Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 237–244 | Cite as

Effects of species and shelterbelt structure on wind speed reduction in shelter

  • Dang Van ThuyetEmail author
  • Tran Van Do
  • Tamotsu Sato
  • Trieu Thai Hung


Live shelterbelts are common elements in coastal land areas and play an important role in reducing wind speed and sand drift. A simple measured index, that well represents relationship between shelterbelt structure and wind speed reduction, is required by landowners to enable them in establishing more effective shelterbelts. A three-dimensional crown (3D) density is proposed, which can be easily identified through shelterbelt parameters including maximum height, shelterbelt width, vertical crown/stem area ratio, and horizontal crown/stem area ratio. The utility of the index was tested in 10-year-old Casuarina equisetifolia and in 7-year-old Acacia auriculiformis shelterbelts in north central Coast of Vietnam. There was a significant negative linear relationship (R 2 = 0.64, p < 0.001) between 3D density and wind speed reduction efficiency, while there was no relationship between a two-dimensional crown density and wind speed reduction efficiency. Reduction efficiency was found to increase at higher wind speeds in shelterbelts of A. auriculiformis, but not C. equisetifolia. The A. auriculiformis shelterbelt was more efficient in reducing wind speed compared to C. equisetifolia shelterbelt. The former recovered 70 % wind speed at 130 m (16.5H) leeward, while it recovered 70 % at 85 m (8H) leeward in C. equisetifolia shelterbelt.


Horizontal structure Relative wind speed reduction Shelterbelt Three-dimensional crown density Vertical structure 



This study was supported by grants-in-aid for scientific research from Vietnam National Foundation for Science & Technology Development (NAFOSTED/106-NN.06-2013.01). The comments from anonymous reviewers were highly appreciated.


  1. Bird BR, Bicknell D, Bulman PA, Burke JA, Leys JF, Parker JN, Van Der Sommen FJ, Voller P (1992) The role of shelter in Australia for protecting soils, plants and livestock. Agrofor Syst 20:59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown KW, Rosenberg NJ (1972) Shelter-effects on microclimate, growth and water use by irrigated sugar beets in the Great Plains. Agric Meteorol 9:241–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caborn JM (1957) Shelterbelt and microclimate. For Comm Bull 29, Edinburgh, p. 129Google Scholar
  4. Cao X (1985) Field windbreaks. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, p 645Google Scholar
  5. Dang VT (2004) Evaluating sheltering efficiency and economic values of Casuarina equisetifolia L. shelterbelt in central Coast. Dissertation, Vietnamese Academy of Forest Science, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  6. David CA, Rhyner V (1999) An assessment of windbreaks in central Wisconsin. Agrofor Syst 44:313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grunert F, Benndorf D, Klingbeil K (1984) New conclusions about the structure of vegetative windbreaks. Beitr Forstwirtsch 18:108–115Google Scholar
  8. Heisler GM, DeWalle DR (1988) Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22(23):41–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee X (2000) Air motion within and above forest vegetation in non-ideal conditions. For Ecol Manage 135:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leon MC, Harvey CA (2006) Live fences and landscape connectivity in a neotropical agricultural landscape. Agrofor Syst 68:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindholm G, Kristensen E, Nilsson K (1988) Vegetation for shelter. Stad and Land, 62, AlnarpGoogle Scholar
  12. Nageli W (1946) Further investigations of wind conditions in the range of shelterbelts. Mitt Schweiz Anst 24:660–737Google Scholar
  13. Nageli W (1965) Iber die Windverhaltnisse im Bereich gestaffelter Windschutzstreifen. Mitt Schweiz Anst 41:221–300Google Scholar
  14. Nguyen VD (2002) Desertification in Vietnam. In: Desertification Conference, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  15. Pham HD (2002) Prioritizing in desertification combat. In: Desertification Conference, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  16. Phan L (1987) Coastal land areas of Vietnam. Science and Technique Publishing, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  17. Plate EJ (1971) The aerodynamics of shelter belts. Agric Meteorol 8:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Santiago JL, Martin F, Cuerva A, Bezdenejnykh N, Sanz-Andres A (2007) Experimental and numerical study of wind flow behind windbreaks. Atmos Environ 41:6406–6420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith DM, Jarvis PG, Odongo KCV (1998) Management of windbreaks in the Sahel: the strategic implications of tree water use. Agrofor Syst 40:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sudmeyer RA, Scott PR (2002) Characterization of a windbreak system on the south coast of western Australia. 1. Microclimate and wind erosion. Aust J Exp Agric 42:703–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Torita H, Satou H (2007) Relationship between shelterbelt structure and mean wind reduction. Agric For Meteorol 145:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vigiak O, Sterk G, Warren A, Hagen LJ (2003) Spatial modeling of wind speed around windbreaks. CATENA 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang H, Takle ES (1997) Model-simulated influences of shelterbelt shape on wind-sheltering efficiency. J Appl Meteorol 36:695–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woodruff NP, Fryrear DW, Lyles L (1963) Reducing wind velocity with field shelterbelts, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Tech Bull 131, 26Google Scholar
  25. Wu T, Yu M, Wang G, Wang Z, Duan X, Dong Y, Cheng X (2013) Effects of stand structure on wind speed reduction in a Metasequoia glyptostroboides shelterbelt. Agrofor Syst 87:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeng H, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Peltola H, Kellomaki S (2010) The effects of forest structure on the risk of wind damage at a landscape level in a boreal forest ecosystem. Ann For Sci 67:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang H, Brandle JR, Mayer GE, Hodges L (1995a) The relationship between open windspeed and windspeed reduction in shelter. Agrofor Syst 32:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang H, Brandle JR, Mayer GE, Hodges L (1995b) A model to evaluate windbreak protection efficiency. Agrofor Syst 29:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhao Z, Xiao L, Zhao T, Zhang H (1995) Windbreaks for agriculture. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, p 400Google Scholar
  30. Zhou XH, Brandle JR, Mize CW, Takle ES (2004) Three-dimensional aerodynamic structure of a tree shelterbelt: definition, characterization and working models. Agrofor Syst 63:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhu JJ, Matsuzaki T, Gonda Y (2003) Optical stratification porosity as a measure of vertical canopy structure in a Japanese coastal forest. For Ecol Manag 173:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dang Van Thuyet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tran Van Do
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Tamotsu Sato
    • 4
  • Trieu Thai Hung
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Silviculture Research InstituteVietnamese Academy of Forest SciencesHanoiVietnam
  2. 2.JSPS fellowForestry and Forest Products Research InstituteTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture/School of Agricultural ScienceUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Forest VegetationForestry and Forest Products Research InstituteTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations