Predicting tree damage in fragmented landscapes using a wind risk model coupled with an airflow model

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 45, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1065-1076

  Dupont, Sylvain ^a   Ikonen, Veli Pekka ^b   Väisänen, Hannu ^b   Peltola, Heli ^b  

^a BORDEAUX SCIENCES AGRO   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Critical wind speed; Gust factor; Heterogeneous forest; Wind load; Wind risk model

Indexed keywords

AERODYNAMIC LOADS; FORESTRY; KINETIC ENERGY; KINETICS; PLANTS (BOTANY); PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; WIND STRESS;

CRITICAL WIND SPEED; GUST FACTORS; HETEROGENEOUS FOREST; WIND LOAD; WIND RISKS;

FLOW VISUALIZATION;

AIRFLOW; CLEARCUTTING; CLIMATE EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; FLOW MODELING; FOREST EDGE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FRAGMENTATION; GUST; WIND VELOCITY;

FORESTS; MODELS; RISK ASSESSMENT; WIND;

NEOLAUGERIA RESINOSA; PICEA ABIES; PINUS SYLVESTRIS;

EID: 84938297381     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: 12086037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2015-0066     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ancelin, P., Courbaud, B., and Fourcaud, T. 2004. Development of an individual tree-based mechanical model to predict wind damage within forest stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 203: 101–121. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.067.
2. Blennow, K., and Sallnas, O. 2004. WINDA — a system of models for assessing the probability of wind damage to forest stands within a landscape. Ecol. Model. 175: 87–99. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.009.
3. Blennow, K., Andersson, M., Bergh, J., Sallnas, O., and Olofsson, E. 2010. Potential climate change impacts on the probability of wind damage in a south Swedish forest. Clim. Change, 99: 261–278. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9698-8.
4. Byrne, K., and Mitchell, S. 2013. Testing of WindFIRM/ForestGALES-BC: a hybridmechanistic model for predicting windthrow in partially harvested stands. Forestry, 86: 185–199. doi:10.1093/forestry/cps077.
5. Dupont, S., and Brunet, Y. 2006. Simulation of turbulent flow in an urban forested park damaged by a windstorm. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 120: 133–161. doi:10.1007/s10546-006-9049-5.
6. Dupont, S., and Brunet, Y. 2008a. Influence of foliar density profile on canopy flow: a large-eddy simulation study. Agric. For. Meteorol. 148: 976–990. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.01.014.
7. Dupont, S., and Brunet, Y. 2008b. Edge flow and canopy structure: a large-eddy simulation study. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 126: 51–71. doi:10.1007/s10546-007-9216-3.
8. Dupont, S., and Brunet, Y. 2008c. Impact of forest edge shape on tree stability: a large-eddy simulation study. Forestry, 81(3): 299–315. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpn006.
9. Dupont, S., Brunet, Y., and Jarosz, N. 2006. Eulerian modelling of pollen dispersal over heterogeneous vegetation canopies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 141: 82–104. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.09.004.
10. Dupont, S., Bonnefond, J.M., Irvine, M.R., Lamaud, E., and Brunet, Y. 2011. Longdistance edge effects in a pine forest with a deep and sparse trunk space: in situ and numerical experiments. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151: 328–344. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.007.
11. Finnigan, J.J. 2000. Turbulence in plant canopies. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32: 519–571. doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.32.1.519.
12. Flesch, T.K., and Wilson, J.D. 1999. Wind and remnant tree sway in forest cutblocks. II. Relating measured tree sway to wind statistics. Agric. For. Meteorol. 93(4): 243–258. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00113-0.
13. Foudhil, H., Brunet, Y., and Caltagirone, J.P. 2005. A k– model for atmospheric flow over heterogeneous landscapes. Environ. Fluid Mech. 5: 247–267. doi:10.1007/s10652-004-2124-x.
14. Gardiner, B., Stacey, G., Belcher, R., and Wood, C. 1997. Field and wind tunnel assessments and the implications of respacing and thinning for tree stability. Forestry, 70(3): 233–252. doi:10.1093/forestry/70.3.233.
15. Gardiner, B., Peltola, H., and Kellomaki, S. 2000. Comparison of two models for predicting the critical wind speeds required to damage coniferous trees. Ecol. Model. 129: 1–23. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00220-9.
16. Gardiner, B., Marshall, B., Achim, A., Belcher, R., and Wood, C. 2005. The stability of different silvicultural systems: a wind-tunnel investigation. Forestry, 78(5): 471–484. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpi053.
17. Gardiner, B.A., Byrne, K., Hale, S., Kamimura, K, Mitchell, S.J, Peltola, H., and Rue, J.C. 2008. A review of mechanistic modelling of wind damage risk to forests. Forestry, 81(3): 447–463. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpn022.
18. Green, S.R. 1992. Modelling turbulence air flow in a stand of widely-spaced trees. PHOENICS Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics Application, 5: 294–312.
19. Haarsma, R.J., Hazeleger, W., Severijns, C., de Vries, H., Sterl, A., Bintanja, R., van Oldenborgh, G.J., and van den Brink, H.W. 2013. More hurricanes to hit western Europe due to global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40: 1783–1788. doi:10.1002/grl.50360.
20. Hale, S.A., Gardiner, B.A., Wellpott, A., Nicoll, B.C., and Achim, A. 2012. Wind loading of trees: influence of tree size and competition. Eur. J. For. Res. 131: 203–217. doi:10.1007/s10342-010-0448-2.
