1. Introduction
The Iowa Atmospheric Observatory (IAO) was established through collaboration among Iowa State University, The University of Iowa, and the University of Northern Iowa to improve understanding of the wind resources and microclimates within utility-scale wind farms in an agricultural region. The widespread expansion of wind farms in Iowa is the most recent in a long series of landscape transformations of the U.S. Midwest since the European settlement began in the early nineteenth century. This most recent transformation, like those before it, is creating measurable changes to local microclimates. As the number of wind farms continues to grow, turbines could influence regional (Vautard et al. 2014) and perhaps even global (Keith et al. 2004; Wang and Prinn 2010) climates, although a later study suggests the effect is exaggerated (Fitch 2015).
The landscape of Iowa has undergone major transformations since the European settlement that began in the early nineteenth century. By the early twentieth century, a majority of the original marshy, prairie-pothole-dominated central and northern regions and the rolling hill areas of the remainder of the state had been drained and converted to farmland (New York Times 1910). The presettlement forested area of Iowa, estimated to be about 6 million acres, was reduced by half by the end of the twentieth century (Gallant et al. 2011). These changes of the surface and subsurface hydrology and vegetation have had profound influences on the exchange of energy, water vapor, and carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the surface. Furthermore, because of the change from largely perennial vegetation to largely annual vegetation, the linkage between the atmosphere and the deep soil has been altered.
In the twenty-first century, the landscape of Iowa is undergoing another transformation of land use from the installation of several thousand wind turbines over agricultural cropland. Utility-scale wind farms typically occupy 200–500 km2, or even more, with 100–200 turbines. These low-density wind farms [distance between turbines generally greater than 15D (where D is the turbine rotor diameter; currently D ~ 80 m) in prevailing wind directions] are designed with the intent of reducing turbine–turbine interactions. With 4145 turbines in Iowa as of 2018, most of which are located within 25 large utility-scale wind farms (>100 MW) of aggregate power capacity of over 5600 MW, the Iowa land area influenced by Iowa wind farms has become comparable to the size of its cities or forests (AWEA 2018). The impact from the production of wind energy on the prevailing land use (intensive agriculture) has not been fully evaluated (Rajewski et al. 2013, 2014).
Wind turbines convert a fraction of the mean kinetic energy flowing through the wind farm to electrical energy and convert another fraction to turbulence, with the remainder leaving the wind farm as a reduced amount of kinetic energy (Christiansen and Hasager 2005; Adams and Keith 2007). The reduction in mean kinetic energy (i.e., mean wind speed) and increase in turbulence downwind of turbines, commonly referred to as turbine wakes (Högström et al. 1988; Magnusson and Smedman 1999; Hirth and Schroeder 2013), have a direct influence on the exchange of heat, moisture, and carbon dioxide in the wind farm (Rajewski et al. 2013, 2014, 2016; Takle 2017) and may create an aggregate wind farm effect beyond the boundary of the wind farm (Baidya Roy 2011; Baidya Roy et al. 2004; Keith et al. 2004; Adams and Keith 2007; Rajewski et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2013; Armstrong et al. 2014).
The shape, internal characteristics, and downwind extent of wakes are highly dependent on the thermal stratification of the lowest 200 m of the ambient atmosphere. Simulations with energy-conserving parameterizations of individual wind turbines and wind farm wakes reported by Adams and Keith (2007), Fitch (2015), Fitch et al. (2012, 2013a,b), Lu and Porté-Agel (2011), Mirocha et al. (2014), Sescu and Meneveau (2015), and others have provided additional insight on structure and processes in wind farms.
In situ measurements of fluxes and near-surface temperature and humidity taken within wind farms report nighttime temperatures above the surface that are about 0.2–1.0 K higher (Baidya Roy and Traiteur 2010; Henschen et al. 2011; Rajewski et al. 2013, 2014, 2016; Smith et al. 2013; Takle et al. 2014), soil temperatures that are a few tenths of kelvins higher, and absolute humidity above the surface that is a few tenths of grams per cubic meter lower (Armstrong et al. 2016). Satellite measurements over agricultural regions of the central United States (Zhou et al. 2012, 2013a,b; Harris et al. 2014; Slawsky et al. 2015; Xia et al. 2016) also indicate that surface skin temperatures are 0.3–1.0 K higher at satellite fly-over times deep within and downwind of utility-scale wind farms compared to cropland outside of wind farms.
Turbulence is the fundamental process that regulates fluxes throughout the lower boundary layer. These fluxes regulate the interception of light (through plant movement that illuminates lower leaves) and transport of heat, water, and carbon dioxide within the crop canopy and drive the biophysical processes that influence vegetative growth, reproductive development, and overall yield (Campbell and Norman 2000). Commodity crops currently grown in the United States have been finely tuned for optimal growth and yield in a specific climate region. More measurements are needed to characterize the variability of microclimate fluxes and turbulence, especially deep within utility-scale wind farms that are collocated with commodity-crop agriculture, roughly 5%–15% of the total cropland acres especially in the state of Iowa (USDA 2012). Measurements of the three-dimensional turbulence conditions inside a wind farm with concurrent turbulence conditions in the nearby natural boundary layer offer a method to clarify the role of wind farms in modifying wind farm microclimates.
In this report, we provide an overview of the characteristics of the boundary layer that are being created by this new and expanding establishment of large utility-scale wind farms. These results provide a delineation of how single and multiple wakes aggregate to characterize wind and turbulence conditions that define vertical profiles of meteorological conditions within a wind farm.
We conceptually summarize in Figure 1 the impacts on surface microclimate and boundary layer conditions deep in the wind farm during the day (Figure 1a) and during the night (Figure 1b) from our assessment of microclimate changes in the leading few lines of turbines (Rajewski et al. 2016) and from recent profiling measurements taken with unmanned aerial vehicles in the near wake of single turbines (Adkins and Sescu 2017). We adopt the terminology of Newman et al. (2013) for describing the wind farm boundary layer by labeling its three sublayers as the layer swept by the rotor [rotor-swept layer (RSL)] and layers below and above the rotor area called the below-rotor layer (BRL) and the above-rotor layer (ARL), respectively. In Figure 1, we note, by use of light-blue-striped bars above and below the single-wake boundaries, the effect that multiple wakes have toward creating an aggregated wind farm boundary layer. Larger or smaller flux departures within the wind farm from fluxes outside the wind farm are indicated with wide or narrow arrows.
Conceptualization of wind farm modification of surface and boundary layer microclimate for (a) daytime/unstable conditions and (b) nighttime/stable conditions based on available field measurements, wind tunnel measurements, and numerical simulations. Wider arrows denote larger values in heat (red) and water vapor (blue) fluxes, and narrower arrows denote smaller values in fluxes. Double-headed arrows denote fluxes could be either direction, zero, or unknown. Scales of turbulence are denoted by light blue swirls, with the top portion of the largest daytime eddy having a dashed line to infer boundary layer depth of several hundreds of meters or a few kilometers above the wind farm boundary layer.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
A description of the IAO’s twin-tall-tower network and instrumentation is provided in section 2. In section 3, we characterize the data processing, filtering procedures, and sorting metrics used to interpret wind farm impacts on the boundary layer. Our analyses of the tall-towers’ data compare wind, turbulence, temperature, and humidity conditions both with and without the influence of the wind farm in section 4. In section 5, we summarize and interpret our findings with a table describing how turbines change individual meteorological variables in the wind farm boundary layer. We provide overall conclusions and suggestions for future research in section 6.
2. IAO twin-tall-tower network
2.1. Site description
The IAO consists of two 120-m towers: one located inside a 200-turbine wind farm in central Iowa (denoted by A1) and one approximately 22 km to the northwest of A1 and outside of the wind farm (denoted by A2; Figure 2). The terrain for both sites is flat with about 13-m-higher elevation at A2 versus A1 (356.6 vs 343.8 m). Within 1 km of A1, the land slopes gently upward (≤1.0%) to the west, north, northwest, southwest, and south of the tower. Surrounding A2, slopes within 1 km of the tower are ±0.1% to the northwest, southwest, south, and west of the tower and −0.3% to the north of the tower. Both sites feature slopes of less than ±0.3% at the 4-km distance from each tower for each of the following directions (A1 vs A2)—north: <0.1% vs 0%; south: −0.3% vs −0.2%; east: <0.1% vs <0.1%; west: <−0.1% vs −0.2%.
Site comparison of identically configured tall towers: (a) A1 located within the 200-turbine wind farm vs (b) A2 located 6.9 km outside of the wind farm at a distance of 22 km from A1. Photo source: Iowa NAIP 2017 Orthophotos. USDA-FS-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office Image created from the Iowa State University GIS Facility Iowa Geographic Map Server (https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?).
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
Both towers are sited in agricultural fields that are planted on a corn–soybean annual rotation. In 2016, the first agricultural year the towers were operational, A1 had a triangular area, defined by the guy wire anchors, of grass around its base within a field of corn (Zea mays L.). A2 had soybeans [Gylcine max (L.) Merr.] planted in a ~191 m × 199 m patch around the tower base, while the rest of the field was planted with corn.
The nearest public roads are approximately 137 m to the south at A1 and to the west at A2. The triangular towers are identical with 0.91-m faces and are oriented with vertices to the northeast, southeast, and west. Each site also has a 2.4 m × 3 m × 3.0-m-high shelter located 3 m to the east of the tower base. The tower base and shelter occupy part of an 11.3 m × 12.2 m graveled compound area. A 3.7-m-wide gravel road connects each site to a public road.
2.2. Instruments
The two towers are instrumented identically at six levels: 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 120 m (Figure 3a). Each level has one sonic anemometer, two three-cup anemometers, two wind vanes, and one temperature–relative humidity probe (with a duplicate temperature–relative humidity probe at 120 m). In addition, barometers are located at 10 and 80 m. See Figure 3b for instrument and mounting specifications for each sensor. The identical cup anemometers and wind vanes are mounted on the west-northwest (WNW) and south (S) booms with a temperature–relative humidity probe also located on the WNW boom. The sonic anemometers are mounted at the end of the west-southwest (WSW)-pointing booms and are oriented with sensor arms pointing due west (270°). This allows for the least amount of tower influence in the data, as the prevailing winds are from the northwest in the winter and from the south to southeast in the summer in this region.
Conceptual layout of (a) vertical locations of instruments on each identically configured tall tower and (b) tower cross-sectional diagram of boom orientation, length, and placement of instruments on each tower.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
2.3. Data collection
The sonic anemometers measure three-dimensional wind speed and virtual temperature. Additional sensors report 1-Hz measurements of wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, relative humidity, and air pressure. Raw data are sent in 10-min files on a 10-min delay so that there is, at most, a 12-min real-time data delay from either site to the server on the Iowa State University campus. Microclimate differences between the towers are evaluated from measurements taken from 5-min averages of the slow-rate (1 Hz) measurements during 10 June–30 September 2016. Data from the sonic anemometers were not available at both towers until 30 November 2016. All data are archived at the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM 2017).
