Evaluating the efficiency of bio-soil windbreaker device for wind erosion control: A Case Study of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province, Junqan District




Inrtoduction: As serious problems especially in Iranian border provinces, wind erosion and dust storm exert harmful effects on human health and the environments, including reducing soil fertility, increasing desertification, etc. So far, a variety of efforts such as using polymers and mulch, vegetation, oil emulsions, microorganisms have been done to reduce wind erosion and stablize the soil. However, none of tham have proved effective due to special circumstances that exist in Iran. Therefore, using modern thechnologies for controlling wind erosion and reducing wind speed in Iran seems necessary. In this research which sought create a bio-soil windbreak to control wind erosion and reduce wind velocity, a new device called “Ridging device” was used to build a ridge or windbreak.
Material and methods: The ridging device comprises of three main parts, including the digginh of soil part, mixing soil- polymer part, and the ridge maker part. This machine digs the soil from within 30 cm depth, transfer it to the conveyor where polymer (polymer suspension) is added, and finally pours the mixture of soil- polymer into the ridge maker part. As a result of the pressure exerted by two plates embedded in the ridgid maker part, a ridge with a penetration resistance of 1.5 kg per square centimeter and an aggregate stability of 80% is created. Moreover, The penetration resistance of the ridge also increases with increasing polymer concentration. Through the settings placed at the end of the ridge maker part, the height and width of the ridge could be adjusted based on soil conditions, the region’s climatic conditions, initial soil moisture, and other conditions. To investigate the effect of the ridges on reducing wind velocity, the latter was recorded at heights (Z) of 0.05 m, 0.1 m, 0.2 m, 0.4, and 0.6 m above the surface, and at distances (x) of -2.5H, -1.25H, -0.62H, 0.62H. 1.25H, 2.5H. 3.75H, 5H, 6.25H, 7.5H, 10H, and 12.5H from the ridge. It should be noted that for simulateing wind erosion reduction with the ridge, a wind erosion measuring device with a speed of 15.6 m/s was used under laboratory conditions. The wind speed was measured with an AN-4330 Anonometer.
Results and disscution: The results of the wind velocity profile showed that the wind velocity increased with increasing distance from the soil surface and reached its initial constant value (15.6 m/s) at a distance of 20 cm from the soil surface. The study also found that the ridge effectively reduced wind speed in such a way that by increasing the distance from the ridge, the wind speed also increased and reached a constant trend at 10 to 12 times the height of the ridge. Moreover, it was found that the region’s wind erosion threshold speed was 6.52 ms-1 and the distance between the ridges was 20 m. Therefore, to control erosion with this method, 500 meters of the ridge per hectare is requires.
One of the advantages of this device is that constructing a ridger and controlling wind erosion is less costly compared to other techniques. Another important advantage of this ridger device over other living and non-living windbreaks is the accessible regional raw materials used in its construction. Generally, this ridge device is durable for four to five years, and it is constructed with low costs and no damages to the environmnt. This technique has no adverse effects on the environment and is very environmentally friendly. Given that the device is first of its kind, further studies are required for upgrading its design and function. Moreover, considering the special circumstances of Iran, effective policies and studies are needed for reducing air pollution and dust concentration in line with Iran’s sustainable development.

Conclusion: Existence of nearly 30 million hectares of areas affected by wind erosion in Iran and various environmental stresses such as water shortage, soil salinity, erosive winds, etc., makes it necessary to use efficient methods such as mechanical windbreaks to control these areas. On the other hand, soil ridge is a very cheap thoough efficient mechanical windbreak that can be accessed and implemented in any area.
The application of the windbreak device introduced in this study would be an effective step in using cheaper and faster windbreaks. This device ican create a ridge of desired size up to a maximum height of 70 cm in a short time, and thus greatly help control wind erosion. Finally, it is suggested that the performance of the device be evaluated in areas with different soil texture, climatic conditions, and topography.


1. Ahmadi, A., Ekhtesasi, MR, Feiznia, S. and Ghanei Bafti, M.J., 2003. Investigation of Wind Erosion Control Methods for Railway Protection (Case Study: Bafgh Region). Iranian Journal of Natural Resources 55(3), 337-327. 2. Amiri, I., 2009. Master thesis. Comparative study of the effects of different windbreakers on wind speed variations in Jiroft and Kohnoj area, Zabol University, Faculty of Natural Resources.120 pp. 3. Asghari, S., 2004. Soil Physics Leaflet. University of Mohaghegh Ardabil. 4. Azoogh, L., Jafari, S., 2018. Interaction of petroleum mulching, vegetation restoration and dust fallout on the conditions of sand dunes in southwest of Iran. Aeolian research 32, 124-132. 5. Campi, P., Palumbo, A. and Mastrorilli, M.J.E., 2009. Effects of tree windbreak on microclimate and wheat productivity in a Mediterranean environment. 30, 220-227. 6. Chang, X., Sun, L., Yu, X., Jia, G., Liu, J. and Liu, Z., 2019a. Effect of windbreaks on particle concentrations from agricultural fields under a variety of wind conditions in the farming-pastoral ecotone of northern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 281,16-24. 7. Cornelis, W. and Gabriels, D., 2005. Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control. Journal of Arid Environments 61, 315-332. 8. Department of Environment, 2016. Mulching plan in Ali Biglu Pilot lands on the edge of Lake Urmia. Final Report of the Executive Plan.12 pp. 9. Dong, Z., Qian, G., Luo, W. and Wang, H., 2006. Threshold velocity for wind erosion: the effects of porous fences. Environmental geology 51,471-475. 10. Du, H., Wang, T., Xue, X. and Li, S., 2018. Modelling of sand/dust emission in Northern China from 2001 to 2014. Geoderma 330,162-176. 11. Ferreira, A., 2011. Structural design of a natural windbreak using computational and experimental modeling. 11, 517-530. 12. Foereid, B., Bro, R., Mogensen, V.O. and Porter, J.R., 2002. Effects of windbreak strips of willow coppice—modelling and field experiment on barley in Denmark. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 93, 25-32. 13. Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Management Organization of Iran, 2014. Technical criteria and criteria for the construction of biological windbreakers. Vice President of Strategic Planning and Supervision.15 pp. 14. Gardner, W.H., 1986. Water content. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1—Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 5,493-544. 15. Gee, G.W. and Bauder, J.W., 1986. "Particle-size analysis 1," Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy. 16. Ghaeminia, A.M. and Hakimzadeh, MA., 2017. Investigating the role of non-lubricating windshield porosity in changing wind flow behavior. 17. Ghasemi, H., Shahriari, A., Fakhira, A., Jafari, M. and Hadrabadi G., 2011. Influence of planting pattern and density of live windbreaker on wind speed in Hosseinabad plain. 18. Haji Mir Sadeghi, h., Mohammad Ali, M. and Khaled Brin, A., 2015. Technical standards and criteria for the construction of a biological windbreaker, criterion 658. organization of forests, rangelands and watersheds of the country. 19. Heisler, G.M., Dewalle, A., ecosystems, and environment, 1988. 2. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. 22, 41-69. 20. Kheirabadi, H., Mahmoodabadi, M., Jalali, V. and Naghavi, H., 2018. Sediment flux, wind erosion and net erosion influenced by soil bed length, wind velocity and aggregate size distribution. Geoderma, 323, 22-30. 21. Khoshhal, V., Pour Khosravani A., 2013. Investigation of the role of windbreaker on some wheat agronomic properties in Isfahan. Journal of Geography and Planning 16 (42), 139-153. 22. Kok, A., 2010. Analytical calculation of the minimum wind speed required to sustain wind-blown sand on Earth and Mars. 23. Lee, K., Ehsani, R. and Castle, W., 2010. A laser scanning system for estimating wind velocity reduction through tree windbreaks. Computers and electronics in agriculture 73, 1-6. 24. Ma, Q., Fehmi, J.S., Zhang, D., Fan, B. and Chen, F., 2017. Changes in wind erosion over a 25-year restoration chronosequence on the south edge of the Tengger Desert, China: implications for preventing desertification. Environmental monitoring and assessment 189,463. 25. Ma, R., Li, J., Ma, Y., Shan, L., Li, X. and Wei, L., 2019. A wind tunnel study of the airflow field and shelter efficiency of mixed windbreaks. Aeolian Research 41,1005-1044. 26. Miri, A., Dragovich, D. and Dong, Z., 2021. Wind flow and sediment flux profiles for vegetated surfaces in a wind tunnel and field-scale windbreak. Catena 196,104836. 27. Mohammadi, A., Matinkhah, H. and Khajehuddin, J., 2010. Identification of scissor ecology as an effective species in controlling wind erosion. Second National Conference on Wind Erosion and Dust Storms, Yazd, https: // civilica .com / doc / 101042 28. Muhammadi, Q. and Mohammad Ali. Z., 2017. Investigating the role of non-lubricating windshield porosity in changing wind flow behavior. 29. Namdar Khojasteh, D. and Bahrami, H., 2018. New windshield design for wind erosion control. Second International Dust Conference, Ilam. 30. Nelson, D.W. and Sommers, L.E., 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis part 3—chemical methods 961-1010. 31. Norton, A., 1988. Windbreaks: Benefits to orchard and vineyard crops. 22, 205-213. 32. Park, C.W. and Lee, S.-J., 2002. Verification of the shelter effect of a windbreak on coal piles in the POSCO open storage yards at the Kwang-Yang works. Atmospheric Environment 36, 2171-2185. 33. Raine, J. and Stevenson, D., 1977. Wind protection by model fences in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 2, 159-180. 34. Refahi, H., 1999. Wind erosion and its control, University of Tehran Printing & Publishing Institute. 35. Rhoades, J., 1996. Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods, 417-435. 36. Sirjani, E., Sameni, A., Moosavi, A., Mahmoodabadi, M. and Laurent, B., 2019. Portable wind tunnel experiments to study soil erosion by wind and its link to soil properties in the Fars province, Iran. Geoderma 333, 69-80. 37. Stigter, C. and Adam, H., 1996. On shelterbelt design for combating sand invasion. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 57, 81-90. 38. Takahashi, M., 1978. Wind tunnel test on the effect of width of windbreaks on the wind speed distribution in leeward. 33, 183-187. 39. Tamang, B., Andreu, M.G., Friedman, M.H. and Rockwood, D.L., 2015. Windbreak designs and planting for Florida agricultural fields. FOR227. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 40. Thomas, G.W., 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods 475-490. 41. Torshizi, M.R., Miri, A. and Davidson-Arnott, R., 2020a. Sheltering effect of a multiple-row Tamarix windbreak–a field study in Niatak, Iran. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 287,1079-1097. 42. Torshizi, M.R., Miri, A., Shahriari, A., Dong, Z. and Davidson-Arnott, R., 2020b. The effectiveness of a multi-row Tamarix windbreak in reducing aeolian erosion and sediment flux, Niatak area, Iran. Journal of Environmental Management 265,1104-1186. 43. Vacek, Z., Řeháček, D., Cukor, J., Vacek, S., Khel, T., Sharma, R. P., Kučera, J., Král, J. and Papaj, V., 2018. Windbreak Efficiency in Agricultural Landscape of the Central Europe: Multiple Approaches to Wind Erosion Control. Environmental management 62, 942-954.