% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Constantin:864925,
author = {Constantin, Julie and Raynal, Helene and Casellas, Eric and
Hoffmann, Holger and Bindi, Marco and Doro, Luca and
Eckersten, Henrik and Gaiser, Thomas and Grosz, Balász and
Haas, Edwin and Kersebaum, Kurt-Christian and Klatt, Steffen
and Kuhnert, Matthias and Lewan, Elisabet and Maharjan,
Ganga Ram and Moriondo, Marco and Nendel, Claas and Roggero,
Pier Paolo and Specka, Xenia and Trombi, Giacomo and Villa,
Ana and Wang, Enli and Weihermüller, Lutz and Yeluripati,
Jagadeesh and Zhao, Zhigan and Ewert, Frank and Bergez,
Jacques-Eric},
title = {{M}anagement and spatial resolution effects on yield and
water balance at regional scale in crop models},
journal = {Agricultural and forest meteorology},
volume = {275},
issn = {0168-1923},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-04528},
pages = {184 - 195},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Due to the more frequent use of crop models at regional and
national scale, the effects of spatial data input resolution
have gained increased attention. However, little is known
about the influence of variability in crop management on
model outputs. A constant and uniform crop management is
often considered over the simulated area and period. This
study determines the influence of crop management adapted to
climatic conditions and input data resolution on
regional-scale outputs of crop models. For this purpose,
winter wheat and maize were simulated over 30 years with
spatially and temporally uniform management or adaptive
management for North Rhine-Westphalia (˜34 083 km²),
Germany. Adaptive management to local climatic conditions
was used for 1) sowing date, 2) N fertilization dates, 3) N
amounts, and 4) crop cycle length. Therefore, the models
were applied with four different management sets for each
crop. Input data for climate, soil and management were
selected at five resolutions, from 1 × 1 km to
100 × 100 km grid size. Overall, 11 crop models were
used to predict regional mean crop yield, actual
evapotranspiration, and drainage. Adaptive management had
little effect $(<10\%$ difference) on the 30-year mean of
the three output variables for most models and did not
depend on soil, climate, and management resolution.
Nevertheless, the effect was substantial for certain models,
up to $31\%$ on yield, $27\%$ on evapotranspiration, and
$12\%$ on drainage compared to the uniform management
reference. In general, effects were stronger on yield than
on evapotranspiration and drainage, which had little
sensitivity to changes in management. Scaling effects were
generally lower than management effects on yield and
evapotranspiration as opposed to drainage. Despite this
trend, sensitivity to management and scaling varied greatly
among the models. At the annual scale, effects were stronger
in certain years, particularly the management effect on
yield. These results imply that depending on the model, the
representation of management should be carefully chosen,
particularly when simulating yields and for predictions on
annual scale.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255) / MACSUR - Modelling European Agriculture with
Climate Change for Food Security (2812-ERA-158)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / G:(DE-BLE)2812-ERA-158},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000480376400016},
doi = {10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.013},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864925},
}