3. Data metrics and analysis methods
3.1. Measurement quality control methods
3.1.1. Precipitation periods and turbine operation
For analyses reported herein, we removed periods of rain (identified by radar) for quality control of the data, which eliminates ~10% of the total observations. As we assume that wakes from the wind farm will not influence measurements at A2 for the directional window of 165°–338°, we determined periods when turbines were on or off from the 80-m ambient hub-height wind speed UH on the WNW boom at A2. We define wind farm operation as on when UH ≥ 3.5 m s−1 and off when UH < 3.5 m s−1 or UH > 20.0 m s−1. These upper and lower thresholds approximate the cut-in and cut-out speeds, respectively, from the GE 1.5 XLE turbines installed in the wind farm (GE Energy 2009). We recognize nacelle speeds would be a better indicator of when turbines were on or off, but these data were not available.
3.1.2. Designation of tower wake
We determined the influence of the tower cross section on measurements from the WNW and S booms by comparing the turbulence intensity (TI; 
Detection of tower wake from (a) normalized speed ratios and (b) normalized turbulence intensity ratios from the WNW and S booms. Reference wind direction is taken from 80-m wind speed at A2 (tower outside of the wind farm).
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
3.2. Turbine/wind farm wake attribution
We define directional categories relating to downwind distance from a single turbine or multiple turbines within the northwest portion of the 200-turbine wind farm as indicated in Figure 5. We determine bulk averages of the wind farm by considering each observation from 302° to 338° to be a member of the bulk-wake category describing flow downwind of 50+ turbines to the northwest of tower A1. We also specify a category for the single wakes to include three leading-edge turbines about 1 km to the south-southwest of A1, which have no turbines beyond them in this direction (173°–215°). We use data from southwest, west, and west-northwest of the A1 tower, with the exceptions of small sectors containing non-wind-farm turbines, to define the natural boundary layer for this tower. The region for no influence of the wind farm (i.e., no-wake category) is determined by the wind direction sectors from 215° to 218° and from 229° to 258°.
Wind farm wake sectors for the A1 and A2 tall towers. Categories are for (i) wakes from the leading-edge turbines (south winds) <2 km to the south of A1 (single wakes); (ii) wakes from a composite of 50 turbines 2–14 km to the northwest of A1 (bulk wakes); (iii) unwaked flow (no wake); and (iv) sector from which the meteorological tower wake may be influencing measurements (tower-wake area).
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
We apply a 5° wake expansion factor from each leading turbine or groups of turbines to determine the relevant wake angles as described by Barthelmie et al. (2009) and adopted in subsequent wake analysis techniques for measurements taken during the Crop Wind Energy Experiment (CWEX; Takle et al. 2014; Rajewski et al. 2013, 2014, 2016). Wake angles and distances from each grouping of turbines are determined from Google Earth and then proscribed on ArcGIS (ESRI 2016) to generate a wake attribution diagram as in Figure 5. In addition to the wake attribution from turbines, we also designate the tower-waked area that was previously described in section 3.1.
3.3. Derived variables and bin categories
Categories of stability are adapted from Stull (1988) for very unstable (vu; Ri < −1.0), unstable (u; −1.0 ≤ Ri < −0.25), weakly unstable (wu; −0.25 ≤ Ri < −0.05), near-neutral (n; |Ri| ≤ 0.05), weakly stable (ws; 0.05 < Ri ≤ 0.25), stable (s; 0.25 < Ri ≤ 1.0), and very stable (vs; Ri > 1.0) conditions. The number of observations for each wake attribution category and stratification category is indicated in Table 1. We distinguish natural variability “no wake” conditions from wind farm “wake” conditions by tower differences (A1 − A2) from θ5m and r5m and normalized tower differences [(A1 − A2)/A2] for normalized wind speed (ΔU/U120m_A2) and normalized turbulence intensity (ΔTI/TI120m_A2).
Number of observations from single-wake, bulk-wake, and no-wake sectors and stability categories determined from the 80-m wind direction and the 5–40-m-layer Richardson number at A2. Observations with higher uncertainty due to low sample size (<20 observations) are denoted in italics and not used in the analysis. See section 3.3 for definitions of stability abbreviations.
3.4. Surface condition bias correction
We refer to the A1 − A2 differences in the normalized wind speed (ΔU/
Theoretical profiles for potential temperature calculated according to a log-displacement law (e.g., Campbell and Norman 2000) are inadequate to represent the natural variability between the two tower sites. We will focus only on measured tower differences in θ and r in our remaining analyses of the natural and wind farm boundary layers. In our evaluation of differences within the wind farm boundary layer, we isolate the effect of turbines by removing the surface condition bias from the measured differences as described in section 4.3.
4. Results
We first describe the characteristics of the natural boundary layer from tower measurements in the vicinity of the wind farm as a point of departure for assessing the changes created by turbines (section 4.1). Tower profiles of concurrent differences for neutral and nonneutral flow in section 4.2 provide metrics of natural uncertainty. Profiles in section 4.3 for directions of single wakes and bulk wakes reveal isolated and aggregated impacts of wind turbines.
