To compare the shelter efficacy of straw checkerboard barriers (SCBs) and rocky checkerboard barriers (RCBs), we measured the flow fields and sand fluxes associated with them in a wind tunnel. For both SCBs and RCBs, a deceleration zone and streamwise vortex formed inside the checkerboards, and an accelerated jet flow emerged at their top. Nevertheless, the material properties of straw and rock are tremendously different, which lead the characteristics of aeolian transport over SCBs and RCBs to be different. 1) Wind velocity decreased gradually across SCBs, reached a minimum in the third checkerboard, and then kept stable; in contrast, wind velocity decreased suddenly and reached a minimum in the first RCB, while it then slightly recovered across the second and third checkerboards and finally kept stable. Moreover, the deceleration zone inside the SCBs decreased gradually as the velocity increased, but that inside the RCBs did not obviously decrease. 2) Under low velocities (≤12.0 m/s), a stronger jet flow presented above RCBs than SCBs, in which more sediments were lifted and transported above RCBs than SCBs, whereas under high velocities (≥16.0 m/s), the results were just the opposite. Therefore, the sand stabilization efficiency of SCBs was better than RCBs when wind velocities were low, while the sand stabilization efficiency of RCBs was better than SCBs when wind velocities were high. This study indicates that SCBs are more suitable for sand fixation in weak wind areas, and RCBs are more suitable in strong wind areas.

为了比较稻草棋盘格屏障（SCB）和岩石棋盘格屏障（RCB）的遮盖效果，我们在风洞中测量了与它们相关的流场和沙通量。对于SCB和RCB，在棋盘内部形成了减速区和沿流方向的涡流，并且在其顶部出现了加速的射流。然而，稻草和岩石的物质特性却大不相同，这导致了SCBs和RCBs上风沙运输的特征有所不同。1）跨SCB的风速逐渐降低，在第三个棋盘达到最小，然后保持稳定；相反，风速突然下降并在第一个RCB中达到最小值，然后在第二个和第三个棋盘上略有恢复，并最终保持稳定。此外，SCB内部的减速带随着速度的增加而逐渐减小，但是RCB内部的减速带并没有明显减小。2）在低速（≤12.0m / s）下，RCBs上方的喷射流比SCBs强，其中在RCBs上方的沉积物被提升和运输的数量大于SCBs，而在高速度（≥16.0m / s）下，结果恰恰相反。因此，当风速低时，SCB的防沙效率要比RCB好，而当风速高时，RCB的防沙效率要比SCB好。这项研究表明，SCB更适合于弱风地区的固沙，而RCB更适合于强风地区。0 m / s），RCBs上方的喷射流比SCBs强，其中在RCBs上方的沉积物比SCBs提升和输送更多，而在高速（≥16.0m / s）下，结果恰好相反。因此，当风速低时，SCB的防沙效率要比RCB好，而当风速高时，RCB的防沙效率要比SCB好。这项研究表明，SCB更适合于弱风地区的固沙，而RCB更适合于强风地区。0 m / s），RCBs上方的喷射流比SCBs强，其中在RCBs上方的沉积物比SCBs提升和输送更多，而在高速（≥16.0m / s）下，结果恰好相反。因此，当风速低时，SCB的防沙效率要比RCB好，而当风速高时，RCB的防沙效率要比SCB好。这项研究表明，SCB更适合于弱风地区的固沙，而RCB更适合于强风地区。风速低时，SCB的防沙效率要比RCB好；风速高时，RCB的防沙效率要比SCB好。这项研究表明，SCB更适合于弱风地区的固沙，而RCB更适合于强风地区。风速低时，SCB的防沙效率要比RCB好；风速高时，RCB的防沙效率要比SCB好。这项研究表明，SCB更适合于弱风地区的固沙，而RCB更适合于强风地区。