Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 44, Issue 2–3, pp 313–331 | Cite as

An assessment of windbreaks in Central Wisconsin

  • C. A. David
  • V. Rhyner
Article

Abstract

Soil erosion by wind is a persistent problem in central Wisconsin. The extent and effectiveness of windbreaks in erosion-prone areas are unknown. We investigated the potential effectiveness of windbreaks established for soil erosion control in Portage County, Wisconsin. Our objectives included quantification of their extent and condition, development of a routine method for field assessment, and compilation of a reference database of windbreak information. We used aerial photographs to identify the windbreak population, and a two-stage, stratified random sampling technique to obtain samples for field evaluation. Variables and attributes examined included species, number of gaps, height, width, porosity, spacing, live crown ratio, crown condition, and a condition rating. Methods included simple photo-interpretation techniques, field measurements, optical scanning techniques, and data manipulation in geographic information systems. We identified over 2600 windbreaks comprising a total extent of 834 km; only a small proportion of this may offer effective protection at critical periods. Collectively, field windbreaks protect a very small proportion only of the county‘s agricultural land area from wind erosion. These results imply a need for increased planting rates, explicit maintenance or renovation of existing barriers, and windbreak designs that are both sustainable and compatible with current agricultural production efforts.

geographic information systems sampling soil erosion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avery TE and Berlin GL (1992) Fundamentals of remote sensing and airphoto interpretation. Fifth edition. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA, 472 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Behm DH (1986) Assessment of erosive wind frequency for Portage County. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 168 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry S, O’Leary LC and Laine, K (1991) Aldus Photo Styler User Manual, Version 1.1. Second edition. Aldus Corporation, Seattle, WA, USA, 402 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryson, B (1993) Britain’s hedgerows. National Geographic 184(3): 94–117Google Scholar
  5. Burns RM and Honkala BH (eds) (1990) Silvics of North America, Volumes II, Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 654, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Central Sands Wind Erosion Control Project (1991) Pilot project manual, Version 2.3. Stevens Point, WI, USA, 38 pp (mimeo)Google Scholar
  7. Cole J (1993) Geographic calculator, Version 2.01. Blue Marble Geographics, Gardener, Maine, USA, 64 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Eastman RJ (1992) IDRISI User’s Guide, Version 4.0. Clark University Graduate School of Geography, Worcester, MA, USA, 178 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Finch S (1988) Field windbreaks: design criteria. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 22/23: 215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goc MJ (1990) The Wisconsin dust bowl. Wisconsin Magazine of History 73(3): 163–201Google Scholar
  11. Heisler GM and DeWalle DR (1988) Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 22/23: 41–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Husch BC, Miller CI and Beers TW (1972) Forest mensuration. Second edition. The Ronald Press Company, New York, NY, USA, 410 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Kenney WA (1987) A method for estimating windbreak porosity using digitized photographic silhouettes. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 39: 91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimmins JP (1997) Forest ecology, Second Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 596 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Loeffler AE, Gordon AM and Gillespie TJ (1992) Optical porosity and windbreak reduction by coniferous windbreaks in southern Ontario. Agroforestry Systems 17: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merwin ML (ed) (1997) The status, opportunities and needs for agroforestry in the United States. Association for Temperate Agroforestry, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, 41 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Milliken GA and Johnson DE (1992) Analysis of messy data, Volume 1: Designed experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, USA, 473 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. New Mexico Forestry Division (1996) Guidelines for windbreaks in New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Otter AJ and Fiala WD (1978) Soil survey of Portage County, Wisconsin. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, 96 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Read RA (1958) The Great Plains shelterbelts in 1954. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Great Plains Agricultural Council Publication No. 16, 125 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Rhyner V (1994) An evaluation of the extent and potential effectiveness of windbreaks in Portage County. M. S. Thesis, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA, 89 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute (1990) SAS/STAT User’s guide, Version 6, Fourth edition. SAS Institute, INC., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. Second edition. W. H. Freeman and Co, New York, NY, USA, 859 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Tibke G (1988) Basic principles of wind erosion control. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 22/23: 103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. USDA Soil Conservation Service (1991) Windbreak technology. Student handbook, SCS Forestry windbreak technology training course, July 22–26, 1991, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens PointUSA

Personalised recommendations