Abstract
The utilization of windbreaks is a globally prevailing management practice for agricultural production and restoration of degraded ecosystems by reducing wind-induced destruction. Examining how windbreaks affect leeward surface wind speed is critically important to quantify the efficiency of windbreaks. A semiempirical model for simulating horizontal distribution of wind speed leeward windbreaks was developed, combining wind tunnel experiments with prevailing literature. The model simulated the horizontal leeward wind speed distribution windbreaks with acceleration and deceleration terms; simultaneously considering four key impact factors (windbreak aerodynamic porosity, surface roughness, Richardson number and wind incident angle). It also comprises of a simple quantitative method for determining windbreak aerodynamic porosity from optical porosity. Model results compared with published data illustrate that the model is robust in various wind speed distributions under different windbreak structures and turbulence conditions. The simulation results indicate horizontal wind speed distribution is definitely dependent upon windbreak porosity. Wind speeds decline with increasing wind incident angle. Wind speeds decrease obviously with increasing Richardson number while decrease slightly with decreasing surface roughness, when the horizontal distance is between two and twenty times the windbreak height. Moreover, the escalating wind incident angle strengthens the weakening effects of windbreak porosity on wind speed, while reducing Richardson numbers expand the decreasing intervals of relative wind speed with increasing surface roughness. The model provides a simple and practical method to better assess the impacts of windbreaks, which can be incorporated in agricultural policy-making decisions to reduce the detrimental impacts of wind.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- α :
-
Aerodynamic porosity (0-1)
- β :
-
Optical porosity (0-1)
- μ 0 :
-
The mean horizontal wind speed in the open (m/s)
- μ x :
-
The mean horizontal wind speed at the horizontal distance of x (m/s)
- μx/μ0 :
-
Wind speed relative to open (0-1)
- z 0 :
-
Surface roughness length
- z0/H :
-
Surface roughness
- H :
-
Windbreak height (m)
- L :
-
Obukhov length
- R h :
-
Richardson number
- θ :
-
Incident angle of the wind (°)
- b1, b2 :
-
Model parameters
- k1, k2 :
-
Model parameters
- f 1 :
-
The acceleration-term function indicated the convergence of the falling air to the surface airflow
- f 2 :
-
The deceleration-term function indicated the diffusion of airflow after progressing through the windbreak
- x :
-
The horizontal distance along the normal to the windbreak and expressed in terms of windbreak height (H)
- ξ :
-
Influential factors represented α, Rh and z0/H
- ϕi(α):
-
Aerodynamic porosity influential function for parameter b
- Φi(α):
-
Aerodynamic porosity influential function for parameter k
- λi(Rh):
-
Atmospheric stability influential function for parameter b
- Λi(Rh):
-
Atmospheric stability influential function for parameter k
- ηi(z0):
-
Surface roughness influential function for parameter b
- χi(z0):
-
Surface roughness influential function for parameter k
- R a :
-
Results of model responses for altered variables
- R n :
-
Results of model responses for nominal variables
- V a :
-
The altered variables
- V n :
-
The nominal variables
- S :
-
The sensitivity index
References
Bean A, Alperi RW, Federer C (1974) A method for categorizing shelterbelt porosity. Agric Meteorol 14:417–429. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA06086
Bird PR, Bicknell D, Bulman PA, Burke SJA, Leys JF, Parker JN, Voller P (1992) The role of shelter in Australia for protecting soils, plants and livestock. Agrofor Syst 20(1–2):59–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00055305
Borrelli J, Gregory JM, Abtew W (1989) Wind barriers—a reevaluation of height, spacing, and porosity. Trans ASAE 32(6):2023–2027. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.31257
Brandle JR, Hintz DL, Sturrock JW (eds) (1988) Windbreak technology. Elsevier, New York
Cleugh HA (1998) Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields. Agrofor Syst 41(1):55–84. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006019805109
Cornelis WM, Gabriels D (2005) Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control. J Arid Environ 61(2):315–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.10.005
Dang VT, Do VT, Sato T, Hung TT (2014) Effects of species and shelterbelt structure on wind speed reduction in shelter. Agrofor Syst 88(2):237–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-013-9671-4
Dong Z, Luo W, Qian G, Wang H (2011) Evaluating the optimal porosity of fences for reducing wind erosion. Sci Cold Arid Reg 3(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1226.2011.00001