4.1. Vertical profiles of the natural boundary layer
We first examine stability-dependent vertical profiles of wind speed, turbulence intensity, potential temperature, and water vapor mixing ratio from A2 for the condition of no turbine influence, starting with the neutral conditions.
Wind speed and turbulence intensity at 120 m and potential temperature and mixing ratio at 5 m will be used as reference values for normalizing differences between the two sites under neutral conditions (Table 2). Over the period of record, neutral wind speed is higher by about 0.6 ± 1.6 m s−1 at A2 (outside the wind farm), while mixing ratio is higher by 0.34 ± 1.1 g kg−1. By removing the surface condition bias determined in section 3.4, we can look for other biases in wind speed and turbulence intensity. Differences (A1 − A2) in profiles of neutral wind speeds normalized by the 120-m wind speed at the reference tower (Figure 6a) indicate that for two classes of neutral flow (|Ri| ≤ 0.01 and |Ri| ≤0.05), the vertical profiles of wind speed lie very close to the difference profile corrected for surface condition bias (dashed profile). The separation between the dashed curve (ΔU/
Means μ and standard deviations σ of reference variables of the natural boundary layer at the A2 and A1 towers and the difference between A1 and A2 for 120-m wind speed, 120-m turbulence intensity, 5-m potential temperature, and 5-m mixing ratio for neutral conditions (|Ri| ≤ 0.01). The absolute difference (bottom row) reveals that the A2 tower has a relative bias of −9%, 10%, −0.1%, and 2% for the mean 120-m wind speed, 120-m TI, 5-m potential temperature, and 5-m mixing ratio, respectively.
Measured A1 − A2 differences of the natural boundary layer vertical profiles for periods of no turbine or no wind farm influence (i.e., no wake) under neutral stratification (|Ri| ≤ 0.05 and |Ri| ≤ 0.01) for (a) normalized horizontal wind speed (ΔU/U120m), (b) normalized TI (ΔTI/TI120m), (c) potential temperature (Δθ), and (d) mixing ratio (Δr). The estimated surface-condition bias is plotted for normalized wind speed and normalized turbulence intensity in (a) and (b). Error bars indicate the standard deviation of the differences. Symbol sizes are scaled by number of samples for each category.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
For the turbulence intensity (Figure 6b), the surface condition bias (ΔTI/
4.2. Uncertainty in the natural boundary layer for nonneutral stratification
Comparison of data when neither tower is influenced by turbines (Figure 7) revealed that profiles for all stabilities have wind speeds (Figure 7a) exceeding the profile attributed to the surface condition bias ΔU/
Measured A1 − A2 (no bias correction) differences of the natural boundary layer vertical profiles for periods of no turbine or no wind farm influence (i.e., no wake) under nonneutral stratification for (a) normalized horizontal wind speed (ΔU/U120m), (b) normalized turbulence intensity (ΔTI/TI120m), (c) potential temperature (Δθ), and (d) mixing ratio (Δr). Neutral flow biases from Figures 6a and 6b are added to (a) and (b), respectively, for comparison. Symbol sizes are scaled by number of samples for each category.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
The potential temperature profiles (Figure 7c) follow the expected departures from neutral, except for the anomalously low temperatures reported by the 20-m sensor at the A1 tower previously discussed. The mixing ratio difference profiles (Figure 7d) have more complicated dependence on stability but generally decrease with height, indicating a general tendency for lower humidity at the surface but higher humidity at upper levels at the A1 tower when compared to the A2 tower. Nonneutral stabilities show drier conditions throughout the profile by up to 0.3 g kg−1. We have no specific explanations for these changes with height and differences between towers, but provide these as a background upon which the turbines may have an influence.
4.3. Wind farm wake characteristics
We illustrate a “bulk” or aggregate impact of wakes from about 50 turbines distributed from 2 to 14 km from the A1 tower in the prevailing northwest direction. For southerly winds, a windward-edge line of turbines 14.3D to the south of tower A1 provide the data for single wakes (Figure 5). The surface condition bias-corrected differences (ΔU/
Measured difference departures from the surface-condition bias of vertical profiles between the locations within the wind farm (A1) and outside the wind farm (A2) during neutral stability conditions of single-wake (|Ri| ≤ 0.05), bulk-wake (|Ri| ≤ 0.05), and no-wake categories (|Ri| ≤ 0.05 and |Ri| ≤ 0.01) when turbines are on for (a) normalized wind speed (ΔU/U120m), (b) normalized TI (ΔTI/TI120m), (c) potential temperature (Δθ), and (d) mixing ratio (Δr). Symbol sizes are scaled by number of samples for each category.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
Surface bias-corrected turbulence intensity (Figure 8b) is reduced substantially near the surface, more so for the bulk-wake condition (58%) than for single wakes (25%). It may seem counterintuitive that within turbine wakes, TI decreases as wind speed increases. However, we note that the data of Figure 8a, taken together with the normal logarithmic increase with height of wind speed in neutral conditions, mean that the wind speed becomes more uniform with height (less wind shear) near the surface, and hence there is less mechanical turbulence. Turbines increase the turbulence intensity above 40 m to a maximum (20%) at hub height for single wakes, which is consistent with the findings of Porté-Agel et al. (2011) and Abkar and Porté-Agel (2015), but a continued level of 15% higher than the no-turbine boundary layer for the bulk wakes, suggesting that both single and bulk wakes have a strong interaction with the layer above our 120-m A1 tower. Temperatures (Figure 8c) are uniformly higher (~0.4 K) at all heights leeward for bulk wakes, whereas single turbines have a very weak enhancement. The elevated temperatures detected in our profile are also in agreement with numerical parameterization of wind farms (e.g., Calaf et al. 2011), although comparisons are limited in other neutral boundary layer simulations because temperature changes were not reported. Mixing ratio profiles (Figure 8d) within bulk wakes show similar vertical change as the natural boundary layer, with slightly drier conditions for single wakes.
Thermodynamically unstable conditions create high turbulence due to convection, while neutral stability often is associated with moderate and high winds that create high turbulence due to mechanical mixing in high-shear layers. In unstable conditions (figure not shown), profiles are quite similar to the near-neutral results shown in Figure 8, except the magnitudes are larger for wind speed and lower for turbulence intensity: single turbines decrease winds above 20 m by 5%, while bulk-wake conditions increase winds in the lowest 20 m by 4%–9%, and profiles for turbulence intensity are about half those for neutral conditions. Potential temperature and mixing ratio show patterns similar to the neutral conditions shown in Figure 8. Our measurements indicate similar near-surface and rotor-layer positive temperature departures from the natural boundary layer reported in wind tunnel simulations of a single turbine (Hancock and Zhang 2015) or a small array of turbines (Hancock and Farr 2014) and in large-eddy numerical simulations of wind farms (Lu and Porté-Agel 2015; Sharma et al. 2017). This is in contrast to slightly lower temperatures in the infinite wind farm wake reported from single-column models (Sescu and Meneveau 2015) and from a wind tunnel simulation in the near wake (2–3D) of a single turbine (Zhang et al. 2013).
We attribute our small differences in moisture from the ambient profile to the possibility of wake meandering during unstable stratification. Unlike a snapshot detection of a wake meander as in numerical simulations of single wakes (Machefaux et al. 2016; Keck et al. 2014a), our composites represent a spatiotemporal average of each wake category.
It is well known from modeling studies (Chamorro and Porté-Agel 2010; Hansen et al. 2012; Odemark 2012; Iungo and Porté-Agel 2014; Keck et al. 2014b; Abkar and Porté-Agel 2015; Abkar et al. 2016; Larsen et al. 2015; Machefaux et al. 2016; Vanderwende et al. 2016; Lee and Lundquist 2017a,b) and observations (Hirth and Schroeder 2013; Rajewski et al. 2013, 2016; Rhodes and Lundquist 2013; Smith et al. 2013; Lundquist et al. 2014; Bodini et al. 2017) that wakes with reduced mean wind speed persist long distances downwind of turbines under stable conditions, although field measurements of aggregate wakes of wind farms are sparse. The bulk effect of multiple turbines in weakly stable conditions (Figure 9a) is to enhance near-surface winds by up to 10% and decrease winds by 7%–12% in the wake region at and above 80 m, compared to no-wake conditions. For strong stratification, there is a much shallower layer of weaker surface speedup. Single turbines have lower speedup near the surface and slightly larger speed reduction above 20 m. Strong stratification in Figure 9b gives less near-surface speedup for multiple turbines than weak stratification, and single turbines have up to 20% decrease in wind speed above 40 m.
Measured difference departures from the surface-condition bias of vertical profiles between the wind farm (A1) and no wind farm (A2) locations during conditions of single-wake, bulk-wake, and no-wake categories when turbines are on for (a),(b) normalized wind speed (ΔU/U120m), (c),(d) normalized TI (ΔTI/TI120 m), (e),(f) potential temperature (Δθ), and (g),(i) mixing ratio (Δr). (a),(c),(e),(g) Weakly stable stratification (0.05 < Ri ≤ 0.25); (b),(d),(f),(h) stable stratification (0.25 < Ri ≤ 1.0). Symbol sizes are scaled by number of samples for each category.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
Turbulence intensity varied from being lower by 55% in the surface layer in neutral flow (Figure 8b) to as much as 140% higher under strong stability (Figure 9d). In the rotor layer, turbulence intensities are 15%–20% higher in neutral flow but 40%–160% higher under weak and strong stabilization for both single and bulk wakes, more so for low Ri (Figure 9c) than high Ri (Figure 9d). TI may reach 120%–200% of no-wake conditions at 80 m (Figure 9c). High TI at the 120-m level, especially for weakly stable conditions, suggests a strong interaction with the layer above our 120-m A1 tower.
Under near-neutral conditions for bulk wakes, the potential temperature at A1 revealed a uniformly higher value at all levels, with a difference of about 0.4 K. Bulk wakes weaken thermal stabilization (Figure 9e) by warming (or, more precisely, preventing the cooling of) the surface by about 0.7 K under weakly stable conditions and less for strong stability (Figure 9f). Single wakes have the same height dependence as bulk wakes but half the magnitude. Our measurements indicate slightly lower temperatures above hub height in single wakes, which is consistent with numerical simulations of single wakes (Xie and Archer 2017) and of large wind farms (Lu and Porté-Agel 2011; Fitch et al. 2013a; Dörenkämper et al. 2015). Additional study is needed to explain the higher temperatures throughout our measured 120-m profile in bulk wakes.
Mixing ratio showed essentially no difference inside and outside the wind farm for neutral conditions. However, Figure 9g indicates the wind farm has a higher moisture condition, increasing with height for weak stable stratification, suggesting that dew formation has been suppressed. For strong stability (Figures 9h, 7d), the available data (note that the number of data points is low for this category) suggest a sharp deficit in humidity at 20 m and below, with nearly as strong of an increase at 120 m for the bulk-wake condition. This feature was not evident for the single-wake profiles. Numerical simulations of large wind farms report a similar pattern of lowering of surface humidity and increasing the humidity above hub height for low wind speeds (Waggy et al. 2015; El Fajri 2016), but this dipole is also observed from profile measurements taken within the near wake (<2D) of a single turbine (Adkins and Sescu 2017) and from multiple ground-level measurements in a wind farm (Armstrong et al. 2016). We also observe lower surface moisture within bulk wakes for low hub-height wind speeds (figure not shown) and, given the potential agricultural significance, consider it a factor needing further research.
5. Discussion
The overall effects of wind farms on microclimate conditions are summarized qualitatively in Figure 10. We return to our conventions from Figure 1 of defining the below-rotor layer as the 0–40-m layer underneath the RSL. In the RSL, turbines are in direct contact with the 40–120-m boundary layer. We indicate a return to natural boundary layer conditions with the use of a horizontal double-sided brown arrow, whereas wind farm effect is denoted with an upward red arrow for an increase or a downward blue arrow for a decrease. Wakes are most evident in the RSL of a single wake and at nighttime when thermal stratification suppresses turbulent mixing of the natural boundary layer turbulence into the wind farm boundary layer turbulence. Our measurements indicate the highest turbulence and speed reduction within single wakes rather than bulk wakes because wake dissipation is lower within single wakes than within bulk wakes. In the daytime, single wakes generally do not intersect the surface (Rajewski et al. 2013; Takle et al. 2014), whereas the bulk wake does make contact with the lowest tower heights. At night, turbulence intensity in the BRL is weakly coupled to the RSL in the natural boundary layer. Therefore, the turbulence intensity of bulk wakes near the surface is of similar magnitude as for conditions outside of the wind farm. Within single wakes, turbulence intensity is also decoupled between the BRL and RSL, but the speed profile is less changed near the surface than in the rotor layer.
Summary of wake influences within the BRL and RSL of single wakes and bulk wakes for typical neutral, unstable, and stable conditions. Brown two-sided arrows denote no change of differences from no-wake conditions, red upward arrows denote a positive effect by turbines, and blue downward arrows denote a negative effect by turbines. Thicker black outlining of arrows denotes a stronger difference.
Citation: Earth Interactions 23, 2; 10.1175/EI-D-17-0024.1
The data suggest that single wakes reduce daytime humidity both near the surface and in the RSL, whereas bulk wakes possess moisture near that of the natural boundary layer. At night, single wakes move surface moisture from the BRL into the RSL, causing a lower BRL humidity and a higher RSL humidity. Additional work is needed to address the specific mechanisms that modify moisture within wind farms.
The bulk-wake effects on profiles for weakly stable conditions suggest that these ambient conditions are most vulnerable to turbine influence on thermal stratification. The data of Figure 9e indicate that the effect of both individual turbines and of many turbines is to create a higher temperature within the wind farm than is observed beyond the wind farm boundary. This should not be physically considered heating, but rather suppression of surface stabilization of near-surface air through forced downward mixing of warm air and reduction of the cooling rate of the radiating surface temperature (Figure 9e). Enhanced mixing of air in the rotor layer and below leads to a downward heat flux that partially replenishes surface energy radiated to space under stable (nighttime) conditions. This difference in the stratification from measured values at tower A2 is associated with enhanced wind farm wind speed at levels below 40 m above natural conditions (Figure 9a) and suppresses onset of the low-level jet above 40 m, thereby allowing high turbulence (Figure 9c) through the entire 120-m depth of the wind farm boundary layer. This is true for both single wakes (with maximum at hub height) and bulk wakes.
The suppression of natural cooling of the surface in wind farms has an agricultural significance. High nighttime temperatures during the pollination and grain-filling periods are known to reduce yields of corn (Peters et al. 1971; Badu-Apraku et al. 1983; Cantarero et al. 1999; Elmore 2010; Lutt et al. 2018). The rise of nighttime temperatures due to climate change (Hatfield et al. 2014) has been cited as a potential limiting factor for much of the U.S. Midwest. In some years, the suppression of nighttime cooling due to wind farms might be 1.2 K [0.7-K mean from Figure 9 plus one standard deviation (not shown) of 0.5 K] during the reproductive period for corn, which would add to the adverse effect of climate change in the U.S. Midwest (Zhou et al. 2012).
We recognize that there are many limitations of this description of this wind farm microclimate. First, although the region is quite flat, small-scale terrain features, together with soil heterogeneities, contribute uncertainty not captured by our use of only two identical towers. We are able to sample only a limited sector of wind directions to establish the wind farm scale uncertainty of the natural boundary layer. Second, our data are limited to 1-Hz resolution and do not fully capture the changes to directly measured fluxes and turbulence to fully describe microclimate conditions. Vertical profiles of turbulence and fluxes will be described in future reports. Third, heterogeneity in crop type and seasonal changes in crop phenology influence interactions with turbines from season to season and year to year. Fourth, uncertainty measures, such as error bars of one standard deviation, would indicate that there is too much uncertainty to support some of our conclusions. However, we note that numerous figures (e.g., Figure 8) show profiles of mean values having expected dependence on stability and height.
