바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN2287-8327
  • E-ISSN2288-1220
  • SCOPUS, KCI

ISSN : 2287-8327

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.37 No.2

Citation Share

Seasonal effectiveness of a Korean traditional deciduous windbreak in reducing wind speed

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2014, v.37 no.2, pp.91-97
https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2014.011
Insu Koh (The University of Vermont)

(Divison of Forest Ecology, Korea Forest)
(Divison of Forest Ecology, Korea Forest Research Institute, Seoul 130-712, Korea)
Insu, K. , & (2014). Seasonal effectiveness of a Korean traditional deciduous windbreak in reducing wind speed. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 37(2), 91-97, https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2014.011

Abstract

Little is known about how the increased porosity of a deciduous windbreak, which results from loss of leaves, influences wind speed reduction. We hypothesized that, with loss of foliage, the wind speed reduction effectiveness of a deciduous windbreak decreases on near leeward side but not on further leeward side and that wind speed recovers faster in the full foliage season than in other seasons. During summer, autumn, and winter (full, medium, and non- foliage season, respectively), we observed wind speed and direction around a deciduous windbreak in a traditional Korean village on windward and near and further leeward sides (at –8H, 2H, and 6H; H = 20 m, a windbreak height). We used a linear mixed effects model to determine that the relative wind speed reduction at 2H significantly decreased from 83% to 48% (F2,111.97 = 73.6, P < 0.0001) with the loss of foliage. However, the relative wind speed reduction at 6H significantly increased from 26% to 43% (F2,98.54 = 18.5, P < 0.0001). Consequently, wind speed recovery rate between 2H and 6H in summer was two times higher than in autumn and ten times higher than in winter (F2,102.93 = 223.1, P < 0.0001). These results indicate that deciduous windbreaks with full foliage seem to induce large turbulence and increase wind speed recovery rate on leeward side. Our study suggests that further research is needed to find the optimal foliage density of a deciduous windbreak for maximizing windbreak effectiveness regardless of seasonal foliage changes.

keywords
bibosoop, Korean traditional village grove, phenology stage, porosity, relative wind speed reduction, wind speed recovery rate

Reference

1.

Bitog JP, Lee IB, Hwang HS, Shin MH, Hong SW, Seo IH, Kwon KS, Mostafa E, Pang ZZ. 2012 Numerical simulation study of a tree windbreak. Biosyst Eng 111: 40–48.

2.

Brandle JR, Hodges L, Zhou XH. 2004. Windbreaks in north american agricultural systems. Agroforest Syst 61: 65–78.

3.

Canellas I, Montero G. 2002. The influence of cork oak pruning on the yield and growth of cork. Ann for Sci 59: 753–760.

4.

Choi J-U, Kim D-Y, Kim M-H, Kang B-H, Jeong M-C, Jo L-W, Kim S-B. 2011. Current state of the roadside forest in sachon-ri, uiseong and the perspectives on the name of the natural monuments. J Korean Inst Trad Landsc Arch 29: 52–60.

5.

Cleugh HA. 1998. Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields. Agroforest Syst 41: 55–84.

6.

Fewin RJ, Helwig L. 1988. Windbreak renovation in the american great plains. Agr Ecosyst Environ 22/23: 571–582.

7.

Finch SJ. 1988. Field windbreaks - design criteria. Agr Ecosyst Environ 22/23: 215–228.

8.

Foereid B, Bro R, Mogensen VO, Porter JR. 2002. Effects of windbreak strips of willow coppice - modelling and field experiment on barley in denmark. Agr Ecosyst Environ 93: 25–32.

9.

Hagen LJ, Skidmore EL, Miller PL, Kipp JE. 1981. Simulation of effect of wind barriers on airflow. Trans ASAE 24: 1002–1008.

10.

Heisler GM, Dewalle DR. 1988. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. Agr Ecosyst Environ 22/23: 41–69.

11.

Koh I, Kim S, Lee D. 2010. Effects of bibosoop plantation on wind speed, humidity, and evaporation in a traditional agricultural landscape of korea: Field measurements and modeling. Agr Ecosyst Environ 135: 294–303.

12.

Leal AI, Correia RA, Palmeirim JM, Granadeiro JP. 2013. Does canopy pruning affect foliage-gleaning birds in managed cork oak woodlands? Agroforest Syst 87: 355–363.

13.

Lee D, Koh I, Park C Y. 2007. Ecosystem services of traditional village groves in korea. Seoul National University, Seoul.

14.

Lin XJ, Barrington S, Nicell J, Choiniere D, Vezina A. 2006. Influence of windbreaks on livestock odour dispersion plume in the field. Agr Ecosyst Environ 116: 263–272.

15.

Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., North Carolina.

16.

Loeffler AE, Gordon AM, Gillespie TJ. 1992. Optical porosity and windspeed reduction by coniferous windbreaks in southern ontario. Agroforest Syst 17: 119–133.

17.

McNaughton KG. 1988. Effects of windbreaks on turbulent transport and microclimate. Agr Ecosyst Environ 22/23: 17–39.

18.

Mika A. 1986. Physiological responses of fruit trees to pruning. In: Horticultural reviews (Janick J, ed). John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, pp 337–378.

19.

Park C-R, Shin J-H, Lee D. 2006. Bibosoop: A unique korean biotope for cavity nesting birds. J Ecol Field Biol 29: 75–84.

20.

Skidmore EL, Hagen LJ. 1970. Evaporation in sheltered areas as influenced by windbreak porosity. Agr Meteorol 7: 363–374.

21.

Středová H, Podhrázská J, Litschmann T, Středa T, Rožnovský J. 2012. Aerodynamic parameters of windbreak based on its optical porosity. Contrib Geophysics Geodesy 42: 213–226.

22.

Sudmeyer RA, Speijers J. 2007. Influence of windbreak orientation, shade and rainfall interception on wheat and lupin growth in the absence of below-ground competition. Agroforest Syst 71: 201–214.

23.

Tuskan GA, Laughlin K. 1991. Windbreak species performance and management-practices as reported by montana and north-dakota landowners. J Soil Water Conserv 46: 225–228.

24.

Vigiak O, Sterk G, Warren A, Hagen LJ. 2003. Spatial modeling of wind speed around windbreaks. Catena 52: 273–288.

25.

Vollsinger S, Mitchell SJ, Byrne KE, Novak MD, Rudnicki M. 2005. Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for several hardwood species. Can J Forest Res 35: 1238–1249.

26.

Wang H, Takle ES. 1996. On three-dimensionality of shelterbelt structure and its influences on shelter effects. Bound-Layer Meteorol 79: 83–105.

27.

Wu T, Yu M, Wang G, Wang Z, Duan X, Dong Y, Cheng X. 2013. Effects of stand structure on wind speed reduction in a Metasequoia glyptostroboides shelterbelt. Agroforest Syst 87: 251–257.

28.

Zhang H, Brandle JR, Meyer GE, Hodges L. 1995a. A model to evaluate windbreak protection efficiency. Agroforest Syst 29: 191–200.

29.

Zhang H, Brandle JR, Meyer GE, Hodges L. 1995b. The relationship between open windspeed and windspeed reduction in shelter. Agroforest Syst 32: 297–311.

30.

Zhou XH, Brandle JR, Mize CW, Takle ES. 2004. Three-dimensional aerodynamic structure of a tree shelterbelt: Definition, characterization and working models. Agroforest Syst 63: 133–147.

31.

Zhu JJ, Matsuzaki I, Gonda Y. 2003. Optical stratification porosity as a measure of vertical canopy structure in a Japanese coastal forest. For Ecol Manage 173: 89–104.

Journal of Ecology and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy