howitt, R.E., 1995. Positive mathematical programming. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77,
329–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243543.
Kehlenbeck, H., Krügener, S., 2014. Costs and benefits of plant health measures against
Diabrotica: experiences and estimations for Germany. J. Appl. Entomol. 138,
E. Feusthuber et al.
222–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jen.12011.
Kiss, J., Edwards, C.R., Berger, H.K., Cate, P., Cean, M., Cheek, S., Derron, J., Festic, H.,
Furlan, L., Igrc Barčić, J., Ivanova, I., Lammers, W., Omelyuta, V., Princzinger, G.,
Reynaud, P., Sivcev, I., Urek, G., Vahala, O., 2005. Monitoring of western corn
rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte) in Europe 1992–2003. In: Western
Corn Rootworm Ecology and Management. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire,
Cambridge.
Köhler, K., Schätzl, R., 2014. Die Bedeutung des Westlichen Maiswurzelbohrers
(Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte) in Bayern – regionale Relevanz und einzel-
betriebliche Auswirkungen. In: Tagungsband Internationale Fachtagung Zum
Forschungsprogramm Über Den Westlichen Maiswurzelbohrer, (14.–16. November
2012, Berlin. Julius Kühn Archiv).
Lamichhane, J.R., Barzman, M., Booij, K., Boonekamp, P., Desneux, N., Huber, L., Kudsk,
P., Langrell, S.R.H., Ratnadass, A., Ricci, P., Sarah, J.-L., Messéan, A., 2014. Robust
cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
35, 443–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0275-9.
Levay, N., Terpo, I., Kiss, J., Toepfer, S., 2015. Quantifying inter-field movements of the
western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte)—a Central European
field study. Cereal Res. Commun. 43, 155–165.
Loibl, W., Züger, J., Köstl, M., 2009. Reclip:more. Standort 33, 94–100. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s00548-009-0121-5.
Loibl, W., Formayer, H., Schöner, W., Truhetz, H., Anders, I., Gobiet, A., Heinrich, G.,
Köstl, M., Nadeem, I., Peters-Anders, J., Schicker, I., Suklitsch, M., Züger, H., 2011.
Reclip:century 1. Research for Climate Protection: Centruy Climate Simulations.
Report1 Part A: Models, Data, GHG-Scenarios, Simulations. AIT, Vienna.
Mayer, K., 2016, April 4. Personal interview by E. Feusthuber. Landwirtschaftskammer
Steiermark.
Meinke, L.J., Sappington, T.W., Onstad, D.W., Guillemaud, T., Miller, N.J., Komáromi, J.,
Levay, N., Furlan, L., Kiss, J., Toth, F., 2009. Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica
virgifera virgifera LeConte) population dynamics. Agric. For. Entomol. 11, 29–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2008.00419.x.
Meissle, M., Mouron, P., Musa, T., Bigler, F., Pons, X., Vasileiadis, V.P., Otto, S., Antichi,
D., Kiss, J., Pálinkás, Z., Dorner, Z., Van Der Weide, R., Groten, J., Czembor, E.,
Adamczyk, J., Thibord, J.-B., Melander, B., Nielsen, G.C., Poulsen, R.T.,
Zimmermann, O., Verschwele, A., Oldenburg, E., 2010. Pests, pesticide use and al-
ternative options in European maize production: current status and future prospects.
J. Appl. Entomol. 134, 357–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2009.
01491.x.
Mitter, H., Heumesser, C., Schmid, E., 2015a. Spatial modeling of robust crop production
portfolios to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Land
Use Policy 46, 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.010.
Mitter, H., Schmid, E., Sinabell, F., 2015b. Integrated modelling of protein crop pro-
duction responses to climate change and agricultural policy scenarios in Austria.
Clim. Res. 65, 205–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr01335.
NÖ Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz (NÖ PSMG), 2012. Official publication: Landesgesetzblatt
(LGBl.); Number: 6170-4; Publication date: 20/01/2012.
Oerke, E.-C., 2006. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 144, 31–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1017/S0021859605005708.
O'Rourke, M.E., Jones, L.E., 2011. Analysis of landscape-scale insect pest dynamics and
pesticide use: an empirical and modeling study. Ecol. Appl. 21, 3199–3210. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1890/10-1180.1.
Pilz, C., Keller, S., Kuhlmann, U., Toepfer, S., 2009. Comparative efficacy assessment of
fungi, nematodes and insecticides to control western corn rootworm larvae in maize.
BioControl 54, 671–684.
Pimentel, D., 2005. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides
primarily in the United States. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 7, 229–252. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10668-005-7314-2.
Sánchez, B., Rasmussen, A., Porter, J.R., 2014. Temperatures and the growth and de-
velopment of maize and rice: a review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 408–417. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.12389.
Schaafsma, A.W., Baufeld, P., Ellis, C.R., 1999. Influence of cropping practices on corn
rootworm in Canada as a basis for assessment of the potential impact of Diabrotica
virgifera in Germany. EPPO Bull. 29, 145–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
106
Agricultural Systems 157 (2017) 93–106
2338.1999.tb00808.x.
Schiermeier, Q., 2010. The real holes in climate science. Nature News. Nature 463,
284–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/463284a.
Schmid, E., 2004. Das Betriebsoptimierungssystem FAMOS FArM Optimization System,
Discussion paper No. DP-09-2004. In: Institute for Sustainable Economic
Development. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.
Schlenker, W., Roberts, M.J., 2006. Nonlinear effects of weather on corn yields. Rev.
Agric. Econ. 28, 391–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00304.x.
Schlenker, W., Roberts, M.J., 2009. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe da-
mages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. PNAS 106, 15594–15598. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906865106.
Schönhart, M., Schauppenlehner, T., Schmid, E., Muhar, A., 2011a. Integration of bio-
physical and economic models to analyze management intensity and landscape
structure effects at farm and landscape level. Agric. Syst. 104, 122–134. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.014.
Schönhart, M., Schmid, E., Schneider, U.A., 2011b. CropRota—a crop rotation model to
support integrated land use assessments. Eur. J. Agron. 34, 263–277. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.004.
Schuster, F., 2016. Ohne Fruchtfolge geht gar nichts. Landwirtsch. Forsch.(Juni 2016).
Sinabell, F., Kappert, R., Kaul, H.-P., Kratena, K., Sommer, M., 2014. Maisanbau in
Österreich. Ökonomische Bedeutung und pflanzenbauliche Herausforderungen.
WIFO, Vienna.
Spencer, J.L., Hibbard, B.E., Moeser, J., Onstad, D.W., 2009. Behaviour and ecology of the
western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte). Agric. For. Entomol.
11, 9–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2008.00399.x.
Stallman, H.R., James Jr., H.S., 2015. Determinants affecting farmers' willingness to co-
operate to control pests. Ecol. Econ. 117, 182–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2015.07.006.
Steiermärkisches Pflanzenschutzmittelgesetz, 2012. Gesetz vom 19. Juni 2012 über die
Verwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln. Official publication: Landesgesetzblatt
(LGBl.); Number: 87/2012; Publication date: 10/09/2012.
Strauss, F., Schmid, E., Moltchanova, E., Formayer, H., Wang, X., 2012. Modelling cli-
matic change and biophysical impacts of crop production in the Austrian Marchfeld
region. Clim. Chang. 111, 641–664.
Strauss, F., Formayer, H., Schmid, E., 2013. High resolution climate data for Austria in the
period 2008–2040 from a statistical climate change model. Int. J. Climatol. 33,
430–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.3434.
Stürmer, B., Schmidt, J., Schmid, E., Sinabell, F., 2013. Implications of agricultural
bioenergy crop production in a land constrained economy—the example of Austria.
Land Use Policy 30, 570–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.020.
Szalai, M., Kiss, J., Kövér, S., Toepfer, S., 2014. Simulating crop rotation strategies with a
spatiotemporal lattice model to improve legislation for the management of the maize
pest Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. Agric. Syst. 124, 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2013.10.009.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sus-
tainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nature01014.
Toepfer, S., Kuhlmann, U., 2005. Natural mortality factors acting on western corn root-
worm populations: a comparison between the United States and Central Europe. In:
Western Corn Rootworm Ecology and Management. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire,
Cambridge.
Urías-López, M.A., Meinke, L.J., 2001. Influence of western corn rootworm (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) larval injury on yield of different types of maize. J. Econ. Entomol.
94, 106–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-94.1.106.
van Ittersum, M.K., Cassman, K.G., Grassini, P., Wolf, J., Tittonell, P., Hochman, Z., 2013.
Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—a review. Field Crop Res. 143,
4–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.009.
Wesseler, J., Fall, E.H., 2010. Potential damage costs of Diabrotica virgifera virgifera in-
festation in Europe—the “no control” scenario. J. Appl. Entomol. 134, 385–394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01510.x.
Williams, J.R., 1995. The EPIC model. In: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology.
Water Resources Publications, Colorado.