Agricultural Benefits of Shelterbelts and Windbreaks: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

Forest shelterbelts and windbreaks play a vital role in protecting ecosystems, mitigating climate change effects, and enhancing agricultural productivity. These vegetative barriers serve as effective tools for soil conservation, reducing wind and water erosion while improving soil fertility. Additionally, they contribute to biodiversity preservation by providing habitat corridors for various plant and animal species. Their role in microclimate regulation, such as temperature moderation and increased humidity retention, further enhances agricultural yields and ecosystem stability. This study examines the historical evolution, design principles, and contemporary applications of forest shelterbelts and windbreaks, drawing insights from scientific research and case studies worldwide. It highlights the economic and environmental benefits, including improved air quality, carbon sequestration, and water management, making them crucial components of sustainable land use strategies. However, challenges such as land use competition, maintenance costs, and policy constraints are also analyzed, underscoring the need for integrated approaches to their management. Through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the existing literature and field studies, this paper emphasizes the necessity of strategic planning, community involvement, and adaptive policies to ensure the long-term sustainability of forest shelterbelts and windbreaks. The findings contribute to a broader understanding of their role in combating environmental degradation and promoting ecological resilience in the face of ongoing climate challenges.

1. Introduction

Windbreaks, also known as living fences, provide significant environmental benefits, particularly in semi-arid regions across the globe. Their primary function is to mitigate wind-related impacts in agricultural landscapes, but they also offer a range of ecological, economic, and social advantages [1,2,3]. Depending on their location and purpose, windbreaks in agroecosystems are categorized as field, livestock, or farmstead windbreaks. Specific design arrangements may also be referred to as hedgerows, living snow fences, or vegetated environmental buffers [4].

Farm shelterbelts and windbreaks serve as an essential management tool in agriculture, helping to reduce soil erosion, conserve moisture, protect crops and structures, and sequester carbon. Typically composed of linear arrays of trees and shrubs, shelterbelts modify microclimatic conditions to benefit agricultural production while enhancing biodiversity and landowner value [5,6,7,8].

Designed to shield fields, pastures, buildings, and feedlots from wind, windbreaks consist of one or more rows of trees and shrubs strategically planted along the edges of fields and pastures, within agricultural areas, or around farm buildings and livestock enclosures [9]. Beyond their wind protection function, they offer additional benefits such as providing shade for livestock, improving aesthetics, serving as visual screens, and supplying wood and non-timber forest products [10,11,12]. Field shelterbelts and windbreaks, by providing a wide range of non-wood forest products, forest fruits and edible mushrooms being among the main categories [13,14], could help mitigate the anticipated food crisis caused by ongoing climate change, together with concrete agrobiodiversity measures [15], proper soil management techniques [16], adequate agriculture policies [17], and afforestation of degraded lands [18,19].

Despite their numerous advantages, the removal and underutilization of shelterbelts and windbreaks remain challenges in many regions, including the USA [4], Canada [20], Australia [21], and Japan [22]. The main reasons for this trend include farmers’ perceptions that windbreaks compete with crop production and hinder agricultural expansion.

Shelterbelts and windbreaks are among the most widely implemented agroforestry systems globally, playing a crucial role in agriculture across the Americas [10,23], Australia [24,25], Canada [26], England [27], Russia [28], and other regions [29,30,31].

Notable large-scale windbreak initiatives include China’s Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP), also known as the “Green Great Wall,” which is the world’s largest afforestation project. Launched in 1978, the TNSFP aims to combat desertification, control soil erosion, and produce forest resources in China’s Three-North regions. The project is set for completion by 2050 [32].In Japan, the traditional “Igune” windbreak forests are planted around farm dwellings, particularly in the Tohoku region. These windbreaks offer multiple benefits to rural communities, though they require ongoing maintenance [33]. Similarly, Canada’s Prairie Shelterbelt Program, initiated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has supplied over 600 million tree and shrub seedlings since 1903 to establish protective shelterbelts for prairie farms. In 2006 alone, 3.7 million seedlings were distributed to 7000 farm operations [34]. In Central Asia, tree lines have long been a traditional feature of agrarian landscapes, serving as windbreaks along field borders and irrigation channels. During the Soviet era, tree windbreaks were widely promoted, but following the dissolution of the USSR, deforestation surged as people relied on trees for fuel due to disruptions in centralized energy supplies [35].

The existing literature on windbreaks highlights their ecological services [36,37,38,39], their role in soil, plant, and livestock protection [40], and the cost-benefit dynamics of shelterbelt systems [4,20].

The aim of this study was to analyze the role and impact of shelterbelts and windbreaks in agricultural lands protection, focusing on their ecological, climatic, and economic benefits. The research explores how these green barriers contribute to biodiversity conservation, soil stabilization, air quality improvement, and climate regulation. Additionally, the study evaluates the best practices for implementing and maintaining forest shelterbelts to maximize their effectiveness in sustainable land management.

The present study was conducted with the following objectives: (1) To conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the existing literature on the agricultural, ecological, and economic benefits of shelterbelts and windbreaks. (2) To identify key research trends, influential publications, and major contributing authors and institutions in the field. (3) To evaluate the documented ecological and climatic functions of shelterbelts in agricultural landscapes, such as biodiversity enhancement, soil erosion control, and microclimate regulation. (4) To assess the reported economic and social outcomes associated with shelterbelt implementation, highlighting both benefits and challenges. (5) To identify gaps and future research directions, particularly concerning long-term monitoring, socioeconomic evaluation, and policy-related barriers to implementation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

A bibliographic dataset on shelterbelts and windbreaks and agriculture was compiled using the Web of Science Core Collection version 5.35, Clarivate (primary source) and Scopus (secondary source), covering the period from 1 January 1984, to 31 December 2024. The search included the following query terms:

TS = (shelterbelt* OR windbreak*) AND TS = (agriculture OR farmland* OR cropland* OR crop*)

Following data retrieval, a rigorous cleaning process was implemented. Duplicate records, entries lacking abstracts, and publications deemed irrelevant based on title and abstract screening were removed. The final dataset comprised 762 scientific articles considered relevant to the scope of this study.

2.2. Analytical Framework

This study applies a two-stage analytical framework: (1) bibliometric analysis and (2) qualitative thematic analysis, guided by theoretical underpinnings from ecosystem services theory and agroecological systems thinking.

The bibliometric component is grounded in scientometric theory, which enables the quantitative mapping of research patterns, collaborations, and knowledge structures in a scientific field. This is operationalized through ten core indicators: Publication types; Web of Science categories; Publication years; Geographical distribution; Affiliated institutions; Publication language; Journals; Publishers; Authorship; Keywords.

These indicators provide insight into the evolution and structure of the literature on shelterbelts and agriculture.

The theoretical framework guiding the qualitative thematic analysis is ecosystem services theory, which categorizes the benefits that ecosystems provide to humans into provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. This framework allows for an exploration of how shelterbelts contribute to agriculture through microclimate regulation, biodiversity enhancement, soil conservation, and productivity improvements. Additionally, agroecology provides a socio-ecological lens for understanding how shelterbelts integrate with and support sustainable agricultural practices.

2.3. Tools and Visualization

Data analysis and visualization were performed using Microsoft Excel 2024, Web of Science built-in tools, Scopus analytics, and GeoChart [41,42,43,44] for geographical distribution mapping. For network and cluster analysis, VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) [45] was used.

In co-authorship analysis, Links represent the number of direct collaborative relationships between authors, while Total Link Strength quantifies the strength of these collaborations, helping to identify influential research networks. For keyword co-occurrence analysis, node size indicates frequency, line thickness shows the strength of co-occurrence, and color coding distinguishes thematic clusters. Node proximity reflects the semantic relatedness of keywords.

2.4. Thematic Analysis and Theoretical Framing

In the second phase, a qualitative thematic content analysis of the 762 articles was conducted to extract dominant themes and research directions. This analysis was guided by framework analysis, a method particularly suited to policy and applied research, which allows data to be categorized according to a pre-existing structure (ecosystem services and agroecological perspectives) while also permitting the emergence of new insights.

Five major themes were identified: Research dimensions on shelterbelts and agriculture; Ecosystem services provided by shelterbelts; Agricultural benefits of shelterbelts; Tree species used in shelterbelt establishment; Technologies for shelterbelt implementation (Figure 1).

These themes reflect the conceptual emphasis of the literature and align with the broader theoretical perspectives of landscape multifunctionality and sustainable land management.

3. Results

3.1. A Bibliometric Review

A total of 762 publications on shelterbelts (windbreaks) and agriculture have been identified. The vast majority are articles (638 articles, accounting for 84% of the total publications), followed by 59 proceedings papers (8%), 33 reviews (4%), and 32 book chapters (4%) (Figure 2).

The evolution of the number of publications over the years is shown in Figure 3.

36 research areas covered by the published articles on this topic were identified. The most represented areas were Agriculture (41 articles), Agronomy (35 articles), Environmental sciences (29 articles), Ecology (19 articles) and Forestry (16 articles).

The authors who have published articles on this topic originate from countries across all inhabited continents (Figure 4). The countries with the highest representation include China (297 articles), the USA (132 articles), Canada (54 articles),Poland (45 articles) and Australia (28 articles).

The authors’ countries of origin, who have published articles on this topic, can be organized into three clusters, each comprising at least five countries. These clusters are as follows: Cluster 1 includes Csech Republic, Denmark, England, India, Russia, South Africa, Sweden and Ukraine; Cluster 2 consists of Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary and Kyrgyzstan; and Cluster 3 encompasses Italy, Japan, Mongolia, South Korea and China (Figure 5).

In terms of institutional affiliation, the most representative institutions for authors publishing on this topic were: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (46 articles), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (21 articles), the Polish Academy of Sciences (12 articles), the University of Nebraska System (9 articles), and the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (6 articles), respectively.

The leading publishers in this research domain included Elsevier (102 articles), Springer (70 articles), MDPI (44 articles), and Wiley (19 articles), respectively.

Among the 321 scientific journals that have published articles on shelterbelts and agriculture, the most prominent were Agroforestry Systems (48 articles), Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment (26 articles), Forests (32 articles), and Agriculture and Forest Meteorology (26 articles), respectively (

Table 1. The leading journals that have published articles on shelterbelts and windbreaks and agriculture.

Crt. No.	Journal	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
1	Agroforestry Systems	48	1434	212
2	Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment	26	718	116
3	Agricultural and Forest Meteorology	21	595	100
4	Forests	32	261	95
5	Remote Sensing	10	66	45
6	Catena	9	124	41
7	Ecological Indicators	7	413	35
8	Canadian Journal of Soil Science	6	103	34
9	Agricultural Water Management	5	60	27
10	Forest Ecology and management	9	278	23
11	Frontiers in Plant Science	8	76	22
12	Science of the Total Environment	7	261	22
13	Sustainability	10	91	10
14	Land Degradation & Development	8	121	10

, Figure 6).

The analysis of the 3662 keywords used in the published articles revealed that the most commonly occurring terms were: shelterbelts (including both singular and plural forms), windbreaks (both singular and plural), and agroforestry (

Table 2. The most frequently occurring keywords in studies on shelterbelts and windbreaks and agriculture.

Crt. No.	Keyword	Occurrences	Total Link Strength
1	shelterbelt(s)	180	481
2	forest	61	330
3	agroforestry	56	286
4	windbreak(s)	82	272
5	dynamics	43	238
6	vegetation	45	229
7	biodiversity	39	222
8	management	35	191
9	climate change	31	178
10	biomass	31	172
11	afforestation	31	166
12	land use	28	154
13	growth	33	153
14	conservation	29	149
15	diversity	27	144
16	farmland	21	138

).

By using specialized software, the keywords from the published articles were grouped into clusters, as illustrated in Figure 7. Four of these clusters are important, as follows: Cluster 1: air temperature, arid area, evapotranspiration, forest belt, groundwater, wind speed; Cluster 2: adjacent field, biodiversity, farmland shelterbelt, significant difference, temperature; Cluster 3: air-flow, numerical simulation, shelterbelt-structure, wind erosion, wind speed reduction; Cluster 4: agriculture land, degradation, ecosystem service, sustainability, preservation (Figure 7).

The evolution of keyword usage over time is also noteworthy. Three distinct periods were identified: from 2009 to 2015, the most commonly used keywords were windbreak, habitat, abundance, flow and crop production; from 2015 to 2020, the most frequent keywords included agriculture, temperature, humidity and land use; and from 2020 to 2024, the most widely used keywords were arid region, ecosystem services, degradation and desertification (Figure 8).

3.2. Literature Review

3.2.1. Various Aspects Studied About Shelterbelts and Windbreaks and Agriculture

Numerous aspects related to windbreaks have been studied in the specialized literature, particularly in the context of their use in agriculture (

Table 3. Aspects analyzed in scientific articles on shelterbelts and windbreaks and agriculture.

Cur. No.	Studied Aspect	Location	Cited by
	Climatic elements
1	Households’ adaptations to climate change-driven monsoon floods	Pakistan	Aftab et al., 2021 [46]
2	Reducing desertification	Pakistan	Anjum et al., 2010 [47]
3	Reducing wind erosion by shelterbelts	Hungary	Bartus et al., 2017 [48]
4	Effect of meteorological factors on water consumption of farmland shelterbelt	China	Fu et al., 2019 [49]
5	Windbreaks reduce evapotranspiration in vineyards	South Africa	Veste et al., 2020 [50]
6	Evapotranspiration estimation of crops protected by windbreak	Italy	Campi et al., 2012 [51]
7	Impact of shelter on crop microclimates	general	Cleugh et al., 2002 [52]
	Wildlife
8	Estimate the potential value of windbreaks as wildlife habitat	USA	Hess and Bay, 2000 [9]
9	Tree-shrub belts farmlands: potential refuges for wildlife	Bulgaria	Ahmed et al., 2025 [53]
10	Effects of farmland shelterbelts on surface arthropod distribution	China	Bian et al., 2020 [54]
11	Earthworm composition, diversity and biomass under three land use	Australia	Carnovale et al., 2015 [55]
12	Insectivorous bat activity assessing the contribution of small gaps in windbreaks	Israel	Einav et al., 2024 [56]
13	Spiders and beetles within shelterbelts on dairy farms	New Zealand	Fukuda et al., 2011 [57]
14	Avian fauna in windbreaks	Canada	Bernier-Leduc et al., 2009 [58]
	GIS, remote sensing
15	Identification of windbreaks using object-based image analysis and GIS techniques	USA	Ghimire et al., 2014 [59]
16	Visualize the benefits of windbreaks using remote sensing techniques	Japan	Iwasaki et al., 2024 [60]
17	Individual tree delineation in windbreaks using airborne-laser-scanning data and unmanned aerial vehicle stereo images	China	Li et al., 2016 [61]
18	Shape indexes for semi-automated detection of windbreaks in thematic tree cover maps	USA	Liknes et al., 2017 [62]
19	A tree species classification model based on improved YOLOv7 for shelterbelts	China	Liu et al., 2024 [63]
20	Quantification of shelterbelt characteristics using high-resolution imagery	Canada	Wiseman et al., 2009 [34]
	Economic importance
21	External economic benefits and social goods of shelterbelts	Canada	Kulshreshtha and Kort, 2009 [64]
22	Economic and ecological impact of shelterbelts	Serbia	Bošković et al., 2010 [65]
23	Willingness to pay for aesthetics associated with field windbreaks	USA	Grala et al., 2012 [66]
24	Willingness to pay for the value of windbreak	China	Huang et al., 2012 [67]
25	The economics of managing tree–crop competition in windbreak	Australia	Sudmeyer and Flugge, 2005 [68]
	Farmer perceptions
26	Farmer and rancher perceptions of trees and woody biomass production on marginal agricultural land	USA	Hand and Tyndall, 2018 [69]
27	Farmers’ Perceptions of Tree Shelterbelts on Agricultural Land	Kyrgyzstan	Ruppert et al., 2020 [70]
	Various
28	Potential use of saline water for irrigating shelterbelt plants in the arid region	China	Hu et al., 2012 [71]
29	Forest belts in South-West of Romania	Romania	Ioana et al., 2015 [72]
30	The effect of windbreak on the flow structure	China	Lee and Lee, 2012 [73]
31	Relationship between root length density and root number in windbreak	USA	Tamang et al., 2011 [74]
32	Windbreak efficiency in Agricultural Landscape	Czech Republic	Vacek et al., 2018 [75]
33	Tree Belts for Decreasing Aeolian Dust-Carried Pesticides from Cultivated Areas	China	Zaady et al., 2018 [76]
34	Freeze–thaw processes between farmland and shelterbelt	China	Ding et al., 2023 [77]
35	Connection between biodiversity and local cultural features	Japan	Fukamachi et al., 2011 [78]
36	Plant diversity in hedgerows adjacent to cropfields	Canada	Boutin et al., 2002 [79]
37	Effects of shelter on plant water use	General	Davis et al., 1988 [80]
38	Effects of the shelterbelt on the soil temperature	China	Deng et al., 2011 [81]

).

3.2.2. Ecosystem Services Provided by Shelterbelts and Windbreaks

Shelterbelts offer a wide array of ecosystem services that extend far beyond their immediate function of reducing wind velocity. This section synthesizes findings from the literature while also highlighting key patterns and implications derived from our bibliometric analysis.

One of the primary ecosystem services provided by shelterbelts is their contribution to agricultural productivity and economic resilience, particularly through soil erosion control. By acting as physical barriers to wind, shelterbelts mitigate soil degradation in erosion-prone areas. Our analysis confirms that even a modest integration—planting shelterbelts on just 5% of farmland—can reduce windspeed by 30–50% and soil loss by up to 80%, significantly enhancing crop yields [40,82]. Such findings underline the cost-effectiveness of shelterbelts as a land management tool.

Beyond productivity, shelterbelts provide diverse supporting, provisioning, and regulating services, including biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and water retention [36]. A notable example comes from southern Québec, Canada, where a study identified ten key ecosystem services within tree-based intercropping systems: nutrient mineralization, water and soil quality, pollination, biological control, air quality, wind protection, timber provisioning, agricultural productivity, and climate regulation [83]. This highlights how multifunctional these systems can be when properly designed.

Soil improvement is another critical benefit. Field observations have shown that shelterbelts influence soil temperature dynamics, offering a buffer against extreme seasonal variations. In Poland, for instance, temperatures within shelterbelt zones exhibited milder winter-like conditions in November and retained more warmth during the winter months, while summer soil temperatures remained cooler than in open fields [84]. These microclimatic effects can contribute to better root development and moisture retention, indirectly supporting crop health.

Soil microbial activity also appears to be enhanced by shelterbelt presence, although this area is relatively underexplored. Studies from Poland, Australia, and China have used both classical and advanced genetic approaches to analyze microbial populations near shelterbelts [85,86,87]. These studies suggest a potential for improved nutrient cycling and soil health, though more research is needed to generalize these results across climates and species types.

In terms of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, the evidence is compelling. Shelterbelt soils store approximately 27% more soil organic carbon than adjacent cropped fields, translating to an increase of 28 Mg ha⁻¹ [82]. Moreover, while CO₂ emissions may be elevated due to biological activity in these richer soils, non-CO₂ GHG emissions are reduced by 0.55 Mg CO₂e ha⁻¹ annually, making the overall climate impact favorable. Tree species also matter; hybrid poplar, for instance, achieved a 23% reduction in farm GHG emissions, outperforming white spruce (17.5%) and caragana (8.2%) [88].

From a climate regulation perspective, shelterbelts can influence microclimates at the farm level. In desert-adjacent oases, well-structured windbreaks (e.g., tall and densely spaced trees) have been shown to reduce air temperatures by up to 5 °C and increase relative humidity by 14% [89]. These findings reinforce the role of shelterbelts not only as protective elements but also as passive climate control systems, especially in vulnerable or arid regions.

The biodiversity benefits of shelterbelts are equally substantial. By serving as semi-natural habitats and ecological corridors, they support species that are often negatively affected by intensive agriculture. For example, predatory arthropods and carabid beetles are more abundant and diverse in fields near permanent vegetation such as hedgerows and shelterbelts [90,91,92,93,94,95,96]. Our review also reveals that vegetation composition matters: mixed shrub plantations support more diverse beetle populations than monocultures [57]. Similarly, in West Africa, windbreaks were found to harbor significantly more ant species than adjacent cotton fields, indicating their value as biodiversity refuges in intensively farmed landscapes [97].

In addition to their ecological functions, shelterbelts can provide provisioning services such as fuelwood, fodder, and timber, and even support recreational and aesthetic values, especially when integrated near human settlements [87]. They also contribute to energy efficiency in farmsteads by reducing heating and cooling needs.

Collectively, these results emphasize that shelterbelts function as multifunctional landscape elements. Our bibliometric analysis shows a growing research emphasis not only on their protective role but also on their capacity to support sustainable agriculture through a wide range of ecosystem services. However, future research should aim to integrate biophysical measurements with socio-economic assessments to fully capture their value.

Shelterbelts and other agroforestry-based production systems have demonstrated significant ecological and agronomic benefits. Integrating trees or shrubs with crops not only alters the microenvironment, such as by increasing shading in the understory, but also enhances structural and compositional plant diversity. This, in turn, supports richer wildlife habitats and fosters biodiversity across agricultural landscapes. Despite some documented belowground competition between trees and crops, particularly for water and nutrients, disentangling these interactions remains complex and site-specific [98].

Agroforestry systems have also shown considerable promise in climate change mitigation. Studies indicate that tree-based intercropping systems can sequester up to five times more carbon than conventional monoculture agriculture. Additionally, they contribute to reduced nitrous oxide emissions, further enhancing their environmental value [99].

The interactions between tree and crop species can result in both synergistic and competitive effects on plant growth, physiology, and yield. Selecting compatible species with complementary traits is critical to optimizing these systems for productivity, resource use efficiency, and ecosystem services [100]. Agroforestry thus provides a pathway to sustainable intensification by improving water use efficiency, enhancing soil health and nutrient cycling, moderating microclimates, controlling pests and diseases, and diversifying income streams for smallholder farmers. Nevertheless, trade-offs, particularly in terms of resource allocation and land use, may occur at both farm and landscape scales, requiring careful management and planning [101].

3.2.3. Beneficial Effects of Shelterbelts and Windbreaks on Agriculture

Shelterbelts, or field windbreaks, provide numerous benefits to agriculture, including soil erosion control, enhanced soil moisture retention, and protection for both crops and livestock. These advantages contribute to increased farmland productivity and can raise land values in agricultural markets [102]. Globally, field windbreaks also enhance the visual appeal of agricultural landscapes, shaping regional sociocultural identity and recognition [103,104,105].

One key advantage of shelterbelts is their potential to reduce farm energy consumption. The land occupied by trees requires no fertilizer or agronomic interventions, such as tillage and pesticide application, leading to lower emissions of both N₂O and CO₂. This reduction is attributed to decreased diesel use and the minimized need for fertilizer and pesticide production [106,107]. Windbreak scenarios assume that field windbreaks occupy up to 5% of the crop area, while farmstead windbreaks can reduce energy use for space conditioning and heating by 10% and 25%, respectively [108].

The effectiveness of shelterbelts in mitigating extreme weather effects has also been studied. Research on the impact of different shelterbelt structures on crops affected by a super typhoon demonstrated that shelterbelt row spacing and porosity significantly influence the distance at which crop lodging begins. Wider spacing or reduced porosity enhances the protective effect, with mixed tree and shrub shelterbelts providing better protection than single-species windbreaks. Among crops, rice exhibits the highest lodging resistance, followed by soybeans, with maize being the least resistant [109].

While responses to shelter vary among field and forage crops, studies indicate that shelter generally improves yields for vegetables, specialty crops, orchards, and vineyards. The greatest yield increases typically occur within the “quiet zone”, approximately 3–10 times the height of the windbreak [26,110,111,112,113].

Shelterbelts also affect the movement of pests, pollen, and pathogens, altering their dispersal within the crop environment. When a source of pests or pathogens is situated upwind of a sheltered crop, they are often deposited in areas where wind speed is reduced, typically just upwind or downwind of the windbreak. However, high humidity levels in sheltered areas may increase the incidence of fungal diseases, potentially reducing yields. Conversely, well-designed windbreaks enhance biodiversity, introducing natural predators that help control pest populations and reduce the need for pesticides [24].

Shelterbelts have been shown to mitigate crop losses caused by extreme weather events, as evidenced by reduced wheat losses in Pakistan [114]. They also play a vital role in livestock operations by shielding young animals from cold weather, improving feed efficiency, and protecting feedlots, pastures, and calving areas [12,115]. Systematically planting 10% of farmland with shelterbelt or timberbelt clusters can reduce wind speed by 50%, significantly improving livestock and pasture productivity in both the short and long term. For example, wheat and oat yields in Rutherglen, Victoria, and lupin yields in Esperance, Western Australia, increased within the sheltered zone by 22%, 47%, and 30%, respectively.

In maize cultivation, windbreaks increase soil temperature at 3–5 times the windbreak height (H) while reducing growth due to shading at 1 H. UAV-based NDVI assessments revealed that maize growth was highest in June and lowest in September, with greater dry matter accumulation at 3–5 H than at 6–12 H. In the Great Plains of the U.S., windbreaks reduce crop moisture stress, leading to increased maize yields [116]. In China, windbreaks primarily reduce physical damage in high-precipitation areas, whereas in low-precipitation regions, they improve moisture conditions [117]. In Canada, [118] it was found that the windbreaks extend the growing period from grain emergence to maturation by increasing daytime temperatures, further boosting maize yields. The specific microclimatic benefits of windbreaks, however, vary by region.

Studies from Brazil indicate that Eucalyptus dunnii Maiden windbreaks in soybean fields enhance yield and productivity. Additionally, selecting commercially valuable tree species allows producers to generate additional income from harvesting the windbreaks [119].

A two-year study in the Indigenous community of Fort Albany First Nation, Ontario, Canada, examined bush bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) intercrops in sites with trees and without trees, respectively. Yields and biomass were significantly higher in windbreak-lined sites than in open fields [120].

The effects of shelterbelt height, distance, and seasonal variation also significantly influence pasture yield, neutral detergent fiber content, metabolizable energy, and crude protein yields. However, productivity did not necessarily increase in rows adjacent to shelterbelts. Additionally, bacterial and fungal community structures were notably affected by distance from the shelterbelt, with soil calcium (Ca) emerging as a key predictor of fungal diversity, while soil pH and Ca influenced bacterial communities [121].

While the majority of studies highlight the positive impacts of shelterbelts and windbreaks on agricultural systems, such as microclimate improvement, soil conservation, and increased biodiversity, there are documented instances of negative interaction effects. These effects, although relatively rare, can lead to a decline in crop productivity in areas immediately adjacent to shelterbelts. For example, Qiao et al. [122] observed that nitrate concentrations in the soil decreased with distance from the shelterbelt and with increasing depth. The highest nitrate levels were found in deeper soil layers (200–300 cm) close to the shelterbelt (2–14 m), indicating reduced nitrogen uptake by crops due to shading, decreased mineralization, and interception of nutrients by tree roots. This accumulation of residual nitrogen was attributed to lower crop demand and increased lateral movement of nitrate near the shelterbelt. Similarly, Szigeti et al. [123] reported that competition for light, water, and nutrients between trees and adjacent crops could result in yield reductions near the edge of shelterbelts. These findings suggest that although shelterbelts generally provide agronomic benefits, careful planning of species composition, spacing, and orientation is essential to mitigate localized negative effects on crop performance.

3.2.4. Tree Species Used for Creating Agricultural Shelterbelts and Windbreaks

Many tree species have been used in various countries for the establishment of agricultural shelterbelts (

Table 4. Tree species used for the creation of agricultural shelterbelts and windbreaks.

Cur. No.	Species	Location	Cited by
1	Acacia spp.	Australia	Carnovale et al., 2015 [51]
2	Acer negundo (Manitoba maple)	Canada	Davis et al., 2013; Rudd et al., 2021 [124,125]
3	Acer platanoides (Norway maple)	Russia	Chernodubov and Gribacheva, 2020 [126]
4	Berberis glaucocarpa (barberry)	New Zealand	Fukuda et al., 2011 [55]
5	Caragana arborescens (caragana, or Siberian pea shrub)	Canada	Davis et al., 2013; Rudd et al., 2021; Amadi et al., 2016; [124,125,127]
6	Caragana karshiskii Kom	China	Hu et al., 2012 [67]
7	Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam)	USA	Hansen et al., 2020 [128]
8	Celtis occidentalis (Hackberry)	USA	Hansen et al., 2020 [128]
9	Ceratonia siliqua (carob)	China	Zaady et al., 2018 [72]
10	Corymbia torelliana (cadaghi)	USA	Tamang et al., 2011 [70]
11	Cupressus spp. (cypress)	USA	Hansen et al., 2020 [128]
12	Eucaliptus spp.	Australia, Brazil, India	Carnovale et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2013; Kohli et al., 1990 [51,115,129]
13	Eucalyptus camaldulensis	China	Zaady et al., 2018 [72]
14	Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. (green ash) or Fraxinus americana	Canada	Bernier-Leduc et al., 2009; Davis et al., 2013; Rudd et al., 2021 [54,124,125]
15	Haloxylon ammodendron Bunge	China	Hu et al., 2012 [67]
16	Juniperus virginiana (red cedar)	USA	Sauer et al., 2007 [130]
17	Larix laricina (Du Roi) Koch.	Canada	Bernier-Leduc et al., 2009 [54]
18	Picea glauca (white spruce)	Canada	Amadi et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2013; Rudd et al., 2021 [124,125,127]
19	Picea pungens (Colorado spruce)	Canada	Davis et al., 2013 [124]
20	Pinus halepensis (pine)	China	Zaady et al., 2018 [72]
21	Pinus radiata	Australia	Sudmeyer and Flugge, 2005 [64]
22	Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)	Canada, USA	Davis et al., 2013; Rudd et al., 2021; Sauer et al., 2007 [124,125,130]
23	Populus sp. (hybrid poplar)	Canada; Kyrgyzstan	Amadi et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2013; Rudd et al., 2021; Thevs and Aliev, 2023 [124,125,127,131]
24	Populus nigra “Afghanica” (“Theves” columnar poplar)	USA	Hansen et al., 2020 [128]
25	Populus simonii (Carrière) Wesm.	South Africa	Sheppard et al., 2024 [132]
26	Populus tremula “Erecta” (columnar Swedish Aspen)	USA	Hansen et al., 2020 [128]
27	Quercus robur L. (English oak)	Russia	Chernodubov and Gribacheva, 2020 [128]
28	Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust)	Poland; Australia	Carnovale et al., 2019; Dłużniewska and Mazurek, 2011 [80,133]
29	Salix spp. (willow)	Canada	Barbeau et al., 2018 [122]
30	Salix acutifolia (Acute willow)	Canada	Davis et al., 2013 [124]
31	Sambucus canadensis L. (American elderberries)	Canada	Bernier-Leduc et al., 2009 [54]
32	Ulmus pumila (Siberian elm)	Canada	Davis et al., 2013 [124]
33	Tamarix spp.	Israel	Einav et al., 2024 [52]
34	Viburnum trilobum Marsh. (highbush cranberries)	Canada	Bernier-Leduc et al., 2009 [54]

).

3.2.5. Technologies for the Establishment of Agricultural Shelterbelts and Windbreaks

The effectiveness of agricultural shelterbelts is primarily determined by tree height, shelterbelt porosity, and the belt’s width and orientation [134,135,136]. The strategic planting of trees as windbreaks has long been a fundamental approach to enhancing agricultural sustainability and profitability worldwide [10]. Shelterbelts have been used for centuries to improve microclimate, reduce environmental stress, and increase crop yields. Their selection and placement should align with land managers’ objectives and the desired protective function [4,137]. Optimizing shelterbelt design requires careful consideration of factors such as row count, length, height, and width [138,139,140,141,142].

The area protected by a shelterbelt is proportional to its height, making height the primary geometric parameter used to normalize shelter distances downstream [143]. Research suggests that increasing shelterbelt width by adding tree rows along the wind direction enhances protective effects [144]. However, excessively wide shelterbelts do not necessarily provide greater benefits than narrower ones [145].

Despite their benefits, shelterbelts involve costs related to establishment, maintenance, removal, localized yield reductions, and income loss from land dedicated to windbreaks. For widespread adoption, they must be economically viable. The economic feasibility of windbreaks depends on whether yield improvements from climatic protection outweigh total costs. The key consideration is optimal spacing: assuming a moderate tree growth rate (6 m in 40 years), research suggests an optimal windbreak spacing of approximately 120 m, or 13 times the windbreak height. Under this spacing, net returns were 7.61% higher for corn and 9.23% higher for soybeans compared to unprotected fields, assuming windbreak maturity at 40 years. Economic returns improve when windbreaks reach maturity sooner. Taller windbreaks maintain the 13-times-height spacing, increasing the distance between rows while reducing the total number of required windbreaks [146].

In terms of financial viability, single-row windbreaks tend to be cost-neutral or slightly beneficial, whereas multi-row tree windbreaks rarely provide financial gains compared to open-field conditions. Among different configurations, a 200 m × 200 m grid demonstrated the highest economic returns compared to alternative grid sizes. Therefore, establishing tree windbreaks along field borders or irrigation ditches while maintaining an average 200 m spacing between tree lines is recommended to avoid interfering with farm operations [131].

Structurally, windbreaks consist of external features—such as width, height, shape, and orientation—and internal characteristics—such as the arrangement of branches, leaves, and trunks [10]. They are classified based on porosity levels: porous (approximately 60% porosity), medium-porous, and non-porous (approximately 20% porosity) [140]. Windbreaks typically reduce wind speed over a range of 20–35 times their height on the leeward side [147,148]. Studies have found a strong relationship between windbreak efficiency and optical porosity, with seasonal changes in windbreak density affecting their performance. During the growing season, leafy windbreaks reduce wind speed more effectively than those without foliage in winter [149,150].

4. Discussion

4.1. Bibliometric Review

Unlike other subjects [151,152], where the published articles have shown sustained growth over the last two decades, in the case of shelterbelts and agriculture, the number of publications has remained relatively constant (with the usual fluctuations). This indicates a steady interest from researchers in this topic.

The bibliometric analysis conducted revealed that the term “shelterbelts” is used more frequently than “windbreaks”, which is why we have also adopted it in this article.

In addition to the fields identified from the keywords used in our database queries (Agriculture and Forestry), the published articles on this topic were also classified into broader scientific domains related to ecology and biodiversity, such as Environmental Sciences, Ecology, and Biodiversity Conservation.

The leading countries of origin for authors publishing on this topic are those with extensive agricultural areas and a strong forestry tradition, such as China, the USA, and Canada. Next are two Central European countries, Germany and Poland, where the use of shelterbelts in agriculture has a long history. In contrast, African countries, with only two exceptions, have made limited progress in this area—an unfortunate situation, as the implementation of shelterbelts for crop protection in this region could offer significant benefits.

The keywords used in published articles are predominantly focused on the main topic. Additionally, there is a notable prevalence of keywords related to the benefits of shelterbelts, such as ecosystem services, biodiversity, climate change, and wind erosion, as well as their management, including terms like agroforestry and management. In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on keywords connected to major environmental issues, such as climate change, water, growth, and sequestration.

4.2. Various Aspects Studied About Shelterbelts and Windbreaks and Agriculture

Shelterbelts have demonstrated region-specific benefits in mitigating climatic stress on agricultural land. Rather than presenting generalized advantages, research emphasizes their variable effectiveness based on ecological, meteorological, and social factors. For example, in Pakistan, shelterbelts have proven effective in combating desertification, but long-term success depends on integrating these interventions into nationally coordinated and monitored frameworks [47]. In China, evidence indicates that windbreak system design exerts a stronger influence on wind erosion control than the actual plot size, underlining the importance of structural optimization [48].

Hydrological impacts of shelterbelts also vary. In Chinese farmland, daily sap flow velocity and canopy transpiration rates of shelterbelt trees ranged significantly—between 429 ± 247 kg m⁻² d⁻¹ and 1495 ± 634 kg m⁻² d⁻¹ for sap flow, and from 0.45 mm d⁻¹ to 1.58 mm d⁻¹ for transpiration—depending on local weather conditions [49]. Similarly, in South Africa’s Western Cape Province, windbreaks around vineyards led to a 15.5% annual reduction in reference evapotranspiration, and an 18.4% decrease during the growing season [50], showing their value in conserving water in water-scarce climates.

Temperature regulation in shelterbelt zones shows notable seasonal dynamics. During summer, shelterbelt areas can be up to 4 °C cooler in air temperature and 4–5 °C cooler in soil temperature at 15–30 cm depth, supporting better root development and reducing evapotranspiration. These trends reverse in winter, offering thermal buffering during cold periods [153,154].

Experimental and numerical methods have been widely used to study wind dynamics around shelterbelts. Wind tunnel and field experiments support the classification of flow regimes around porous windbreaks into distinct zones, impacting local turbulence and airflow patterns [24,155,156].

Technological advancements such as GIS, UAVs, ALS, and remote sensing have substantially improved shelterbelt monitoring. For instance, UAV-based delineation achieved 66.94% accuracy in identifying trees in young aspen forests, while ALS-based methods showed only 33.76% accuracy in older stands [57]. Machine learning tools like the YOLO algorithm have been employed to identify tree species [59], and the Straight and Narrow Feature Index (SNFI) was used to statistically distinguish windbreaks from other tree configurations [58].

Economic assessments reveal both private and public value. External benefits—primarily from carbon sequestration (USD 73 million) and reduced soil erosion (USD 15 million)—are complemented by indirect ecosystem services such as biodiversity enhancement and improvements in air and water quality [60]. Recreation-based value is evident in Kansas, where shelterbelts contribute an estimated USD 30 million annually through bird hunting activities [157].

Perceptions of aesthetic value vary. U.S. non-farmers were more willing to pay for windbreak preservation and enhancement than farmers, due to differing opportunity cost assessments. Willingness to pay ranged from USD 1.94 to USD 3.05 among those who found windbreaks visually appealing, and from USD 1.67 to USD 2.37 among those who perceived a regional deficit in windbreaks [62]. In Beijing, under the Sandstorm Source Control Project, households indicated a willingness to contribute CHY 100–143 annually, equating to an estimated project value of CHY 611–642 million [63].

Social and institutional dynamics also influence adoption. In the U.S., while farmers recognize shelterbelt benefits for marginal land, uncertainties around biomass markets and long-term investment discourage uptake [65]. In Kyrgyzstan, local skepticism persists due to concerns over shading, limited land area, and regulatory inconsistencies between local governance and national legislation [66].

These findings confirm that shelterbelt implementation must be tailored to biophysical conditions and local perceptions to maximize both environmental and socioeconomic outcomes.

4.3. Ecosystem Services Provided by Shelterbelts and Windbreaks

Windbreaks are widely recognized for their role in providing ecosystem services that extend beyond agricultural lands. Their benefits include enhancing biodiversity and wildlife habitats [158], sequestering carbon [130,159], supporting pollinators [154], and improving soil and water quality [160].

Ecosystem services (ES) refer to the multitude of benefits humans derive from ecosystems, including the provision of food, fiber, water regulation, pollination, and non-material benefits such as recreation and aesthetic value [161]. Agricultural systems, while primarily known for providing essential provisioning services, also rely on regulating and supporting services provided by natural systems. Shelterbelts—linear arrangements of trees and shrubs—are integral in enhancing both the productivity of agricultural landscapes and the overall ecological health of these systems by offering a range of valuable ecosystem services.

The results from Section 3.2.2 emphasize the significant role shelterbelts play in mitigating environmental challenges while also improving agricultural performance. Notably, shelterbelts contribute to the regulation of soil erosion, improve soil quality, enhance carbon sequestration, and boost biodiversity. These findings highlight the multifunctional benefits of shelterbelts, especially in terms of soil protection and climate regulation.

4.3.1. Soil Protection and Carbon Sequestration

One of the key functions of shelterbelts is soil protection. The results from the research in southern Québec [76] and the studies by Bitog and Lee [77] clearly demonstrate how shelterbelts, through reducing wind velocity, help to prevent soil erosion and enhance agricultural productivity. Our findings, which suggest that shelterbelts can reduce windspeed by 30–50% and soil loss by up to 80%, echo these earlier conclusions and underline the critical role of shelterbelts in maintaining soil integrity and reducing dust dispersion, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions.

Moreover, shelterbelts significantly contribute to carbon sequestration. The study from Canada demonstrated that specific tree species, such as hybrid poplar and white spruce, can reduce farm GHG emissions by up to 23%, showcasing shelterbelts as an effective tool in climate change mitigation. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies [130], which noted substantial increases in soil organic carbon in shelterbelt soils compared to adjacent cultivated fields. Therefore, shelterbelts not only enhance agricultural productivity but also serve as significant carbon sinks, helping to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

The removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) and its storage in terrestrial ecosystems is a viable strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions [156]. Arable lands offer a significant opportunity for carbon sequestration when trees are integrated into farming systems [162]. Shelterbelts, in particular, are an effective strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon concentrations through carbon storage in both tree biomass [26] and soil organic carbon (SOC) pools [123]. Estimated carbon sequestration rates in shelterbelt systems reach 6.4 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹, compared to 2.6, 3.4, and 6.1 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ for riparian forest buffers, alley cropping, and silvopasture systems, respectively [158]. Shelterbelts also contribute to increased SOC stabilization. For instance, a study in Nebraska, USA, found that SOC concentrations in the 0–7.5 cm soil layer under a red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)–Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) shelterbelt (3.04%) were 55% higher than those in adjacent cultivated fields (1.96%), with an additional 12% increase in SOC in the 7.5–15 cm soil depth [130].

4.3.2. Biodiversity Conservation

Beyond their environmental and economic benefits, shelterbelts are instrumental in supporting biodiversity. Windbreaks, for example, provide essential habitats for a wide range of species, from birds to beneficial insects. This aligns with the findings of previous studies [82,163] that shelterbelts help increase the diversity and abundance of predatory arthropods and other beneficial species within agricultural systems. These habitats are crucial for species that rely on refuge during seasonal disturbances and can reduce the need for chemical inputs such as insecticides [164].

Moreover, the increased presence of pollinators in shelterbelt areas, as highlighted by Bentrup et al. [165], provides additional evidence of the positive impact shelterbelts have on pollination services. Our results also support the notion that shelterbelts can reduce wind speeds, which in turn inhibits the flight of certain pests such as aphids, further decreasing the transmission of pest-borne diseases [166]. Thus, shelterbelts not only act as physical barriers but also contribute to maintaining ecological balance by supporting the populations of beneficial organisms.

Windbreaks play a vital role in wildlife conservation [167,168] by supporting biodiversity and providing habitats for various species, including birds [169,170], pollinating insects [165], flying predatory insects [171], and diverse ant species [172]. Shelterbelts enhance biodiversity by offering essential habitat spaces, leading to a higher abundance of pollinators compared to open areas. For example, honey bee flight is inhibited when wind speeds reach 6.7–8.9 m/s [109]. Additionally, certain insects, such as aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae), are wind-dispersed [173]. By reducing wind speed, shelterbelts help mitigate the spread of aphid-transmitted viruses [160]. Furthermore, bird species that prey on crop pests contribute to natural pest control, reducing the need for insecticides and lowering associated costs [164].

4.3.3. Climate Regulation

Shelterbelts play a pivotal role in moderating local climate conditions. The research findings presented in Section 3.2.2, particularly from Kurose et al. [83], underline how shelterbelts can influence microclimates by reducing air temperatures and increasing humidity. These localized climate effects are especially important in regions with extreme weather conditions, such as deserts or areas prone to strong winds. By mitigating temperature extremes, shelterbelts create more favorable conditions for crop growth and reduce the energy needs for farmsteads, ultimately improving agricultural sustainability.

4.3.4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the ecosystem services provided by shelterbelts are vast and multi-dimensional. They not only improve agricultural productivity by preventing soil erosion, regulating temperature, and enhancing carbon sequestration, but they also contribute significantly to biodiversity conservation and climate regulation. The evidence presented in Section 3.2.2 confirms that shelterbelts are a vital tool in modern agroecosystems, providing both ecological and economic benefits. The incorporation of shelterbelts into agricultural landscapes is therefore a promising strategy for achieving sustainable farming practices, reducing environmental degradation, and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

4.4. Beneficial Effects of Shelterbelts and Windbreaks on Agriculture

Shelterbelts can significantly enhance agricultural productivity, yet their benefits are neither uniform nor automatic—they depend on region-specific climatic conditions, crop types, and shelterbelt design parameters [130,168]. Despite reducing the area available for cultivation, shelterbelts often deliver a net gain in crop yield and quality due to improved growing conditions [160,174,175,176].

Our analysis confirms measurable productivity gains across different agroecosystems. In Rutherglen, Victoria, wheat and oat yields increased by 22%, while lupin yields in Esperance, Western Australia rose by 30% in the presence of windbreaks. Similar trends were observed in the Indigenous community of Fort Albany First Nation in Ontario, where windbreak-lined plots yielded significantly higher biomass and crop output [122].

Shelterbelts improve the microclimate by creating a “quiet zone” extending 3–10 times the windbreak height, where wind stress is minimized and conditions become more favorable for plant growth [112,174]. This is especially beneficial for crops sensitive to environmental stress, such as vegetables, fruit trees, and vineyards.

These benefits are strongly regional. In the U.S. Great Plains, maize yields improved due to reductions in crop moisture stress and better water retention as wind speeds declined [118]. In China, high-precipitation areas saw reduced mechanical damage to crops, while in low-precipitation zones, shelterbelts were essential for enhancing soil moisture and mitigating drought stress [119].

Shelterbelts also influence pest and disease dynamics. Reduced wind speed limits the dispersal of insect pests and pathogens while encouraging predator species by providing habitats. However, these benefits are counterbalanced by risks: increased humidity in protected zones can exacerbate fungal diseases under certain conditions, potentially impacting yields [24].

Beyond crop protection, shelterbelts provide critical services for livestock. As noted in Section 3.2.3, reductions in wind speed of up to 50% can significantly improve the survival and feed conversion of young animals during cold months [12,117]. Enhanced pasture productivity is another benefit, as wind protection minimizes vegetation damage and supports better forage quality.

While the spatial cost of shelterbelt implementation is real, our findings—and the broader literature—demonstrate that yield gains, climatic buffering, and ecological services often outweigh the land lost. From cereals like wheat and maize to legumes and tubers, shelterbelts consistently improve crop output, environmental resilience, and system sustainability.

Therefore, their integration into farming systems—if appropriately designed and regionally adapted—presents a highly effective strategy for enhancing both agricultural productivity and ecological integrity.

4.5. Tree Species Used for Creating Agricultural Shelterbelts and Windbreaks

Windbreaks can be created using perennial or annual species, such as trees, shrubs, and grasses, or constructed with wooden fencing and other materials. Selecting suitable plants for windbreaks can be challenging in certain regions due to factors like high elevation, extreme temperatures, high-pH soils, and limited water availability. This study evaluated eight tree species for their effectiveness as windbreaks in the Intermountain West (USA), focusing on initial establishment and their role at the urban-agriculture interface. Standard poplar (Populus × canadensis) and “Theves” columnar poplar (Populus nigra “Afghanica”) demonstrated the fastest establishment, while species with moderate growth rates, such as aspen, juniper, and hackberry, may offer lower long-term maintenance costs in this region [128].

Various tree species are commonly used in windbreaks, shelterbelts, and hedgerows. Ideal characteristics for these applications include rapid growth, dense branching with long crowns, minimal competition (allowing high planting density without interfering with intercrops), and resilience to wind, sun, and frost [132].

From our inventory (Table 4), 34 tree species were used for the creation of shelterbelts, mainly in Canada, the USA, and China, but also in other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Israel, Brazil, India, Poland, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan. Of course, the examples can be much more numerous, since shelterbelts are widespread in almost all countries around the world, and almost any type of tree species can be used to create them.

4.6. Technologies for the Establishment of Agricultural Shelterbelts and Windbreaks

The effectiveness of agricultural shelterbelts is largely determined by their porosity, height, width, and orientation. Porosity, defined as the percentage of open space within the shelterbelt structure, plays a crucial role in determining its wind-reducing capability [177,178]. Windbreaks with lower porosity tend to provide a more substantial reduction in wind speed, which is beneficial for protecting crops from wind-related damage [179]. However, excessively dense windbreaks can cause unwanted turbulence and increase leeward wind speeds, especially near the surface [180].

For perennial crops such as orchards and vineyards, the seasonal variation in windbreak porosity presents both advantages and challenges. Deciduous windbreaks undergo structural changes throughout the year, which can be strategically utilized to address different environmental concerns. In high-elevation valleys, radiative freeze conditions pose a significant risk to flower buds and blossoms in early spring. A porous windbreak during this period allows cold air to drain away from the crop, reducing the likelihood of freezing damage. Conversely, during winter, less porous windbreaks offer better protection against desiccating winds, leading to improved survival of twigs and buds, as well as safeguarding developing fruit in summer [115,181].

The impact of windbreaks extends to specific crop types, such as cane berry crops (raspberry and blackberry), which are highly susceptible to winter desiccation. Floricane shoot and bud mortality due to harsh winter winds can significantly reduce yield potential. In regions where spring air drainage is less critical, evergreen trees and shrubs provide a consistent level of protection throughout the year by minimizing exposure to desiccating winds [182,183].

From a structural perspective, shelterbelt design must consider both external and internal characteristics. Externally, factors such as width, height, and orientation influence overall performance, while internally, the arrangement of leaves, branches, and trunks determines porosity levels and wind permeability [10]. Studies suggest that windbreaks with medium porosity (~40–60%) provide optimal protection by reducing wind speed while avoiding excessive turbulence [184,185].

The economic viability of agricultural shelterbelts remains a key consideration for their adoption. While single-row windbreaks are often cost-neutral or slightly beneficial, multi-row configurations require careful financial assessment. Research indicates that windbreaks spaced at approximately 13 times their height optimize economic returns, particularly for crops such as corn and soybeans, where yield improvements outweigh the costs of land dedication and establishment [146]. Additionally, a 200 m × 200 m grid has been identified as the most efficient spacing for maximizing economic benefits without disrupting farm operations [131].

Ultimately, the selection and management of agricultural shelterbelts should be tailored to the specific needs of the farming system, climatic conditions, and economic considerations. By optimizing porosity, species selection, and placement, shelterbelts can provide significant agronomic and financial benefits while enhancing overall sustainability in agricultural landscapes.

There are also some gaps and limitations of our study. Gaps: Lack of long-term data: due to time constraints, long-term environmental impacts of forest shelterbelts may not be fully assessed; insufficient socioeconomic analysis: the economic and social aspects of implementing forest shelterbelts might not be extensively explored; limited case studies: a broader comparison of multiple forest shelterbelts projects could provide deeper insights. Limitations of the study: environmental variability: different environmental conditions may lead to variations in results, making generalization difficult; implementation challenges: practical difficulties in establishing and maintaining forest shelterbelts may not be fully addressed; policy and regulatory constraints: the study may not comprehensively cover the influence of government policies and regulations on forest shelterbelts implementation.

5. Conclusions

This bibliometric analysis of research on shelterbelts and windbreaks reveals a growing global interest in their ecological, agricultural, and climate-related benefits. The study identified key thematic trends, influential publications, and collaborative research networks, indicating a multidisciplinary and international focus on the subject. The findings show that most research has concentrated on the environmental benefits of shelterbelts, particularly their roles in reducing soil erosion, improving microclimates, and supporting biodiversity.

However, the analysis also highlights several gaps. Notably, there is limited bibliometric representation of studies focusing on economic feasibility, long-term performance, and policy integration, suggesting an imbalance in research priorities. Furthermore, regional disparities were identified, with a significant concentration of studies in specific countries, indicating the need for broader geographical representation in future research.

Way forward and recommendations: Expand regional research diversity: Encourage studies in underrepresented regions to provide a more comprehensive global understanding of shelterbelt effectiveness. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Promote collaboration among environmental scientists, economists, and policy experts to address implementation challenges and policy integration. Focus on practical applications: Future research should bridge the gap between academic knowledge and field-level practices by incorporating applied studies and real-world case analyses.

Limitations of this study: The bibliometric analysis is limited to indexed publications available in selected databases, which may not capture all relevant regional or non-English literature. Citation-based influence may not always equate to practical impact or implementation success, possibly skewing interpretations. This study focused on quantitative publication metrics and trends without a full qualitative assessment of the content of the research outputs.

By addressing these limitations and pursuing the outlined recommendations, future research can better support the practical adoption and optimization of shelterbelts and windbreaks in sustainable agricultural and environmental management.