There was a time, during early settlement of the Prairies, that homesteaders believed it was impossible to grow trees and became resigned to a wind-swept existence.
Seedlings brought in from Eastern Canada failed to grow because they were non-hardy species. Tenacious farmers using native species had better success in establishing the first shelterbelts.
The Canadian government’s co-operative program was established in 1901 with 58,000 seedlings and 47 farmers. By 1904, this had increased to 1.8 million seedlings and to 7.7 million by 1917.
To date, more than 600 million seedlings have been distributed throughout the prairies for shelter-belts.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Since the Dirty Thirties, planting shelterbelts has been seen as a way to provide long-term soil protection and trap moisture in the form of snow.
Preventing soil erosion is only one reason for planting trees.
“I think we have to rethink all the services and good benefits in wet or dry years that trees bring into the landscape,” says Henry de Gooijer of the Agroforestry Development Centre in Indian Head, Sask.
There is a definite trend to the rate farmers plant trees depending on wet and drought cycles, says de Gooijer, who also farms near Kelliher, Sask.
Prolonged drought in the 1980s resulted in the greatest annual number of field shelterbelts being established in 1990.
Wet and normal precipitation years are best for establishment and growth, but tree planting increases when it suddenly becomes clear that the lack of trees is a problem.
“If you don’t have a dust storm, it’s not apparent to you that there could be a potential problem,” says de Gooijer.
“When things are under stress, that’s when people get aware again of the fragility or sustainability of their system.”
Neil and Pat Buchanan learned the hard way about the benefits of establishing shelterbelts on their Francis, Sask., grain farm. They realized they needed to do something to protect their land from erosion after a crop of lentils was destroyed by a severe wind. It cut the plants off at the ground and they had to reseed 100 acres.
“The wind literally blew topsoil right off the hills and the topsoil around here is pretty decent,” says Pat.
In spring 1989, the organic farmers planted 100,000 trees and shrubs over 21 kilometres of shelterbelt on three quarters of land, which in-cluded their home quarter.
Many of the rows are five and six rows deep and include caragana, poplar, pine, fir and spruce trees.
According to a report by John Kort, a scientist at the agroforestry centre, the value of shelterbelts is seen by looking at their functions.
Farmyard shelterbelts protect gardens, buildings, livestock and people. They beautify the yard, improving comfort, and attracting birds and wildlife.
They also reduce home heating costs, trap snow away from work areas, buildings or laneways and sequester carbon.
Field shelterbelts protect crops, soil and sometimes livestock, while capturing blowing snow.
The Buchanans notice their crops are higher, particularly beside the trees and shrubs.
“There’s been a couple years, Neil figures we’ve grown a crop pretty much off the snow moisture we trapped from the trees,” Pat says, adding that giving up acres to grow the shelterbelt has paid off with better crops, minimized erosion and more bird species and wildlife.
“I guess we’ve just got the sense of accomplishment that we’ve done something to help improve the environment.”
Kort’s report says increased experience with shelterbelts and greater knowledge of their effects, designs and limitations mean that their use is perhaps more targeted than in the past.
For example, low shrubs near wetlands provide nesting cover for waterfowl, while multi-row, multi-species upland shelterbelts provide habitat for plants, insects, birds and mammals.
Riparian buffers that include trees and shrubs can protect aquatic habitat as well as prevent agricultural nutrients and sediments from degrading water quality, thereby involving watershed management organizations in tree-planting projects.
Shelterbelts especially designed for protecting laneways, roads and highways from snow have been planted by individual landowners, municipalities and provincial highways departments.
A fresh look at shelterbelts is underway as a method to sequester carbon to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Landowners may also be able to sustainably produce woody biomass as a renewable fuel.
Potential economic spin-offs could increase plantings and the uses for shelterbelts.
Fewer trees are being planted for field shelterbelts. De Gooijer says with advances in seeding systems, farmers see less utility in trees and have fewer reasons for field shelterbelt use, particularly the row of trees across the centre of a field.
Although a drought cycle could trigger another increase in field shelterbelt planting, advances in direct-seeding technology has led many landowners to conclude that they can manage soil erosion without the use of shelterÂbelts.
Larger field equipment and the increased trend to farm rented land may also contribute to recent decreases in field shelterbelt planting.
De Gooijer cites recent examples in areas of Saskatchewan where rows of historic shelterbelts have been removed.
“The Conquest area is an example where you have a farmer come in and buy a large block of land and decide that shelterbelts are not part of their strategy for land management and they remove them,” he says.
“I think that just relates to changes in farming systems, bigger equipment, bigger farms.”
De Gooijer has seen a rise in trees being planted in farmyard shelter-belts over the past few years. He thinks farmers are fixing up existing shelterbelts around established farmyards.
“I’ve also seen new farms and I think that comes with optimism in the agriculture sector,” he says.
