Skip to main content
Log in

Crop residue effects on aerodynamic processes and wind erosion

  • Published:
Theoretical and Applied Climatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This study focuses on both the mechanisms and degree of wind erosion control that various residue levels provide. First, scale parameters of Weibull wind-speed distributions at meteorological stations were modified to predict friction velocity distributions at eroding field sites. Simplified erosion prediction equations then were used to evaluate wind erosion on highly erodible, loose, sandy soils. Parameters for the erosion prediction equations were developed from wind tunnel data on soil loss and threshold friction velocities at various residue levels. Erosion-control mechanisms of flat residue include restricting soil emission from the surface and increasing threshold wind speeds. A minimum of 30 to 60 percent flat cover is needed to provide adequate control on highly erodible sands. The control level by flat residue can be increased by using short fields. Erosion-control mechanisms of standing residue include reducing the soil-surface friction velocity and intercepting saltating soil. Standing residue is more effective than flat residue, and 5 percent vertical silhouette area of standing residue per unit horizontal area provides adequate erosion-control in low and moderate wind regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apt, K. E., 1976: Applicabality of the Weibull distribution to atmospheric radioactivity data.Atmos. Environ. 10, 777–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagnold, R. A., 1941:The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. London: Chapman and Hall, 265 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, D. L., 1979: Adjustment and analysis of data for regional wind energy assessments. Paper presented at the Workshop on Wind Climate, Ashville, North Carolina, November 12–13.

  • Elliot, D. L., Holladay, C. G., Barchet, W. R., Foote, H. P., Sandusky, W. F., 1987: Wind energy resource atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4. Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryrear, D. W., 1985: Soil cover and wind erosion.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28, 781–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillette, D. A., Stockton, P. H., 1989: The effect of nonerodible particles on wind erosion at erodible surfaces.J. Geophys. Res. 94, 12, 885–12, 893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeley, R., Iverson, J. D., 1985:Wind as a Geological Process. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 333 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J. M., 1982: Soil cover prediction with various amounts and types of crop residue.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 25, 1333–1337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, L. J., 1991a: A wind erosion prediction system to meet user needs.J. Soil Water Conserv. 46, 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, L. J., 1991b: Wind erosion mechanics: abrasion of aggregated soil.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 34, 831–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, L. J., Armburst, D. V., 1994: Plant canopy effects on wind erosion saltation.Trans. Amer. Agric. Eng. 37, 461–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, L., Allison, B. E., 1981: Equivalent wind erosion protection from selected crop residues.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 24, 405–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, L., Allison, B. E., 1976: Wind erosion: The protective role of simulated standing stubble.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19, 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathsoft, Inc., 1993:Mathcad 4.0 Users Guide. Cambridge, MA: Mathsoft, Inc., 456 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. K., 1971: Drag measurements in roughness arrays of varying density and distribution.Agric. Meteorol. 8, 269–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panofsky, H. A., Dutton, J. A., 1984:Atmospheric Turbulence. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 397 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raupach, M. R., 1992: Drag and drag partition on rough surfaces.Bound.-Layer Meteor. 60, 375–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raupach, M. R., Gillette, D. A., Leys, J. F., 1993: The effect of roughness elements on wind erosion threshold.J. Geophys. Res. 98,D2, 3023–3029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. H., Pereira, A. R., 1982: Aerodynamic roughness of a plant canopy: a numerical experiment.Agric. Meteor. 26, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddoway, F. H., Chepil, W. S., Armbrust, D. V., 1965: Effect of kind, amount, and placement of residue on wind erosion control.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 8, 327–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skidmore, E. L., Tatarko, J., 1991: Wind in the Great Plains: Speed and direction distributions by month. In: Hanson, J. D., Schaffer, M. J., Cole, C. V. (eds.)Sustainable Agriculture for the Great Plains. USDA-ARS, Unnumb. Pub., pp. 195–213.

  • Stout, J., 1990: Wind erosion within a simple field.Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 33, 1597–1600.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, T. A. M., Fryrear, D. W., Spaan, W. P., 1989: Vegetation characteristics and soil loss by wind.J. Soil Water Conserv. 44, 347–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, N. P., Siddoway, F. H., 1965: A wind erosion equation.Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29, 602–608.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Contribution from USDA, ARS in cooperation with Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Contribution Number 95-41-J.

With 6 Figures

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hagen, L.J. Crop residue effects on aerodynamic processes and wind erosion. Theor Appl Climatol 54, 39–46 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00863557

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00863557

Keywords

Navigation