21. Hale, S.A., Gardiner, B.A., Peace, A., Nicoll, B., Taylor, P., and Pizzirani, S. 2015. Comparison and validation of three versions of a forest wind risk model. Environ. Model. Softw. 68: 27–41. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.01.016.
22. Katul, G.G., Mahrt, L., Poggi, D., and Sanz, C. 2004. One-and two-equation models for canopy turbulence. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 113: 81–109. doi:10.1023/B: BOUN.0000037333.48760.e5.
23. Laiho, O. 1987. Susceptibility of forest stands to windthrow in southern Finland. Folia For. 706: 1–24. [In Finnish with English summary.]
24. Li, Z., and Lin, J.D. 1990. Air flow over and through a forest edge: a steady-state numerical simulation. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 51: 179–197. doi:10.1007/BF00120467.
25. Liu, J., Chen, J.M., Black, T.A., and Novak, M.D. 1996. k– modelling of turbulent air flow downwind of a model forest edge. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 77: 21–44. doi:10.1007/BF00121857.
26. Lohmander, P., and Helles, F. 1987. Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter. Scand. J. For. Res. 22: 227–238. doi:10.1080/02827588709382460.
27. Mayer, H. 1989. Windthrow. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 324: 267–281. doi:10.1098/rstb.1989.0048.
28. Monahan, A.H., He, Y., McFarlane, N., and Dai, A. 2011. The probability distribution of land surface wind speeds. J. Clim. 24: 3892–3909. doi:10.1175/2011JCLI4106.1.
29. Mortensen, N.G., Heathfield, D.N., Landberg, L., Rathmann, O., Troen, I., and Petersen, E.L. 2002. Wind atlas analysis and application program: WAsP 7 help facility. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.
30. Neustein, S.A. 1965. Wind throw on the margins of various sizes of felling area. Report on forest research for the year ended March 1964. Forestry Commission. pp. 166–171.
31. Panferov, O., and Sogachev, A. 2008. Influence of gap size on wind damage variables in a forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 148: 1869–1881. doi:10.1016/j. agrformet.2008.06.012.
32. Peltola, H. 1996. Swaying of trees in a response to wind and thinning in a stand of Scots pine. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 77: 285–304. doi:10.1007/BF00123529.
33. Peltola, H., Kellomaki, S., Vaisanen, H., and Ikonen, V-P. 1999. A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch. Can. J. For. Res. 29(6): 647–661. doi:10.1139/x99-029.
34. Peltola, H., Kellomaki, S., Hassinen, A., and Granander, M. 2000. Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: analysis of tree pulling experiments in Finland. For. Ecol. Manage. 135(1–3): 143–153. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00306-6.
35. Petty, J.A., and Swain, C. 1985. Factors influencing stem breakage of conifers in high winds. Forestry, 58(1): 75–85. doi:10.1093/forestry/58.1.75.
36. Raupach, M.R., Finnigan, J.J., and Brunet, Y. 1996. Coherent eddies and turbulence in vegetation canopies: the mixing-layer analogy. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 78: 351–382. doi:10.1007/BF00120941.
37. Reynolds, A.M. 2012. Gusts within plan canopies are extreme value processes. Physica A, 391: 5059–5063. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2012.05.062.
38. Schelhaas, M.J. 2008. The wind stability of different silvicultural systems for Douglas-fir in the Netherlands: a model-based approach. Forestry, 81: 399–414. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpn028.
39. Seidl, R., Rammera, W., and Blennow, K. 2014. Simulating wind disturbance impacts on forest landscapes: tree-level heterogeneity matters. Environ. Model. Softw. 51: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.018.
40. Shaw, R.H., and Schumann, U. 1992. Large-eddy simulation of turbulent flow above and within a forest. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 61: 47–64. doi:10.1007/BF02033994.
41. Sogachev, A., and Panferov, O. 2006. Modification of two-equation models to account for plant drag. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 121: 229–266. doi:10.1007/s10546-006-9073-5.
42. Talkkari, A., Peltola, H., Kellomaki, S., and Strandman, H. 2000. Integration of component models from the tree, stand and regional levels to assess the risk of wind damage at forest margins. For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 303–313. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00288-7.
43. Walmsley, J.L., Woolridge, D., and Salmon, J.R. 1993. Ms-Micro/3 user's guide. Atmospheric Research, Ontario, Report ARD-90-008.
44. Wilson, J.D., and Flesch, T.K. 1999. Wind and remnant tree sway in forest cutblocks. III. A windflow model to diagnose spatial variation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 93(4): 259–282. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00121-X.
45. Zeng, H., Peltola, H., Talkkari, A., Venalainen, A., Strandman, H., Kellomaki, S., and Wang, K. 2004. Influence of clear-cutting on the risk of wind damage at forest edges. For. Ecol. Manage. 203: 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.057.
46. Zeng, H., Peltola, H., Talkkari, A., Strandman, H., Venalainen, A., Wang, K., and Kellomaki, S. 2006. Simulations of the influence of clear-cuttings on the risk of wind damage on a regional scale over a 20-year period. Can. J. For. Res. 36(9): 2247–2258. doi:10.1139/x06-123.
47. Zeng, H., Peltola, H., Vaisanen, H., and Kellomaki, S. 2009. The effects of fragmentation on the susceptibility of a boreal forest ecosystem to wind damage. For. Ecol. Manage. 257(3): 1165–1173. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.12.003.
48. Zubizarreta-Gerendiain, A., Pellikka, P., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Ikonen, V.P., and Peltola, H. 2012. Factors affecting wind and snow damage of individual trees in a small management unit in Finland: assessment based on inventoried damage and mechanistic modelling. Silva Fenn. 46(2): 181–196. doi:10.14214/sf.441.