Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 88, Issue 4, pp 579–591 | Cite as

Wind speed reductions as influenced by woody hedgerows grown for biomass in short rotation alley cropping systems in Germany

  • Christian BöhmEmail author
  • Michael Kanzler
  • Dirk Freese


The cultivation of fast growing trees on agricultural sites is an area undergoing a growth in interest due to the rising demand for woody biomass as a source of bioenergy. Short rotation alley cropping systems (SRACS) represent a promising possibility to combine annual crops for food, fodder or bioenergy with woody plants for biomass production, doing so through an integration of hedgerows of fast growing trees into conventional agricultural sites. Against such developments, the question has arisen as to what extent hedgerows in SRACS can act as an effective windbreak despite their management-related low height of only a few meters. On the basis of multiannual recorded wind velocity data in high resolution at two sites in Germany, it could be shown that the wind speed on crop alleys was reduced significantly by such hedgerows. At the central point of 24 m wide crop alleys, the wind speed decreased on an annual average basis by more than 50 % when compared to the wind speeds of open field. The overall amount of reduction was strongly dependent on the location within the crop alleys, the height of trees, the distance between two hedgerows, and their orientation. In reflection upon these results, it was concluded that the establishment of SRACS could lead to enhanced soil protection against wind erosion and thus to ecological and economic benefits for agricultural sites.


Alley cropping Bioenergy Shelterbelt Short rotation Windbreak Wind speed 



The authors wish to thank the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (Project “AgroForstEnergie II”, Project Number: 22000312), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Project “INKA BB”, Project Number: 01LR0803D) and the Vattenfall Europe New Energy Ltd. for their financial support.


  1. Bagley WT (1988) Agroforestry and windbreaks. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22(23):583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bitog JP, Lee I-B, Hwang H-S, Shin M-H, Hong S-W, Seo I-H, Kwon K-S, Mostafa E, Pang Z (2012) Numerical simulation study of a tree windbreak. Biosyst Eng 111:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhm C, Quinkenstein A, Freese D (2011) Yield prediction of young black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) plantations for woody biomass production using allometric relations. Annals of Forest Research 54:215–227Google Scholar
  4. Böhm C, Quinkenstein A, Freese D (2012) Vergleichende Betrachtung des Agrarholz- und Energiemaisanbaus aus Sicht des Bodenschutzes. Bodenschutz 02(12):36–43Google Scholar
  5. Brandle JR, Hodges L, Zhou XH (2004) Windbreaks in North America agricultural systems. Agrofor Syst 61:65–78Google Scholar
  6. Cleugh HA (1998) Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields. Agrofor Syst 41:55–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cleugh HA, Miller JM, Böhm M (1998) Direct mechanical effects of wind on crops. Agrofor Syst 41:85–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cui Q, Feng Z, Pfiz M, Veste M, Kuppers M, He K, Gao J (2012) Trade-off between shrub plantation and wind-breaking in the arid sandy lands of Ningxia, China. Pak J Bot 44:1639–1649Google Scholar
  9. Dong Z, Qian G, Luo W, Wang H (2006) Threshold velocity for wind erosion: the effects of porous fences. Environ Geol 51:471–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (2013a) Anbaufläche für nachwachsender Rohstoffe 2012. Accessed 30 May 2013
  11. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (2013b) Tabelle der Anbaufläche für nachwachsende Rohstoffe 2012. Accessed 30 May 2013
  12. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2010) Erneuerbare Energien in Zahlen—nationale und internationale Entwicklung. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Information brochureGoogle Scholar
  13. Foereid B, Bro R, Overgaard Mogensen V, Porter JR (2002) Effects of windbreak strips of willow coppice—modelling and field experiment on barley in Denmark. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frank C, Ruck B (2005) Double-arranged mound-mounted shelterbelts: influence of porosity on wind reduction between the shelters. Environ Fluid Mech 5:267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Judd MJ, Raupach MR, Finnigan JJ (1996) A wind tunnel study of turbulent flow around single and multiple windbreaks, Part I: velocity fields. Bound-Layer Meteorol 80:127–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kort J (1988) Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22(23):165–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lv P, Dong Z (2012) Study of the windbreak effect of shrubs as a function of shrub cover and height. Environ Earth Sci 66:1791–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma R, Wang J, Qu J, Liu H (2010) Effectiveness of shelterbelt with a non-uniform density distribution. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 98:767–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAneney KJ, Judd MJ (1991) Multiple windbreaks: an Aeolian ensemble. Bound-Layer Meteorol 54:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNaughton KG (1988) Effects of windbreaks on turbulent transport and microclimate. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22(23):17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nord M (1991) Shelter effects of vegetation belts: results of field measurements. Bound-Layer Meteorol 54:363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nuberg IK (1998) Effect of shelter on temperate crops: a review to define research for Australian conditions. Agrofor Syst 41:3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oteng’I SBB, Stigter CJ, Ng’Ang’A JK, Mungai DN (2000) Wind protection in a hedged agroforestry system in semiarid Kenya. Agrofor Syst 50:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pretzschel M, Bohme G, Krause H (1991) Effects of shelterbelts on crop yield. Feldwirtschaft 32:229–231Google Scholar
  25. Quinkenstein A, Wöllecke J, Böhm C, Grünewald H, Freese D, Schneider BU, Hüttl RF (2009) Ecological benefits of the agroforestry-system alley cropping in sensitive regions of Europe. Environ Sci Policy 12:1112–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rollin EM (1983) The influence of wind speed and direction on the reduction of wind speed leeward of a medium porous hedge. Agric Meteorol 30:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenfeld M, Marom G, Bitan A (2010) Numerical simulation of the airflow across trees in a windbreak. Bound-Layer Meteorol 135:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shiau BS (1992) The turbulence structure behind the multiple windbreaks across-wind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 41:461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsonkova P, Böhm C, Quinkenstein A, Freese D (2012) Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: a review. Agrofor Syst 85:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuzet A, Wilson JD (2007) Measured winds about a thick hedge. Agric For Meteorol 145:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Unger PW, Stewart BA, Parr JF, Singh RP (1991) Crop residue management and tillage methods for conserving soil and water in semi-arid regions. Soil Tillage Res 20:219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang H, Takle ES (1996) On three-dimensionality of shelterbelt structure and its influences on shelter effects. Bound-Layer Meteorol 79:83–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang H, Brandle JR, Meyer GE, Hodges L (1995) The relationship between open windspeed and windspeed reduction in shelter. Agrofor Syst 32:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brandenburg University of TechnologyCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations