# Assessment of Effective Wind Loads on Individual Plantation-Grown Forest Trees

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{6}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Material and Methods

#### 2.1. Workflow

_{OC}) and non-oscillatory (D

_{NOC}) components using singular spectrum analysis; (3) Low-pass filtering of momentum flux data (M

_{NOC}) to match the frequency range of D

_{NOC}; (4) Applying regression analysis (significance level α = 0.05) for estimating the coefficients of D dependence on the force applied on the sample trees during non-destructive pulling tests; (5) Maximizing the local correlation between D

_{NOC}and M

_{NOC}using dynamic time warping; (6) Calculating of the effective force (F

_{eff}) from dynamically time-warped D

_{NOC}and M

_{NOC}; (7) Determining of wind load coefficients (WLC) from F

_{eff}and M

_{NOC}values; (8) Calculating of the tree-specific, instantaneous effective wind load (WL

_{eff}) using M

_{NOC}and WLC values.

#### 2.2. Research Site and Forest Characteristics

#### 2.3. Airflow Measurements

#### 2.4. Stem Tilt Measurements

_{x}, east-west) and y (t

_{y}, north-south) directions, four Tree Response Sensors (TRS) [40] were mounted to the north facing side of the stems of five sample trees (B1 to B5) at the stem base (z

_{TRS,1}= 0.1 m), 1/7 H (z

_{TRS,2}), 3/7 H (z

_{TRS,4}), and 5/7 H (z

_{TRS,5}), H is the tree height, and z is the measuring height (Table 1).

_{TRS,2}, z

_{TRS,4}, and z

_{TRS,5}, represent the antinodal points of stem vibration. The time series of stem tilt components t

_{x}and t

_{y}were used to calculate the stem displacement vector (D):

_{TRS,}

_{2}. Earlier studies show that information on the Scots pine trees’ stem response measured at one point is sufficient for the following analysis [29,32]. All stem tilt data were collected wirelessly and stored on a ground receiver using the Tree Motion Monitoring System (TreeMMoSys) [40].

#### 2.5. Non-Destructive Tree Pulling

_{a}= 0.6 H. This height was assumed to be a compromise between avoiding the effects of knots on the overall strength of the stems and being close enough to the crowns where the wind loading occurs [39].

_{a}) along the rope into the pulling direction. Three TreeQinetic elastometers were mounted to the leeward side of the stems at 1 m (z

_{PTQ,2}), 2 m (z

_{PTQ,3}), and 3 m (z

_{PTQ,4}) to measure strain in the marginal wood fibers. TRS (z

_{TRS,1}, z

_{TRS,3}) and TreeQinetic inclinometers were mounted to the stem base (0.1 m) and at 5 m height (z

_{PTQ,1}, z

_{PTQ,5}) to record t

_{x}and t

_{y}while B1 to B35 were pulled [44]. The pulling force was increased until a root plate inclination of 0.25° or 100 µm of strain in the marginal fibers were reached to prevent primary tree failure [45].

#### 2.6. Processing and Analysis of Stem Displacement Data

_{NOC}and decomposing D into D

_{OC}and D

_{NOC}through the application of singular spectrum analysis (SSA) [46,47]. The D decomposition separates motion components responding to wind loading from components that dissipate elastic energy stored in the stem and roots, such as oscillatory sway in the fundamental mode [31].

_{NOC}and D

_{NOC}were dynamically time-warped to synchronize their time series and maximize their correlation [50,51] as described in a previous study [32]. All further analyses were carried out with dynamically time-warped M

_{NOC}and D

_{NOC}. The oscillatory signal components were no longer considered.

#### 2.7. Calculation of Effective Wind Load

_{a}using a modified approach proposed in a previous study [52]:

_{a}and the rope anchorage point at the ground.

_{TRS,1}and z

_{TRS,2}were 80 and 40 for D at z

_{TRS,3}and z

_{TRS,5}, respectively. On average, the first SSA component, which represents the low-pass filtered signal component of D (D

_{LP}) and FP (FP

_{LP}), explained 97% of the variance in the FP signals and 83% (z

_{TRS,1}) to 96% (z

_{TRS,4}) in the D signals.

_{NOC}is represented by D

_{LP}because from previous studies, it is known that at the research site, the Scots pine trees’ total wind-induced reactions are dominated by sway in the fundamental mode. Vibrations in higher modes are negligible [29,30,32].

_{LP}and FP

_{LP}:

_{a}per meter of stem displacement, and has the same units as the spring constant (N/m). It is a measure of flexural tree stiffness.

_{TRS,1}:

_{1}, a

_{2}, and a

_{3}are coefficients. The strength of the functional relationships was assessed with the coefficient of determination (r

^{2}).

_{LP}and s, the effective pulling force applied at z

_{a}(F

_{ZV}) was calculated:

_{a}under natural wind conditions, s and D

_{NOC}were used to calculate the effective force (F

_{eff}).

_{NOC}and F

_{eff}, the wind load parameter (WLP) was calculated for 10 min intervals using a linear regression forced through zero:

_{NOC}, the wind load coefficient (WLC) was determined as the offset of the second phase (i.e., using all values greater than detected change points) of a two-phase regression of WLP on 10 min mean values of M

_{NOC}(M

_{NOC,mean}). WLC enables the calculation of the instantaneous, effective wind load (WL

_{eff}):

#### 2.8. Change Point Analysis

_{NOC}thresholds. We used a two-phase linear regression model for detecting these thresholds [53].

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Non-Destructive Tree Pulling

_{LP}, FP

_{LP}calculated at height z

_{TRS,2}= 1/7 H increased during static pulling tests. The FP

_{LP}maxima always occurred when 100 µm of strain was reached and the force application was aborted. After reaching the FP

_{LP}maximum, F

_{a}was steadily reduced, and the trees returned to their rest position. For B1 to B5, which were equipped with multiple sensors, s was calculated at heights z

_{TRS,1}to z

_{TRS,5}(Figure 4a). The vertical s profiles along the stem available are of similar shape, the highest values occurring at z

_{TRS,1}, where stem diameters were always the biggest, resulting in the greatest flexural stiffness. From z

_{TRS,1}to z

_{TRS,2}, the s values decrease by several orders of magnitude, which requires the results to be presented on a logarithmic scale. Due to the very small D

_{LP}values, s needs to be considerably larger to reach the same FP

_{LP}as at height z

_{a}.

_{TRS,1}to z

_{TRS,3}. Generally, s values are orders of magnitude higher at the stem base than at the other measuring heights due to very small D

_{LP}, ranging from 962 (B31) to 23606 (B23) kN/m at z

_{TRS,1}and 0.9 (B26) to 13.6 (B22) kN/m at z

_{TRS,3}(Figure 4b).

^{3}[55], H [17,35,54], H/DBH [35], DBH/H

^{2}[56,57], DBH

^{2}/H [58], and DBH

^{2}H [17,58,59,60,61] that have been reported in previous studies to influence tree response on static pulling and wind loading. Crown and stem mass, which also influence tree response to external loading [56,57,58], were not included in this analysis since they were unavailable.

^{2}, were established between s and DBH, mean r

^{2}= 0.86 from z

_{TRS,1}to z

_{TRS,3}. With increasing DBH, s also increases. The increase is more linear at z

_{TRS,2}= 1/7 H and z

_{TRS,3}= 5 m than at the stem base. We argue that the stronger nonlinear dependence at the stem base is due to the cable attachment height z

_{a}= 0.6 H which is higher than in other studies [35,58]. The greater cable attachment height causes stronger bending of the upper stem parts [39], which mimics the stem bending of the sample trees under natural wind conditions better than the bending with cable attachment heights below 0.5 H. Regressing s against DBH

^{3}as conducted in a previous study [58], did not raise the explained variance of DBH in s.

^{2}(mean r

^{2}= 0.83) and DBH

^{2}H (mean r

^{2}= 0.85) are only slightly weaker. As H/DBH

^{2}increases, s decreases. The decrease in s is most pronounced at z

_{TRS,1}, but curvilinear at all displayed heights. With increasing DBH

^{2}H, which is used to represent stem volume, s increases. The strength of the presented functional relationships is in the range of previous studies [54,58]. Other tree characteristics such as H, H/DBH, DBH

^{2}/H, DBH/H

^{2}, and TLS-measured CA available in different directions were tested, but their functional relationships were weaker (r

^{2}≤ 0.75) at all studied heights.

#### 3.2. Tree Response under Natural Wind Conditions

_{NOC}(D

_{NOC,mean}) of B1 to B5 along the stem at the heights z

_{TRS,5}to z

_{TRS,1}plotted against M

_{NOC,mean}values. The D

_{NOC,mean}values decrease by several orders of magnitude towards the stem base. At the same measurement heights, D

_{NOC,mean}is mostly similar for B1 to B5. The greatest inter-tree differences occur at the stem base.

_{eff}(F

_{eff,mean}) are plotted against M

_{NOC,mean}, then large differences between the sample trees become apparent, although the tree-specific D

_{NOC,mean}patterns are similar. This demonstrates that B1 to B5 were subjected to different wind loads, the wind load acting on B5 being the greatest at z

_{TRS,4}and z

_{TRS,5}. The wind load acting on B3 is always the smallest. The inter-tree differences in F

_{eff,mean}decrease from the crown space towards the stem base. There is a considerable spread of the data at the stem base resulting from the small D

_{NOC,mean}values used in the F

_{eff,mean}calculation.

_{NOC,mean}values dominate, there are change points in the relationship of F

_{eff,mean}and M

_{NOC,mean}. Below the change points, D

_{NOC,mean}was always close to zero, indicating minimal wind-induced stem displacement resulting from weak wind loading. Except for the nearest area around the coordinate origin, the dependence of F

_{eff,mean}on M

_{NOC,mean}is linear, as is demonstrated in detail for B2 (thickest tree with DBH = 28.6 cm) and B19 (thinnest tree with DBH = 19.3 cm) in Figure 7.

_{eff,mean}acting on B2 and B19 are at 0.20 (Figure 7a) and 0.60 m

^{2}/s

^{2}(Figure 7b). After passing these points, the dependence of the tree response on M

_{NOC,mean}increases linearly.

_{NOC,mean}also show a two-phase pattern with a change point. After passing these points, the WLP distributions level off and are parallel to the x-axis. The small insets highlight the WLP development as a function of M

_{NOC,mean}after the passage of the change points in a linearly scaled coordinate system.

_{NOC,mean}after crossing the change points, allows the estimation of the wind-induced tree response as a function of M

_{NOC,mean}. The WLP vs. M

_{NOC,mean}change point values are very similar (r

^{2}= 0.89) to the F

_{eff,mean}vs. M

_{NOC,mean}change point value distribution, as is illustrated by boxplots for B1 to B20 in the inset in Figure 7b. The WLP-related change points range from M

_{NOC,mean}= 0.18 m

^{2}/s

^{2}(B5) to M

_{NOC,mean}= 0.67 m

^{2}/s

^{2}(B13), with the median WLP-related change point value being 0.32 m

^{2}/s

^{2}. The medians of the F

_{eff}- and WLP-related change points show no significant difference at the 95% confidence level as indicated by the boxplot notches.

_{eff}) knowing M

_{NOC}.

_{eff}and F

_{eff}10 Hz values (300 s) as an example. The time series length is limited to highlight their similar behavior from small to some of the largest values that occurred during the study period. Calculated WL

_{eff}is strongly correlated with measured F

_{eff}(r

^{2}= 0.99). Over the entire study period, r

^{2}calculated from 2,263,673 WL

_{eff}and F

_{eff}values each per tree ranges between 0.45 (B6) and 0.94 (B5). The r

^{2}median is 0.89 (B11).

_{eff}and F

_{eff}values is shown for B4 as red points in Figure 8b. The red points are plotted together with a binned (40 × 40 bins) scatter plot including the 2,263,673 WL

_{eff}and F

_{eff}values, exceeding the tree-specific M

_{NOC}thresholds. The data from the interval shown in Figure 8a are in the range of the histogram bins that represent the total wind-induced response of B4 in the study period. The majority of all analyzed WL

_{eff}and F

_{eff}values (84%) are in the range smaller than WL

_{eff}< 0.1 kN indicating the dominance of episodes with low wind loading.

_{eff}in the study period is shown as bivariate histograms in Figure 9. The histogram bins of all trees group around the 1:1 line indicating a good approximation of F

_{eff}. This figure shows the differences in tree-specific WL

_{eff}. Lowest WL

_{eff}acted on B10 and B19, the smallest of the presented trees. The largest effective wind load acted on B2, which is the tallest tree. Common to all trees is that high WL

_{eff}values are rare. The highest share of WL

_{eff}values of 90.4% can always be found close to the origin of the coordinate system for WL

_{eff}< 0.1 kN. Due to measurement device failure, there are no data for B7 and B15.

## 4. Conclusions

^{2}H, the effective wind load can be estimated tree-specifically and used to determine the instantaneous effective wind load via the wind load coefficient WLC. The use of WLC will simplify future investigations into the Scots pine trees’ wind-induced motion behavior.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

Acronyms | Description |

α | significance level |

c | above-ground tree characteristic |

CA | crown area (m^{2}) |

D | stem displacement (m) |

D_{NOC} | non-oscillatory component of stem displacement (m) |

D_{NOC,mean} | 10 min mean value of D_{NOC} |

D_{OC} | oscillatory component of stem displacement (m) |

D_{LP} | spline-smoothed stem displacement during tree pulling tests (m) |

DBH | diameter at breast height (cm) |

F_{a} | force applied along the rope into the pulling direction (N) |

F_{eff} | effective force (N) |

F_{eff,mean} | 10 min mean value of F_{eff} |

FP | horizontal component of the pulling force at pulling rope attachment height during tree pulling tests (N) |

FP_{LP} | Low-pass filtered (SSA) bending moment (N) |

F_{ZV} | effective load during pulling test (N) |

H | tree height (m) |

M | above-canopy momentum flux density (m²/s²) |

M_{NOC} | low-pass filtered component of above-canopy momentum flux (m²/s²) |

M_{NOC,mean} | 10 min mean value of M_{NOC} |

p | p-value of the applied regression analyses |

r | correlation coefficient |

r^{2} | coefficient of determination |

RA | pulling rope angle between z_{a} and anchorage point at the ground (°) |

s | slope of the regression line determined between D_{LP} and FP_{LP} during tree pulling (N/m) |

t_{x} | stem tilt in x direction (east-west) (°) |

t_{y} | stem tilt in y direction (north-south) (°) |

u | horizontal wind vector component in east-west direction (m/s) |

v | horizontal wind vector component in north-south direction (m/s) |

w | vertical wind vector component (m/s) |

WL_{eff} | effective wind load (N) |

WLC | wind load coefficient (kN/(m^{2}/s^{2})) |

WLP | wind load parameter (kN/(m^{2}/s^{2})) |

z_{a} | attachment height of the pulling rope (m) |

z_{PTQ} | measurement height above ground of TreeQinetic sensors (m) |

z_{TRS} | measurement height above ground of the Tree Response Sensor (m) |

Abbreviations | Description |

PTQ | Picus TreeQinect |

S | ultrasonic anemometer |

SSA | singular spectrum analysis |

B | sample tree |

TLS | terrestrial laser scanning |

TRS | tree response sensor |

TreeMMoSys | tree motion monitoring system |

## References

- Schindler, D.; Bauhus, J.; Mayer, H. Wind effects on trees. Eur. J. For. Res.
**2012**, 131, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bonnesoeur, V.; Constant, T.; Moulia, B.; Fournier, M. Forest trees filter chronic wind-signals to acclimate to high winds. New Phytol.
**2016**, 210, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Gardiner, B. Wind damage to forests and trees: A review with an emphasis on planted and managed forests. J. For. Res.
**2021**, 26, 248–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jackson, T.D.; Sethi, S.; Dellwik, E.; Angelou, N.; Bunce, A.; van Emmerik, T.; Duperat, M.; Ruel, J.-C.; Wellpott, A.; Van Bloem, S.; et al. The motion of trees in the wind: A data synthesis. Biogeosciences
**2021**, 18, 4049–4072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mayer, H. Wind-induced tree sways. Trees
**1987**, 1, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gardiner, B.A. The interactions of wind and tree movement in forest canopies. In Wind and Trees; Coutts, M.P., Grace, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; pp. 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardiner, B.; Berry, P.; Moulia, B. Review: Wind impacts on plant growth, mechanics and damage. Plant. Sci.
**2016**, 245, 94–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Langre, E. Plant vibrations at all scales: A review. J. Exp. Bot.
**2019**, 70, 3521–3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gardiner, B.; Byrne, K.; Hale, S.; Kamimura, K.; Mitchell, S.J.; Peltola, H.; Ruel, J.-C. A review of mechanistic model-ling of wind damage risk to forests. Forestry
**2008**, 81, 447–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Jackson, T.; Shenkin, A.; Wellpott, A.; Calders, K.; Origo, N.; Disney, M.; Burt, A.; Raumonen, P.; Gardiner, B.; Herold, M.; et al. Finite element analysis of trees in the wind based on terrestrial laser scanning data. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2019**, 265, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Usbeck, T.; Wohlgemuth, T.; Dobbertin, M.; Pfister, C.; Bürgi, A.; Rebetez, M. Increasing storm damage to forests in Switzerland from 1858 to 2007. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2010**, 150, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valta, H.; Lehtonen, I.; Laurila, T.K.; Venäläinen, A.; Laapas, M.; Gregow, H. Communicating the amount of windstorm induced forest damage by the maximum wind gust speed in Finland. Adv. Sci. Res.
**2019**, 16, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Albrecht, A.; Jung, C.; Schindler, D. Improving empirical storm damage models by coupling with high-resolution gust speed data. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2019**, 268, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schindler, D.; Jung, C.; Buchholz, A. Using highly resolved maximum gust speed as predictor for forest storm damage caused by the high-impact winter storm Lothar in Southwest Germany. Atmos. Sci. Lett.
**2016**, 17, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ancelin, P.; Courbaud, B.; Fourcaud, T. Development of an individual tree-based mechanical model to predict wind damage within forest stands. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2004**, 203, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dupont, S.; Ikonen, V.-P.; Väisänen, H.; Peltola, H. Predicting tree damage in fragmented landscapes using a wind risk model coupled with an airflow model. Can. J. For. Res.
**2015**, 45, 1065–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gardiner, B.; Peltola, H.; Kellomäki, S. Comparison of two models for predicting the critical winds required to damage coniferous trees. Ecol. Model.
**2000**, 129, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peltola, H.; Kellomäki, S.; Vaisanen, H.; Ikonen, V.-P. 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.
**1999**, 29, 647–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Quine, C.P.; Gardiner, B.A.; Moore, J. Wind disturbance in forests: The process of wind created gaps, tree overturning, and stem breakage. In Plant Disturbance Ecology—The Process and the Response; Johnson, E.A., Miyanishi, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 117–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seidl, R.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Lexer, M.J. Unraveling the drivers of intensifying forest disturbance regimes in Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol.
**2011**, 17, 2842–2852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schelhaas, M.-J.; Nabuurs, G.-J.; Schuck, A. Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob. Chang. Biol.
**2003**, 9, 1620–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ulanova, N.G. The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial scales: A review. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2000**, 135, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lindroth, A.; Lagergren, F.; Grelle, A.; Klemendtsson, L.; Langvall, O.; Weslien, P.; Tuulik, J. Storms can cause Europe-wide reduction in forest carbon sink. Glob. Chang. Biol.
**2009**, 15, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Magnabosco Marra, D.; Trumbore, S.E.; Higuchi, N.; Ribeiro, G.H.P.M.; Negrón-Juárez, R.I.; Holzwarth, F.; Rifai, S.W.; dos Santos, J.; Lima, A.J.N.; Kinupp, V.F.; et al. Windthrows control biomass patterns and functional composition of Amazon forests. Glob. Chang. Biol.
**2018**, 24, 5867–5881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Reyer, C.P.O.; Bathgate, S.; Blennow, K.; Borges, J.G.; Bugmann, H.; Delzon, S.; Faias, S.P.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Gardiner, B.; Gonzalez-Olabarria, J.R.; et al. Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? Environ. Res. Lett.
**2017**, 12, 034027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dahle, A.G.; James, K.R.; Kane, B.; Grabosky, J.C.; Detter, A. A review of factors that affect the static load-bearing capacity of urban trees. Arboricul. Urban For.
**2017**, 43, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abetz, P.; Künstle, E. Zur Druckholzbildung bei Fichte. Allg. Forst Und Jagdztg.
**1982**, 153, 117–127. [Google Scholar] - Duncker, P.; Spiecker, H. Compression wood formation and pith eccentricity in Picea abies L. depending on selected site-related factors: Detection of compression wood by its spectral properties in reflected light. In Proceedings of the TRACE—Tree Rings in Archaeology, Climatology and Ecology, Bormernsdorf, Switzerland, 22–24 April 2004; pp. 150–158. [Google Scholar]
- Schindler, D.; Vogt, R.; Fugmann, H.; Rodriguez, M.; Schönborn, J.; Mayer, H. Vibration behavior of plantation-grown Scots pine trees in response to wind excitation. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2010**, 150, 984–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schindler, D.; Mohr, M. Non-oscillatory response to wind loading dominates movement of Scots pine trees. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2018**, 250, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schindler, D.; Mohr, M. No resonant response of Scots pine trees to wind excitation. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2019**, 265, 227–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schindler, D.; Kolbe, S. Assessment of the response of a Scots pine tree to effective wind loading. Forests
**2020**, 11, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Angelou, N.; Dellwik, E.; Mann, J. Wind load estimation on an open-grown European oak tree. Forestry
**2019**, 92, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kane, B.; Clouston, P. Tree pulling tests of large shade trees in the genus Acer. Arboricul. Urban For.
**2008**, 34, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moore, J. Differences in maximum resistive bending moments of Pinus radiata trees grown on a range of soil types. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2000**, 135, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nicoll, B.C.; Gardiner, B.A.; Rayner, B.; Peace, A.J. Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type, and rooting depth. Can. J. For. Res.
**2006**, 36, 1871–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rahardjo, H.; Harnas, F.R.; Indrawan, I.G.B.; Leong, E.C.; Tan, P.Y.; Fong, Y.K.; Ow, L.F. Understanding the stability of Samanea saman trees through tree pulling, analytical calculations and numerical models. Urban For. Urban Green.
**2014**, 13, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Duperat, M.; Gardiner, B.; Ruel, J.-C. Testing an individual tree wind damage risk model in a naturally regenerated balsam fir stand: Potential impact of thinning on the level of risk. Forestry
**2021**, 94, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peltola, H. Mechanical stability of trees under static loads. Am. J. Bot.
**2006**, 93, 1501–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kolbe, S.; Schindler, D. TreeMMoSys: A low cost sensor network to measure wind-induced tree response. HardwareX
**2021**, 9, e00180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - EM (Environmental Meteorology, University of Freiburg, Germany). Hartheim Forest Research Site. Available online: https://www.meteo.uni-freiburg.de/en/infrastructure/hartheim-forest-research-site (accessed on 31 December 2021).
- CloudCompare (version 2.12) (GPL software). 3D Point Cloud and Mesh Processing Software Open Source Project. Available online: http://www.cloudcompare.org/ (accessed on 31 December 2021).
- Stull, R.B. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Detter, A.; Rust, C.; Maybaum, G. Determining strength limits for standing tree stems from bending tests. In Proceedings of the 18th International Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation of Wood Symposium, Madison, WI, USA, 24–27 September 2013; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory: Madison, WI, USA. Available online: https://www.tree-consult.org/upload/mediapool/pdf/baumstatik_und_biomechanik/detter_etal-ndt-proceedings-2014.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2022).
- Detter, A.; Rust, S. Findings of recent research on the pulling test method. In Jahrbuch der Baumpflege; Dujesiefken, D., Ed.; Haymarket Media GmbH Buch- und Zeitschriftenverlage: Braunschweig, Germany, 2013; pp. 87–100. [Google Scholar]
- Broomhead, D.; King, G. Extracting qualitative dynamics from experimental data. Phys. D
**1986**, 20, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vautard, R.; Ghil, M. Singular spectrum analysis in nonlinear dynamics with applications to paleoclimatic time series. Phys. D
**1989**, 35, 395–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sellier, D.; Brunet, Y.; Fourcaud, T. A numerical model of tree aerodynamic response to a turbulent airflow. Forestry
**2008**, 81, 279–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Schindler, D.; Schönborn, J.; Fugmann, H.; Mayer, H. Responses of an individual deciduous broadleaved tree to wind excitation. Agric. For. Meteorol.
**2013**, 177, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sakoe, H.; Chiba, S. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech
**1978**, 26, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Paliwal, K.K.; Agarwal, A.; Sinha, S.S. A modification over Sakoe and Chiba’s dynamic time warping algorithm for isolated word recognition. Signal. Process.
**1982**, 4, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Krišāns, O.; Čakša, L.; Matisons, R.; Rust, S.; Elferts, D.; Seipulis, A.; Jansons, Ā. A Static Pulling Test Is a Suitable Method for Comparison of the Loading Resistance of Silver Birch (Betula pendula Roth.) between Urban and Peri-Urban Forests. Forests
**2022**, 13, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Atanasov, D. Two-Phase Linear Regression Model. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/26804-two-phase-linear-regression-model MATLAB Central File Exchange (accessed on 10 March 2022).
- Papesch, A.J.G.; Moore, J.R.; Hawke, A.E. Mechanical stability of Pinus Radiata trees at Eyrewell Forest investigated using static tests. N. Z. J. For. Sci.
**1997**, 27, 188–204. [Google Scholar] - Peltola, H.; Nykänen, M.-L.; Kellomäki, S. Model computations on the critical combination of snow loading and windspeed for snow damage of scots pine, Norway spruce and Birch sp. at stand edge. For. Ecol. Manag.
**1997**, 95, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moore, J.R.; Maguire, D.A. Natural sway frequencies and damping ratios of trees: Concepts, review and synthesis of previous studies. Trees
**2004**, 18, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moore, J.R.; Maguire, D.A. Natural sway frequencies and damping ratios of trees: Influence of crown structure. Trees
**2005**, 19, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fredericksen, T.S.; Hedden, R.L.; Williams, S.A. Testing loblolly pine wind firmness with simulated wind stress. Can. J. For. Res.
**1993**, 23, 1760–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hale, S.E.; Gardiner, B.A.; Wellpott, A.; Nicoll, B.C.; Achim, A. Wind loading of trees: Influence of tree size and competition. Eur. J. Forest. Res.
**2012**, 131, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hale, S.E.; Gardiner, B.A.; Peace, A.; Nicoll, B.; Taylor, P.; Pizzirani, S. Comparison and validation of three versions of a forest wind risk model. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2015**, 68, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Peltola, H.; Kellomäki, S.; Hassinen, A.; Granander, M. Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: An analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2000**, 135, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**System used to measure airflow and stem tilt. Four ultrasonic anemometers (S1 to S4) mounted to a slender scaffold tower measured the horizontal and vertical wind vector components at 2 m, 9 m, 18 m, and 21 m. Tilt of the sample trees’ stems under natural wind conditions and during pulling tests was measured in different configurations with the Tree Response Sensor (TRS) [40] at heights z

_{TRS,1}= 0.1 m, z

_{TRS,2}= 1/7 H, z

_{TRS,3}= 5 m, z

_{TRS,4}= 3/7 H, and z

_{TRS,5}= 5/7 H, H is the tree height.

**Figure 3.**System used for measuring stem tilt of B1 to B35 during static, non-destructive pulling tests. The stem tilt was measured with five Tree Response Sensors (TRS) at heights z

_{TRS,1}= 0.1 m (stem base), z

_{TRS,2}= 1/7 H, z

_{TRS,3}= 5 m, z

_{TRS,4}= 3/7 H (only B1 to B5), and z

_{TRS,5}= 5/7 H (only B1 to B5), and two PiCUS TreeQinetic (PTQ) inclinometers at z

_{PTQ,1}= 0.1 m and z

_{PTQ,5}= 5 m. Three PTQ elastometers at z

_{PTQ,2}= 1 m, z

_{PTQ,3}= 2 m, and z

_{PTQ,4}= 3 m measured strain in the marginal wood fibers.

**Figure 4.**(

**a**) Vertical profiles of the slope (s) calculated by a linear regression (p < 0.001) between smoothed displacement (D

_{LP}) and horizontal component of the pulling force (FP

_{LP}) at TRS measurement heights z

_{TRS,1}to z

_{TRS,5}resulting from static pulling tests at sample trees B1 to B5. Due to the large s range, the x-axis is logarithmically scaled. (

**b**) Boxplots of s at z

_{TRS,1}to z

_{TRS,3}resulting from static pulling tests at sample trees B1 to B35.

**Figure 5.**Slope (s) as a function of DBH (1.3 m a.g.l.), H/DBH

^{2}, and DBH

^{2}H of the sample trees B1 to B35 at heights (

**a**,

**d**,

**g**) z

_{TRS,1}= 0.1 m, (

**b**,

**e**,

**h**) z

_{TRS,2}= 1/7 H, and (

**c**,

**f**,

**i**) z

_{TRS,3}= 5 m.

**Figure 6.**Dependence of 10 min mean values of non-oscillatory stem displacement (D

_{NOC,mean}) on low-pass filtered momentum flux (M

_{NOC,mean}) at heights (

**a**) z

_{TRS,5}= 5/7 H, (

**b**) z

_{TRS,4}= 3/7 H, (

**c**) z

_{TRS,2}= 1/7 H, and (

**d**) z

_{TRS,1}= 0.1 m. Dependence of 10 min mean effective force (F

_{eff,mean}) on M

_{NOC,mean}at (

**e**) z

_{TRS,5}, (

**f**) z

_{TRS,4}, (

**g**) z

_{TRS,2}, and (

**h**) z

_{TRS,1}along the stems of B1 to B5. The arrow in (

**g**) highlights the point where the response of B1 to B5 to wind loading systematically changes.

**Figure 7.**(

**a**,

**b**) Dependence of 10 min mean effective force (F

_{eff,mean}) on 10 min mean low-pass filtered momentum flux (M

_{NOC,mean}) of trees B2 (thickest tree with DBH = 28.6 cm) and B19 (thinnest tree with DBH = 19.3 cm). (

**c**,

**d**) Dependence of the tree-specific wind load parameter (WLP) on M

_{NOC,mean}. The red and orange lines represent the two phases of a linear regression before and after a change point. The inset in (

**b**) shows the distribution of WLP and F

_{eff}values of B1 to B20 as boxplots. The boxplot notches indicate the 95% confidence interval around the median. The insets in (

**c**,

**d**) show the relationships between WLP and M

_{NOC,mean}in a linearly scaled coordinate system.

**Figure 8.**(

**a**) Time series (300 s) of instantaneous WL

_{eff}and F

_{eff}of sample tree B4. The grey region shows the standard deviation of the residuals from WLP values of the second phase (i.e., for all values greater than detected change points) of the two-phase linear regression model. (

**b**) WL

_{eff}plotted against F

_{eff}(red dots) and bivariate histogram bins (green tiles) that represent the total wind-induced response of B4 in the study period. 84% of the displayed values are smaller than WL

_{eff}< 0.1 kN (yellow and light green bins), indicating the dominance of episodes with low wind loading in the study period.

**Figure 9.**(

**a–t**) Bivariate histograms of instantaneous WL

_{eff}and F

_{eff}of B1 to B20 in the study period. Due to measurement device failure there is no data for B7 and B15.

**Table 1.**Height (H, m), stem diameter at breast height (DBH, 1.3 m a.g.l., cm), and crown area (CA, m

^{2}) of the sample trees B1 to B35. z

_{a}is the height of pulling rope anchor point (m), RA is the pulling rope angle (°), and z

_{TRS,}

_{1}to z

_{TRS,}

_{5}are the Tree Response Sensor (TRS) stem tilt measurement heights.

