Abstract
Windbreaks are a major component of and play an important role in agroforestry ecosystems. One of the most important functions is to reduce wind erosion and protect crops from wind damage. In this study, we discussed a method to evaluate the efficiency of wind protection by a windbreak. First, we chose a windbreak model that was only related to the structural parameters of the windbreak. There were windbreak average widths (w), optical porosities (θo), barrier heights (h) and distances from the barrier along the wind direction xh. Then, we established a method that was used to extract the inputs of the windbreak model by using remote sensing (RS) and a geographic information system (GIS). The windbreak average width (w) was extracted by using object-based image analysis with an average accuracy of 72.428%. The optical porosity (θo) and barrier height (h) were estimated by using quantitative remote sensing technology with average accuracy of 86.9592% and 79.0497%, respectively. Finally, the efficiency of windbreak wind protection was evaluated by using this windbreak model based on RS and GIS technology. The results indicated that this windbreak model can be used to evaluate the efficiency of the wind protection of the windbreak by considering the properties of the windbreak itself. This study can provide a useful guide for studying the wind protection provided by windbreaks based on spatial and temporal scales using RS and GIS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
* Correlation is significant at the 95% confidence level.
** Correlation is significant at the 99% confidence level.
References
Aksoy S, Akcay HG, Wassenaar T (2010) Automatic mapping of linear woody vegetation features in agricultural landscapes using very high resolution imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48:511–522. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2009.2027702
Arias D, Calvo-Alvarado J, Dohrenbusch A (2007) Calibration of LAI-2000 to estimate leaf area index (LAI) and assessment of its relationship with stand productivity in six native and introduced tree species in Costa Rica. For Ecol Manag 247:185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.039
Bennell MR, Verbyla AP (2008) Quantifying the response of crops to shelter in the agricultural regions of South Australia. Aust J Agric Res 59:950–957. https://doi.org/10.1071/ar08188
Bitog JP et al (2012) Numerical simulation study of a tree windbreak. Biosyst Eng 111:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.10.006
Burke MWV, Rundquist BC, Zheng HC (2019) Detection of shelterbelt density change using historic APFO and NAIP aerial imagery. Remote Sens 11:19. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11030218
Chen JM, Black T (1992) Defining leaf area index for non-flat leaves Plant. Cell Environ 15:421–429
Cleugh H (1998) Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields. Agrofor Syst 41:55–84
Dacia MM (2013) Mapping trees outside forests using high-resolution aerial imagery: a comparison of pixel- and object-based classification approaches. Environ Monit Assess 185(8):6261–6275
Deng R, Li Y, Wang W, Zhang S (2013) Recognition of shelterbelt continuity using remote sensing and waveform recognition. Agrofor Syst 87:827–834
Deng RX, Li Y, Xu XL, Wang WJ, Wei YC (2017) Remote estimation of shelterbelt width from SPOT5 imagery. Agrofor Syst 91:161–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9915-1
Deng RX et al (2019) Analysis of changes in shelterbelt landscape in northeast China. Appl Ecol Environ Res 17:11655–11668. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1705_1165511668
Guan D, Zhang Y, Zhu T (2003) A wind-tunnel study of windbreak drag. Agric For Meteorol 118:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(03)00069-8
Guan W, Li C, Li S, Fan Z, Xie C (2002) Improvement and application of digitized measure on shelterbelt porosity. J Appl Ecol 13:651–657
Guan D-X, Zhong Y, Jin C-J, Wang A-Z, Wu J-B, Shi T-T, Zhu T-Y (2009) Variation in wind speed and surface shear stress from open floor to porous parallel windbreaks: a wind tunnel study. J Geophys Res Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011463
Heisler GM, Dewalle DR (1988) 2. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22:41–69
Huete AR, Hua G, Qi J, Chehbouni A, van Leeuwen WJD (1992) Normalization of multidirectional red and NIR reflectances with the SAVI. Remote Sens Environ 41:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(92)90074-T
Huete AR, Liu HQ, Batchily K, van Leeuwen W (1997) A comparison of vegetation indices over a global set of TM images for EOS-MODIS. Remote Sens Environ 59:440–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00112-5
Jarron LR, Coops NC, MacKenzie WH, Tompalski P, Dykstra P (2020) Detection of subcanopy forest structure using airborne LiDAR. Remote Sens Environ 244:111770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111770
Jordan CF (1969) Derivation of leaf-area index from quality of light on the forest floor. Ecology 50:663–666. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936256
Karathanassi V, Topouzelis K, Pavlakis P, Rokos D (2006) An object-oriented methodology to detect oil spills. Int J Remote Sens 27:5235–5251
Kaufman YJ, Tanre D (1992) Atmospherically resistant vegetation index (ARVI) for EOS-MODIS. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 30:261–270. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.134076
Kwong IHY, Fung T (2020) Tree height mapping and crown delineation using LiDAR, large format aerial photographs, and unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry in subtropical urban forest. Int J Remote Sens 41:5228–5256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2020.1731002
Lang N, Schindler K, Wegner JD (2019) Country-wide high-resolution vegetation height mapping with Sentinel-2. Remote Sens Environ 233:15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111347
Liu C, Zheng Z, Cheng H, Zou X (2018) Airflow around single and multiple plants. Agric For Meteorol 252:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.009
Liu JG, Mason PJ (2016) Geographical information systems. In: Image processing and GIS for remote sensing, pp 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118724194.ch12
Loeffler A, Gordon A, Gillespie T (1992) Optical porosity and windspeed reduction by coniferous windbreaks in Southern Ontario. Agrofor Syst 17:119–133
Lucas R et al (2020) Structural characterisation of mangrove forests achieved through combining multiple sources of remote sensing data. Remote Sens Environ 237:111543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111543
Metternicht G (2003) Vegetation indices derived from high-resolution airborne videography for precision crop management. Int J Remote Sens 24:2855–2877
Mutanen T, Sirro L, Rauste Y, IEEE (2016) Tree height estimates in boreal forest using gaussian process regression. In: 2016 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium. IEEE international symposium on geoscience and remote sensing IGARSS. IEEE, New York, pp 1757–1760. https://doi.org/10.1109/igarss.2016.7729450
Panofsky HA, Dutton JA (1984) Atmospheric turbulence. Models and methods for engineering applications. Wiley, New York
Proisy C, Couteron P, Fromard F (2007) Predicting and mapping mangrove biomass from canopy grain analysis using Fourier-based textural ordination of IKONOS images. Remote Sens Environ 109:379–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.009
Qi J, Chehbouni A, Huete AR, Kerr YH, Sorooshian S (1994) A modified soil adjusted vegetation index. Remote Sens Environ 48:119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(94)90134-1
Torita H, Satou H (2007) Relationship between shelterbelt structure and mean wind reduction. Agric For Meteorol 145:186–194
Vigiak O, Sterk G, Warren A, Hagen LJ (2003) Spatial modeling of wind speed around windbreaks. CATENA 52:273–288
Wang H, Takle ES (1996) On three-dimensionality of shelterbelt structure and its influences on shelter effects. Bound Layer Meteorol 79:83–105
Wiesmeier M, Lungu M, Cerbari V, Boincean B, Hubner R, Kogel-Knabner I (2018) Rebuilding soil carbon in degraded steppe soils of Eastern Europe: the importance of windbreaks and improved cropland management. Land Degrad Dev 29:875–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2902
Wilson JD (2004a) Oblique, stratified winds about a shelter fence. Part I: measurements. J Appl Meteorol 43:1149–1167
Wilson JD (2004b) Oblique, stratified winds about a shelter fence. Part II: comparison of measurements with numerical models. J Appl Meteorol 43:1392–1409
Wiseman G, Kort J, Walker D (2009) Quantification of shelterbelt characteristics using high-resolution imagery. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:111–117
Yang XG, Yu Y (2017) Estimating soil salinity under various moisture conditions: an experimental study. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 55:2525–2533. https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2016.2646420
Yang XG, Yu Y, Fan WY (2017) A method to estimate the structural parameters of windbreaks using remote sensing. Agrofor Syst 91:37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9904-4
Yeh CP, Tsai CH, Yang RJ (2010) An investigation into the sheltering performance of porous windbreaks under various wind directions. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 98:520–532
Yu Y, Yang X, Fan W (2015) Estimates of forest structure parameters from GLAS data and multiangle imaging spectrometer data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 38:65–71
Zheng X, Zhu JJ, Xing ZF (2016) Assessment of the effects of shelterbelts on crop yields at the regional scale in Northeast China. Agric Syst 143:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.008
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 31971580, 31870621, 31500519), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Nos. 2572019CP12, 2572019BA10), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2019M661239).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, X., Li, F., Fan, W. et al. Evaluating the efficiency of wind protection by windbreaks based on remote sensing and geographic information systems. Agroforest Syst 95, 353–365 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00594-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00594-x