Benefits of Windbreaks to Field and Forage Crops

Kort, J.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-43019-9.50018-3

Cited by 73 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Field windbreaks help capture the moisture available in snow by slowing the wind and distributing the snow across the field. As a result, crop yields on fields protected by field windbreaks are increased 15% to 20% (Brandle et al 1984;Kort 1988). These increases are a result of increased moisture due to snow capture and the protection of the crop from wind desiccation.…”

Section: Snow Managementmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…While the influences of wind and shelter on individual plant processes are only partially understood, the net effect of shelter on crop yield is generally positive (Kort 1988;Brandle et al 1992aBrandle et al , 2000 although the Australian experience was less conclusive . The reasons vary with crop, windbreak design, geographic location, moisture condition, soil properties and cultural practice.…”

Section: Crop Yield Response To Sheltermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vegetative growth is generally increased in sheltered environments (Kort 1988). The increase in the rate of accumulation of heat units in shelter contributes to earlier maturity of many crops and the ability to reach the early market with many of these perishable crops can mean sizable economic returns to producers .…”

Section: Growth and Development Response Of Plants To Sheltermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no question that under conditions of limited moisture, competition between the windbreak and the crop has significant negative impacts on yield. Crop yields within the zone of competition may be reduced due to allelopathy, nutrient deficiency, shading, temperature, or soil moisture deficiency (Kort 1988). The degree of competition varies with crop, geographic location (Lyles et al 1984), windbreak species, and soil or climate conditions .…”

Section: The Zone Of Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems

Brandle

Hodges

Zhou

2004

Agroforestry Systems

162

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Snow Managementmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Crop Yield Response To Sheltermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Growth and Development Response Of Plants To Sheltermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Zone Of Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems

Brandle

Hodges

Zhou

2004

Agroforestry Systems

162

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Highly uncertain ILUC effects could negate GHG abatement by willow bioenergy, but results presented in this study were based on high rates of food production displacement to the global agricultural frontier-representing a worst-case scenario. In the longer term, erosion protection and sheltering effects offered by trees could support adjacent arable cropping (Kort 1988;Austin 2014), mitigating food production displacement. Normalisation against European environmental loadings suggests that the relative eutrophication savings are greater than the relative GHG emission increases that could occur under worst-case ILUC scenarios.…”

Section: Water Quality Versus Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Styles

Börjesson

D’Hertefeldt

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst life cycle assessment (LCA) boundaries are expanded to account for negative indirect consequences of bioenergy such as indirect land use change (ILUC), ecosystem services such as water purification sometimes delivered by perennial bioenergy crops are typically neglected in LCA studies. Consequential LCA was applied to evaluate the significance of nutrient interception and retention on the environmental balance of unfertilised energy willow planted on 50-m riparian buffer strips and drainage filtration zones in the Skåne region of Sweden. Excluding possible ILUC effects and considering oil heat substitution, strategically planted filter willow can achieve net global warming potential (GWP) and eutrophication potential (EP) savings of up to 11.9 Mg CO 2 e and 47 kg PO 4 e ha -1 year -1 , respectively, compared with a GWP saving of 14.8 Mg CO 2 e ha -1 year -1 and an EP increase of 7 kg PO 4 e ha -1 year -1 for fertilised willow. Planting willow on appropriate buffer and filter zones throughout Skåne could avoid 626 Mg year -1 PO 4 e nutrient loading to waters.

show abstract

How much do we really lose?—Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes

Raatz

Bacchi

Pirhofer‐Walzl

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large‐scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field‐to‐field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid‐field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log‐scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Göttingen, and 2015–2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11%–38% in comparison with mid‐field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95% of mid‐field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in‐field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.

show abstract

Benefits of Windbreaks to Field and Forage Crops

Cited by 73 publications

References 21 publications

Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems

Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

How much do we really lose?—Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About