Skip to main content
Log in

Estimates of additional Maize (Zea mays) yields required to offset costs of tree-windbreaks in Midwestern USA

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Field windbreaks can increase crop yield within a protected zone. However, they also take land out of crop production and compete with adjacent crops. Although the beneficial aspects are generally recognized, the question arises whether the windbreak will increase crop revenue enough to offset costs over time. Achieving additional yields to offset windbreak costs might be a sufficient incentive for a producer to plant a windbreak. Additional maize (Zea mays) yields necessary to break even with costs are calculated for four typical Midwestern USA field windbreaks: poplar (Populus spp.), mixed tree/shrubs (Populus spp., Acer saccharinum L./Physocarpus spp., Viburnum spp., Cornus spp.), and two and four-row spruce (Picea spp.) windbreaks. Five lifespans, two management and two cost scenarios, and three protected zone widths to account for changing sheltering effects are evaluated. Greatest additional yields are for a 4-row spruce windbreak with intensive management at high cost and a 10-year lifespan: 15.38 Mg ha–1 yr–1 within 6H, 7.69 Mg ha–1 yr–1 within 12H and 6.15 Mg ha–1 yr–1 within 15H. If a 50-year lifespan is implemented, the additional yields are about 11% of those in 10-year lifespan. Smallest additional yields are for a mixed tree/shrubs windbreak with extensive management at low cost and a 50-year lifespan: 0.56 Mg ha–1 yr–1, 0.28 Mg ha–1 yr–1 and 0.22 Mg ha–1 yr–1, respectively. The mixed windbreak is likely to have actual maize yield increases comparable to the added maize yields required to break even as long as the lifespan is 30 years or longer with a minimum protected zone of 12H.

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

  • Baer N.W. 1989. Shelterbelts and Windbreaks in the Great Plains.Journal of Forestry87(4): 32-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandle J.R., Hodges L. and Wight B. 2000. Windbreak Practices. In: Garrett H.E., Rietveld W.J. and Fisher R.F. (eds), North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice.American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 79-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandle J.R., Johnson B.B. and Akeson T. 1992. Field Windbreaks: Are They Economical?Journal of Production Agriculture5: 393-398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandle J.R., Johnson B.B. and Dearmont D.D. 1984. Windbreak economics: The case of winter wheat production in eastern Nebraska.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation39: 339-343.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAO. 1975. Action Needed To Discourage Removal Of Trees That Shelter Cropland In The Great Plains. U.S. General Accounting Office. Report to the Congress. Publication RED-75-375.

  • IDALS. 2001. 2001 Reports on State Average Corn Prices [on-line]. Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Agricultural Marketing Bureau. URL: http://www2.state.ia.us/agriculture/historic.html (cited on September 27, 2001).

  • Johnson R.J., Beck M.M. and Brandle J.R. 1994. Windbreaks for people: The wildlife connection.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation49: 546-550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston W.F. 1977. Black Spruce in the North Central States. North Central Forest Experimentation Station. General Technical Report NC-94. Forest Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer W.D. 1996. Forest Resource Economics and Finance.McGraw-Hill, New York, 551 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort J. 1988. Benefits of Windbreaks to Field and Forage Crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 22/23: 165-190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMartin W., Frank A.B. and Heintz R.H. 1974. Economics of shelterbelt influence on wheat yields in North Dakota. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation29: 87-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASS. 2001. Agricultural Statistics 2001 (p I-25).USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell E.L. 1985. Socioeconomic Barriers to Windbreak Planting, and Solutions “To Plant or Not to Plant” In: Tauer C.G. and Conway K.E. (eds), 50 Years of Progress in Plains Forestry: 1985 Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Great Plains Agricultural Council Forestry Committee held in Lawton, Oklahoma June 18-20 1985.Division of Agriculture. Publication No. 116.

  • Rose D.W. 1977. Cost of Producing Energy from Wood in Intensive Cultures. Journal of Environmental Management5: 23-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoeckeler J.H. 1963. Shelterbelts and Their Effects on Crop Yields in the Great Plains. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation18: 139-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoeckeler J.H. 1962. Shelterbelt Influence on Great Plains Field Environment and Crops. A Guide for Determining Design and Orientation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Production research report No. 62.

  • rway P.H. and Thomson G.W. 1987. Yield Information for Natural Stands of Iowa Hardwoods. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service. Publication Pm-941. Iowa State University, Ames.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert K. Grala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grala, R.K., Colletti, J.P. Estimates of additional Maize (Zea mays) yields required to offset costs of tree-windbreaks in Midwestern USA. Agroforestry Systems 59, 11–20 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026140208707

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026140208707

Navigation