Sample Tree | H | DBH | CA | z_{a} | RA | z_{TRS,1} | z_{TRS,2} | z_{TRS,3} | z_{TRS,4} | z_{TRS,5} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

B1 | 18.5 | 25.1 | 26.0 | 11.2 | 18.5 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 5.0 | 8.2 | 13.7 |

B2 | 20.4 | 28.6 | 31.2 | 13.4 | 17.9 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 5.0 | 8.6 | 14.3 |

B3 | 16.7 | 23.2 | 18.0 | 9.7 | 16.6 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 | 7.8 | 12.9 |

B4 | 19.4 | 28.6 | 15.9 | 11.2 | 18.4 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 5.0 | 8.4 | 13.9 |

B5 | 18.5 | 27.7 | 27.0 | 11.9 | 22.7 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 5.0 | 8.1 | 13.5 |

B6 | 17.7 | 26.8 | 27.3 | 11.7 | 26.8 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B7 | 19.6 | 30.6 | 40.4 | 10.6 | 19.2 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 5.0 | ||

B8 | 17.7 | 21.9 | 26.6 | 9.7 | 22.5 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B9 | 17.5 | 22.3 | 27.0 | 9.6 | 27.9 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B10 | 16.5 | 20.7 | 17.9 | 9.5 | 22.3 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 5.0 | ||

B11 | 18.5 | 21.4 | 24.0 | 9.8 | 19.6 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 | ||

B12 | 18.7 | 25.2 | 33.3 | 11.5 | 23.4 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 5.0 | ||

B13 | 19.6 | 28.1 | 31.4 | 11.6 | 27.8 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 5.0 | ||

B14 | 18.8 | 21.3 | 21.3 | 10.8 | 26.2 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 5.0 | ||

B15 | 19.8 | 27.2 | 24.5 | 11.5 | 27.5 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 5.0 | ||

B16 | 17.6 | 22.2 | 24.9 | 11.6 | 27.8 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B17 | 17.4 | 20.7 | 23.5 | 10.7 | 25.9 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B18 | 18.3 | 25.3 | 19.8 | 11.1 | 32.4 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 | ||

B19 | 16.5 | 19.3 | 18.1 | 10.7 | 29.7 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 5.0 | ||

B20 | 17.5 | 24.8 | 22.8 | 10.4 | 30.5 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B21 | 18.2 | 30.5 | 34.5 | 10.5 | 27.5 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 | ||

B22 | 20.6 | 34.8 | 53.8 | 12.8 | 32.6 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 5.0 | ||

B23 | 18.1 | 35.5 | 47.6 | 12.3 | 39.2 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 | ||

B24 | 16.8 | 20.6 | 14.0 | 10.7 | 25.5 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 5.0 | ||

B25 | 16.7 | 21.3 | 19.4 | 11.6 | 21.1 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 5.0 | ||

B26 | 15.5 | 17.0 | 11.1 | 11.8 | 30.5 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 5.0 | ||

B27 | 18.5 | 35.4 | 40.8 | 11.9 | 29.9 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.0 | ||

B28 | 16.8 | 20.5 | 14.3 | 10.7 | 39.9 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 5.0 | ||

B29 | 20.1 | 31.2 | 32.1 | 10.8 | 29.0 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 5.0 | ||

B30 | 16.0 | 19.4 | 13.1 | 11.2 | 39.9 | 0.1 | 2.3 | 5.0 | ||

B31 | 17.3 | 18.9 | 14.7 | 11.5 | 35.0 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||

B32 | 16.6 | 18.2 | 13.1 | 10.0 | 25.8 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 5.0 | ||

B33 | 18.6 | 28.1 | 28.5 | 11.0 | 28.8 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 5.0 | ||

B34 | 18.6 | 28.7 | 37.6 | 12.2 | 29.7 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 5.0 | ||

B35 | 19.3 | 30.9 | 40.2 | 12.0 | 36.2 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 5.0 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Kolbe, S.; Rentschler, F.; Frey, J.; Seifert, T.; Gardiner, B.; Detter, A.; Schindler, D.
Assessment of Effective Wind Loads on Individual Plantation-Grown Forest Trees. *Forests* **2022**, *13*, 1026.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071026

**AMA Style**

Kolbe S, Rentschler F, Frey J, Seifert T, Gardiner B, Detter A, Schindler D.
Assessment of Effective Wind Loads on Individual Plantation-Grown Forest Trees. *Forests*. 2022; 13(7):1026.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071026

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Kolbe, Sven, Felix Rentschler, Julian Frey, Thomas Seifert, Barry Gardiner, Andreas Detter, and Dirk Schindler.
2022. "Assessment of Effective Wind Loads on Individual Plantation-Grown Forest Trees" *Forests* 13, no. 7: 1026.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071026