Results from our low-density wind farm with irregularly spaced wind turbines, all having the same hub height, may not be applicable to high-density wind farms with regular or irregular arrays and wind farms with more terrain or landscape heterogeneity, different soils, or agricultural management practices. Despite these limitations, we assert that the summary in Figure 10 provides a basis for understanding the unique boundary layer of a low-density utility-scale wind farm.
6. Conclusions
We compare microclimate conditions in the lowest 120 m of the atmospheric boundary layer at two locations separated by 22 km in an intensively managed agricultural landscape. Locations of the towers allow us to determine spatial variability of the natural boundary layer as well as (from data for carefully selected wind directions) the aggregate influence of ~50 turbines in contrast to a single line of windward-edge turbines of a wind farm having a low-density distribution of turbines. Our results show how this twin-tower observatory adds a third dimension to our understanding of the wind farm boundary layer that affects crops and natural ecosystems. Furthermore, from Figure 10, it is evident that conditions leeward of a single turbine and at different elevations can differ substantially from conditions observed leeward of multiple turbines where the flow is aggregated to create a bulk effect. Therefore, caution must be exercised in extrapolating measurements behind a single turbine to represent the wind farm boundary layer.
Future reports will continue analysis and interpretation of past and future data from this continuously operating tower network. Our future analysis also will include results from sonic anemometers on the towers, as well as a shorter tower with a high vertical density of sonic anemometers and gas analyzers for measuring very near-surface turbulent fluxes. Data retrieval beyond 120 m will also be provided by an operational sodar starting in spring 2018.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge assistance from Tom Wind in the planning and preparation of activities leading to the construction of the tall towers. The authors also acknowledge Daryl Herzmann for providing the data files used in the analysis and Russell Doorenbos for developing the wake attribution diagram. Financial support for the tower construction was provided from the State of Iowa Power Fund and the National Science Foundation Iowa EPSCoR Grant 1101284. Additional funding for data support, data analysis, and interpretation is provided by the National Science Foundation Wind-Energy Science, Engineering and Policy IGERT Grant 1069283, National Science Foundation Grant 1701278, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute grant, and Pioneer Hi-Bred Professorship in Agronomy Grant and the Iowa Energy Center Opportunity Grant OG-17-001. The authors acknowledge cooperation with the land owners and the wind farm manager.
References
Abkar, M., and F. Porté-Agel, 2015: Influence of atmospheric stability on wind-turbine wakes: A large-eddy simulation study. Phys. Fluids, 27, 035104, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4913695.
Abkar, M., A. Sharifi, and F. Porté-Agel, 2016: Wake flow in a wind farm during a diurnal cycle. J. Turbul., 17, 420–441, https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2015.1127379.
Adams, A. S., and D. W. Keith, 2007: Wind energy and climate: Modeling the atmospheric impacts of wind energy turbines. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 88 (Fall Meeting Suppl.), Abstract B44B-08.
Adkins, K. A., and A. Sescu, 2017: Observations of relative humidity in the near-wake of a wind turbine using an instrumented unmanned aerial system. Int. J. Green Energy, 14, 845–860, https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2017.1334661.
American Wind Energy Association, 2018: Wind energy in Iowa. AWEA, 2 pp., https://www.awea.org/Awea/media/Resources/StateFactSheets/Iowa.pdf.
Armstrong, A., S. Waldron, J. Whitaker, and N. J. Ostle, 2014: Wind farm and solar park effects on plant–soil carbon cycling: Uncertain impacts of changes in ground-level microclimate. Global Chang. Biol., 20, 1699–1706, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12437.
Armstrong, A., R. R. Burton, S. E. Lee, S. Mobbs, N. Ostle, V. Smith, S. Waldron, and J. Whitaker, 2016: Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 044024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044024.
Badu-Apraku, B., R. B. Hunter, and M. Tollenaar, 1983: Effect of temperature during grain filling on whole plant and grain yield in maize (Zea mays L.). Can. J. Plant Sci., 63, 357–363, https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps83-040.
Baidya Roy, S., 2011: Simulating impacts of wind farms on local hydrometeorology. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 99, 491–498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2010.12.013.
Baidya Roy, S., and J. J. Traiteur, 2010: Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 17 899–17 904, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000493107.
Baidya Roy, S., S. W. Pacala, and R. L. Walko, 2004: Can large wind farms affect local meteorology? J. Geophys. Res., 109, D19101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004763.
Barthelmie, R. J., and Coauthors, 2009: Modelling and measuring flow and wind turbine wakes in large wind farms offshore. Wind Energy, 12, 431–444, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.348.
Bodini, N., D. Zardi, and J. K. Lundquist, 2017: Three-dimensional structure of wind turbine wakes as measured by scanning lidar. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 2881–2896, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2881-2017.
Calaf, M., M. B. Parlange, and C. Meneveau, 2011: Large eddy simulation study of scalar transport in fully developed wind-turbine array boundary layers. Phys. Fluids, 23, 126603, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3663376.
Campbell, G. S., and J. M. Norman, 2000: An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. 2nd ed. Springer, 286 pp.
Cantarero, M. G., A. G. Cirilo, and F. H. Andrade, 1999: Night temperature at silking affects set in maize. Crop Sci., 39, 703–710, https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900020017x.
Chamorro, L. P., and F. Porté-Agel, 2010: Effects of thermal stability and incoming boundary-layer flow characteristics on wind-turbine wakes: A wind-tunnel study. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 136, 515–533, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-010-9512-1.
Christiansen, M. B., and C. B. Hasager, 2005: Wake effects of large offshore wind farms identified from satellite SAR. Remote Sens. Environ., 98, 251–268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.07.009.