Guan DX, Zhang YS, Zhu TY (2003) A wind-tunnel study of windbreak drag. Agric For Meteorol 118(1–2):75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1923(03)00069-8
Hagen LJ, Skidmore EL (1971) Turbulent velocity fluctuations and vertical flow as affected by windbreak porosity. Trans ASAE 14(4):634–637
Heisler GM, Dewalle DR (1988) Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22–3:41–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(88)90007-2
Hong SW, Lee IB, Seo IH (2015) Modelling and predicting wind velocity patterns for windbreak fence design. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 142:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.03.007
Jacobs AFG (1984) Wind reduction near the surface behind a thin solid fence. Agric For Meteorol 33(2–3):157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(84)90067-4
Lanigan D, Stout J, Anderson W (2016) Atmospheric stability and diurnal patterns of aeolian saltation on the Llano Estacado. Aeol Res 21:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2016.04.001
Lu D, Ricciuto D, Walker A, Safta C, Munger W (2017) Bayesian calibration of terrestrial ecosystem models: a study of advanced Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Biogeosciences 14(18):4295–4314. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4295-2017
Maki T (1980) Studies on the windbreak nets. (2) micrometeorological modification of a cool weather damage of paddy rice displayed by two kinks of windbreak nets. J Agric Meteorol 36(3):161–172. https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.36.161
Maki T (1981) Studies on the windbreak nets. (3) Studies on the windbreak nets: horizontal and vertical turbulent characteristics influenced by two kinds of windbreak nets in a paddy rice field. J Agric Meteorol 37(3):197–210. https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.37.197
Maruyama T (2008) Large eddy simulation of turbulent flow around a windbreak. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 96(10–11):1998–2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.062
McNaughton KG (1988) Effects of windbreaks on turbulent transport and micorclimate. Agr Ecosyst Environ 22–3:17–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(88)90006-0
Mohan M, Siddiqui TA (1998) Analysis of various schemes for the estimation of atmospheric stability classification. Atmos Environ 32(21):3775–3781. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(98)00109-5
Naegeli W (1946) NaegeliUntersuchungen über die Windverhältnisse im Bereich von Windschutzanlagen [Further investigations of wind conditions in the range of shelterbelts], Mitt. Schweiz. Anstalt. Forstl. Versuchswesen, Zurich, vol 24, pp 660–737
Naegeli W (1953) Research on wind conditions in the vicinity of reed screens, Mitt. Schweiz.Anstalt. Forstl. Versuchswesen, Zurich, vol 29, pp 213–266
Oldeman LR (1994) The global extent of soil degradation. In: Greenland DJ, Szabolcs I (eds) Soil resilience and sustainable land use. Wallingford, CAB International, pp 99–118
Patton EG, Shaw RH, Judd MJ, Raupach MR (1998) Large-eddy simulation of windbreak flow. Bound Layer Meteorol 87(2):275–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1000945626163
Plate EJ (1971) Aerodynamics of shelter belts. Agric Meteorol 8(3):203–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(71)90109-9
Raine JK, Stevenson DC (1977) Wind protection by model fences in a simulated atmospheric boundary-layer. J Ind Aerodyn 2(2):159–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(77)90015-0
Řeháček D, Khel T, Kučera J, Vopravil J, Petera M (2017) Effect of windbreaks on wind speed reduction and soil protection against wind erosion. Soil Water Res 12(2):128–135. https://doi.org/10.17221/45/2016-swr
Santiago JL, Martin F, Cuerva A, Bezdenejnykh N, Sanz-Andres A (2007) Experimental and numerical study of wind flow behind windbreaks. Atmos Environ 41(30):6406–6420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.01.014
Saxton KE, Johnson HP, Shaw RH (1974) Modeling evapotranspiration and soil-moisture. Trans ASAE 17(4):673–677. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.36935
Schultz H, Kelly C (1960) Studies on wind protection efficiency of slatted fence windbreakers. Calif Agric 14(4):3–11
Schwartz RC, Fryrear DW, Harris BL, Bilbro JD, Juo ASR (1995) Mean flow and shear-stress distributions as influenced by vegetative windbreak structure. Agric For Meteorol 75(1–3):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(94)02206-y
Seginer I (1974) Aerodynamic roughness of vegetated surfaces. Bound Layer Meteorol 5(4):383–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00123487
Seginer I (1975a) Atmospheric-stability effect on windbreak shelter and drag. Bound Layer Meteorol 8(3–4):383–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02153559
Seginer I (1975b) Flow around a windbreak in oblique wind. Bound Layer Meteorol 9(2):133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00215636
Skidmore EL, Hagen LJ (1970) Evaporation in sheltered areas as influenced by windbreak porosity. Agric Meteorol 7(5):363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(70)90032-4
Speckart SO, Pardyjak ER (2014) A method for rapidly computing windbreak flow field variables. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 132:101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.07.001
Stoeckeler JH (1962) Shelterbelts influence on great plain field environments and crops. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington
Stull RB (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3027-8
Sturrock JW (1972) Aerodynamic studies of shelterbelts in New-Zealand. 1. Low to medium height shelterbelts in mid-Canterbury. NZ J Sci 12:754–776
Takahashi H (1978) Wind tunnel test on the effect of width of windbreaks on the wind speed distribution in leeward. J Agric Meteorol 33(4):183–187. https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.33.183
Tuzet A, Wilson JD (2007) Measured winds about a thick hedge. Agric For Meteorol 145(3–4):195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.04.013
Van Eimern, J, Karschon, R, Razumova, LA, Robertson GW (1964) Windbreaks and shelterbelts. WMO. No. 147, TP. 70. WMO, Geneva
Vigiak O, Sterk G, Warren A, Hagen LJ (2003) Spatial modeling of wind speed around windbreaks. CATENA 52(3–4):273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0341-8162(03)00018-3
Wang H, Takle ES (1995a) A numerical-simulation of boundary-layer flows near shelterbelts. Bound Layer Meteorol 75(1–2):141–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00721047
Wang H, Takle ES (1995b) Numerical simulations of shelterbelt effects on wind direction. J Appl Meteorol 34(10):2206–2219. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034%3c2206:nsoseo%3e2.0.co;2
Wang H, Takle ES (1996) On three-dimensionality of shelterbelt structure and its influences on shelter effects. Bound Layer Meteorol 79(1–2):83–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00120076
Wang H, Takle ES (1997a) Model-simulated influences of shelterbelt shape on wind-sheltering efficiency. J Appl Meteorol 36(6):695–704. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450-36.6.695
Wang H, Takle ES (1997b) Momentum budget and shelter mechanism of boundary-layer flow near a shelterbelt. Bound Layer Meteorol 82(3):417–435. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1000262020253
Wei L, Zhang Y (1987) Research on the horizontal distribution of wind-speed in the wind-protection area of the shelterbelt. Scientia Sinica Series B Chem Biol Agric Med Earth Sci 30(12):1305–1316. https://doi.org/10.1360/yb1987-30-12-1305
Wilson JD (1985) Numerical-studies of flow through a windbreak. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 21(2):119–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(85)90001-7
Wilson JD (1987) On the choice of a windbreak porosity profile. Bound Layer Meteorol 38(1–2):37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00121553
Wilson JD (2004a) Oblique, stratified winds about a shelter fence. Part I: measurements. J Appl Meteorol 43(8):1149–1167. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043%3c1149:oswaas%3e2.0.co;2
Wilson JD (2004b) Oblique, stratified winds about a shelter fence. Part II: comparison of measurements with numerical models. J Appl Meteorol 43(10):1392–1409. https://doi.org/10.1175/jam2147.1
Xu XF, Elias DA, Graham DE, Phelps TJ, Carroll SL, Wullschleger SD, Thornton PE (2015) A microbial functional group-based module for simulating methane production and consumption: application to an incubated permafrost soil. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 120(7):1315–1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jg002935
Zhu T, Guan D, Zhou G, Jin C (2001) Theory of eco-engineering of farmland protective plantation. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing
Zhu J, Jiang F, Matsuzaki T (2002) Spacing interval between principal tree windbreaks: based on the relationship between windbreak structure and wind reduction. J For Res 13(2):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857227
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers. Dr. Changjie Jin made valuable comments in early version of this manuscript. XX is grateful for the financial and facility support from the San Diego State University.
Funding
This work was supported by Forestry Ecological Science and Technology Project of China (Grant No.: 2015BAD07B0505) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (31400541).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yuan, F., Wu, J., Wang, A. et al. A semiempirical model for horizontal distribution of surface wind speed leeward windbreaks. Agroforest Syst 94, 499–516 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00417-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00417-0