Effect of artificial wind shelters on the growth and yield of rainfed crops

Abstract

There is great interest in quantifying and understanding how shelter modifies crop growth and development under Australian conditions. Small constructed enclosures (shelters) can consistently reduce wind speed, allowing experiments to be run with replicated sheltered and unsheltered treatments in close proximity. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect on microclimate of consistently reducing wind speed by 70% and explain the consequences for dryland wheat (Triticum aestivum), lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) and mungbean (Vigna radiata) growth and development, at sites in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. Crops were grown inside and outside of artificial shelters, 10 by 10 m and extending 1 m above the crop canopy throughout the growing season. Mean daily air and soil temperatures and atmospheric vapour pressure inside the shelters were largely similar to unsheltered conditions. However, clear diurnal trends were evident; daily maximum temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) were increased in shelter when crops were establishing or senescing. When leaf area index (LAI) was reduced in the shelters, soil temperature was greater than in the open, however when LAI was increased in the shelters, soil temperature was less than in the open. Grain yield in shelters ranged between 78 and 120% of unsheltered yield, depending on seasonal conditions and crop species; the mean yield for all sites, crops and years was 99% of unsheltered yield. In the absence of waterlogging, sheltered crops tended to develop more leaf area than unsheltered crops, with an increase in the ratio of leaf area to above-ground biomass. This greater leaf area did not increase soil water use. While LAI was increased by shelter, only 2 of the 6 sheltered crops that were not waterlogged yielded significantly more grain than the unsheltered crops. This may be because the sheltered crops experienced greater maximum temperatures and VPD during anthesis and grain filling than unsheltered crops. Also, net photosynthesis may not have increased in the shelters after canopy closure (LAI>3–4). Lupins, which developed more leaf area inside shelters, may have experienced strong competition for assimilates between developing branches, flowers and fruit. When rainfall was above average and the soil became waterlogged for part of the growing season, grain yield was reduced inside the shelters. Reduced evaporation inside the shelters may have extended the duration and severity of waterlogging and increased stresses on sheltered plants when potential yield was being set. The reductions in wind speed achieved inside the artificial shelters were greater than those likely in conventional tree windbreak systems. Analysis of crop growth illustrated that microclimate modification at this high level of shelter can be both beneficial and harmful, depending on the crop species and climatic conditions during the growing season.

Modelling crop growth and yield under the environmental changes induced by windbreaks 1. Model development and validation

“…APSIM EO v. SCAM Sudmeyer et al (2002) showed that wind speed within the artificial enclosures was reduced by about 70% regardless of season or location. This represents the maximum wind reduction possible by windbreaks and data from these experiments is ideally suited to benchmark model responses.…”

“…The theoretical approaches described above were tested against field data from artificial shelter experiments (Sudmeyer et al 2002). The data consisted of detailed environmental measurements of crop growth and yield for wheat and mungbean taken from artificial enclosures in south-eastern Queensland and in south-eastern Western Australia.…”

“…The data consisted of detailed environmental measurements of crop growth and yield for wheat and mungbean taken from artificial enclosures in south-eastern Queensland and in south-eastern Western Australia. Sudmeyer et al (2002) describe in detail the design of these artificial shelters, and the measures taken to minimise errors associated with shading. For open field conditions APSIM TE closely simulated the experiments.…”

“…As part of a larger research program (Cleugh et al 2002), modelling approaches capable of simulating environmental changes behind windbreaks were developed and validated alongside detailed field experimentation (Sudmeyer et al 2002;Wright and Brooks 2002). These approaches included a model capable of simulating the micro-meteorological changes induced by windbreaks (Cleugh 2002) and modifications to an existing cropping systems simulation capability that estimates windbreak effects on crop growth and ultimately yield (McCown et al 1996;Meinke et al 1997a).…”

Effects of windbreak Forest according to tree species and planting methods based on wind tunnel experiments

“…In addition to protecting against strong winds, these forests also create micrometeorological environments, typically including a heat reserving effect of 1-4 C. The construction of wind protection forests is also highly desirable to protect farmlands that similarly experience wind damage to crops, arable land and other facilities; these include riverside, plateau and mountain foot areas (An 2006). There are many studies on the effects of windbreaks on the growth of potato plants (Sun and Dickinson 1997), the yields of wheat, lupin and mungbean (Sudmeyer et al 2002) and the yield of wheat plants (Campi et al 2009).…”