Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Molla Alemu (2016)
Ecological Benefits of Trees as Windbreaks and ShelterbeltsInternational Journal of Ecosystem, 6
(2012)
Windbreak technology
John Wilson (1987)
On the choice of a windbreak porosity profileBoundary-Layer Meteorology, 38
(2007)
Agricultural afforestation: terms and definitions
(2019)
Soil erosion control systems. Kyiv, Kondor, p 368 (in Ukrainian
J. Santiago, F. Martín, Á. Cuerva, N. Bezdenejnykh, Á. Sanz-Andrés (2007)
Experimental and numerical study of wind flow behind windbreaksAtmospheric Environment, 41
G. Heisler, D. Dewalle (1988)
2. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flowAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
David Řeháček, T. Khel, J. Kučera, J. Vopravil, M. Petera (2017)
Effect of windbreaks on wind speed reduction and soil protection against wind erosionSoil and Water Research, 12
N. Abel, J. Baxter, A. Campbell, H. Cleugh, J. Fargher, R. Lambeck, R. Prinsley, M. Prosser, R. Reid, G. Revell, C. Schmidt, R. Stirzaker, P. Thornburn (1997)
Design principles for farm forestry: a guide to assist farmers to decide where to place trees and farms plantations on farms
(2004)
Methodological basis and methods of research in protective afforestation
M. Hradil (2014)
SIMULATION OF THE EFFECT OF WINDBREAKS ON AIRFLOW WITH THE WASP ENGINEERING PROGRAMActa Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 62
Se-woon Hong, In-Bok Lee, I. Seo (2015)
Modelling and predicting wind velocity patterns for windbreak fence designJournal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 142
W. Cornelis, Donald Gabriëls (2005)
Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion controlJournal of Arid Environments, 61
H. Středová, J. Podhrázská, T. Litschmann, T. Středa, J. Rožnovský (2012)
Aerodynamic Parameters of Windbreak Based on its Optical Porosity, 42
A. Loeffler, A. Gordon, T. Gillespie (1992)
Optical porosity and windspeed reduction by coniferous windbreaks in Southern OntarioAgroforestry Systems, 17
M. Schoeneberger, G. Bentrup, H. Gooijer, R. Soolanayakanahally, T. Sauer, J. Brandle, Xinhua Zhou, D. Current (2012)
Branching out: Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agricultureJournal of Soil and Water Conservation, 67
E. Bradley, P. Mulhearn (1983)
Development of velocity and shear stress distribution in the wake of a porous shelter fenceJournal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 15
(2009)
Aerodynamic and microclimate changes behind windbreaks
O Pylypenko, V Yukhnovskyi (2000)
Optymalni zonalni konstrukzii polezakhysnykh lisovykh smug [Optimal zonal designs of windbreaks]. KyivProc NULES. No, 25
T. Středa, Petra Malenová, Hana Pokladníková, J. Rožnovský (2008)
The efficiency of windbreaks on the basis of wind field and optical porosity measurementActa Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 56
State agency of forest resources of Ukraine (an official site
Mulati Yusaiyin, N. Tanaka (2009)
Effects of windbreak width in wind direction on wind velocity reductionJournal of Forestry Research, 20
R. Osorio, C. Barden, I. Ciampitti (2018)
GIS approach to estimate windbreak crop yield effects in Kansas–NebraskaAgroforestry Systems, 93
(2003)
Forest-agrarian landscapes of plain Ukraine: optimization, standards, and ecological aspects. Kyiv, p 273 (in Ukrainian
Wanmo Kang, Dowon Lee (2014)
Seasonal effectiveness of a Korean traditional deciduous windbreak in reducing wind speedJournal of Ecology and Environment, 37
D. Guan, Yu-shu Zhang, T. Zhu (2003)
A wind-tunnel study of windbreak dragAgricultural and Forest Meteorology, 118
(2000)
Optymalni zonalni konstrukzii polezakhysnykh lisovykh smug
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
In this article, we investigate the regulation of wind regime by windbreaks of different designs formed by thinning. In particular, we look at the effects of thinning in 52–67 years old oak stands. Based on our results, different windbreaks designs of foliage and aphyllous states influence wind regime of adjacent fields. This research shows that windbreaks of sieve-looking and blown designs with an average optical porosity of 20–25% between the trunks and 5–10% in the crowns have better aerodynamic properties than windbreaks of dense design. The uniformity coefficient of reduction in the airflow ranged between 0.42 and 0.76. There is a clear tendency to decrease wind velocity at a distance of 15H in the leeward side, which has a beneficial effect on agronomic productivity of the surrounding areas. With the transition of windbreaks from full foliage to aphyllous state the optical trunk porosity of plantations increases 1.8–3.0 times, and in crowns—2.5–4.0 times. The windbreaks of blown and sieve-looking designs in the aphyllous state with an average porosity between trunks of 40–50% and in the crowns of 20–30%, regulate more effectively the wind regime in comparison with windbreaks of dense design. According to our findings, the windbreaks of blown design with porosity 40–50% between the trunks and 0–10% in crowns and sieve-looking design have the best ameliorative properties in the region.
Agroforestry Systems – Springer Journals
Published: May 9, 2020
Keywords: Wind regime; Wind velocity; Uniformity factor; Optical porosity; Phenological phase
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.