Counihan, J., 1975: Adiabatic atmospheric boundary layers: A review and analysis of data from the period 1880–1972. Atmos. Environ., 9, 871–905, https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(75)90088-8.
Dörenkämper, M., B. Witha, G. Steinfeld, D. Heinemann, and M. Kühn, 2015: The impact of stable atmospheric boundary layers on wind-turbine wakes within offshore wind farms. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 144, 146–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.12.011.
Lutt, N., M. Jeschke, and S. D. Strachan, 2018: High night temperature effects on corn yield. DuPont Pioneer, http://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/library/night-temperature-effects-corn-yield/.
El Fajri, O., 2016: Large eddy simulation study of the effect of large wind farms on humidity. M.S. thesis, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University, 102 pp., https://search.proquest.com/docview/1857693605?pq-origsite=gscholar.
Elmore, R., 2010: Reduced 2010 corn yield forecasts reflect warm temperatures between silking and dent. Integrated Crop Management, Iowa State University, 9 October, https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/cropnews/2010/10/reduced-2010-corn-yield-forecasts-reflect-warm-temperatures-between-silking-and.
ESRI, 2016: ArcGIS 10.4.1 for desktop. Environmental Systems Research Institute, https://www.esri.com/en-us/home.
Fitch, A. C., 2015: Climate impacts of large-scale wind farms as parameterized in a global climate model. J. Climate, 28, 6160–6180, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00245.1.
Fitch, A. C., J. B. Olson, J. K. Lundquist, J. Dudhia, A. K. Gupta, J. Michalakes, and I. Barstad, 2012: Local and mesoscale impacts of wind farms as parameterized in a mesoscale NWP model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 3017–3038, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00352.1.
Fitch, A. C., J. K. Lundquist, and J. B. Olson, 2013a: Mesoscale influences of wind farms throughout a diurnal cycle. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 2173–2198, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00185.1.
Fitch, A. C., J. B. Olson, and J. K. Lundquist, 2013b: Parameterization of wind farms in climate models. J. Climate, 26, 6439–6458, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00376.1.
Frandsen, S. T., 2007: Turbulence and turbulence-generated structural loading in wind turbine clusters. University of Denmark, Risø National Laboratory Rep. R-1188, 135 pp., http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:79899/datastreams/file_269c3f19-0001-4e41-b754-b5b322a826cb/content.
Gallant, A. L., W. Sadinski, M. F. Roth, and C. A. Rewa, 2011: Changes in historical Iowa land cover as context for assessing the environmental benefits of current and future conservation efforts on agricultural lands. J. Soil Water Conserv., 66, 67A–77A, https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.3.67A.
GE Energy, 2009: 1.5 MW wind turbine. GE Energy Publ. GEA14954C, 12 pp., http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~moyer/GEOS24705/Readings/GEA14954C15-MW-Broch.pdf.
Gualtieri, G., 2015: Surface turbulence intensity as a predictor of extrapolated wind resource to the turbine hub height. Renewable Energy, 78, 68–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.011.
Hancock, P. E., and T. D. Farr, 2014: Wind-tunnel simulations of wind-turbine arrays in neutral and non-neutral winds. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 524, 012166, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012166.
Hancock, P. E., and S. Zhang, 2015: A wind-tunnel simulation of the wake of a large wind turbine in a weakly unstable boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 156, 395–413, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-015-0037-5.
Hansen, K. S., R. J. Barthelmie, L. E. Jensen, and A. Sommer, 2012: The impact of turbulence intensity and atmospheric stability on power deficits due to wind turbine wakes at Horns Rev wind farm. Wind Energy, 15, 183–196, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.512.
Harris, R., L. Zhou, and G. Xia, 2014: Satellite observations of wind farm impacts on nocturnal land surface temperature in Iowa. Remote Sens., 6, 12 234–12 246, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs61212234.
Hatfield, J., G. Takle, R. Grotjahn, P. Holden, R. C. Izaurralde, T. Mader, E. Marshall, and D. Liverman, 2014: Agriculture. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 150–174, https://doi.org/10.7930/J02Z13FR.
Henschen, M. F., and Coauthors, 2011: Do wind turbines affect weather conditions? A case study in Indiana. J. Purdue Undergrad. Res., 1, 22–29, https://doi.org/10.5703/jpur.01.1.4.
Hirth, B. D., and J. L. Schroeder, 2013: Documenting wind speed and power deficits behind a utility-scale wind turbine. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 52, 39–46, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0145.1.
Högström, U., D. N. Asimakopoulos, H. Kambezidis, C. G. Helmis, and A. Smedman, 1988: A field study of the wake behind a 2 MW wind turbine. Atmos. Environ., 22, 803–820, https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(88)90020-0.
Hui, M. C. H., A. Larsen, and H. F. Xiang, 2009: Wind turbulence characteristics study at the Stonecutters Bridge site: Part I—Mean wind and turbulence intensities. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 97, 22–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.11.002.
IEM, 2017: Iowa Environmental Mesonet. Iowa State University, http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/projects/iao/.
Iungo, G. V., and F. Porté-Agel, 2014: Volumetric scans of wind turbine wakes performed with three simultaneous wind LiDARs under different atmospheric stability regimes. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 524, 012164, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012164.
Keck, R.-E., M. de Maré, M. J. Churchfield, S. Lee, G. Larsen, and H. Aagaard Madsen, 2014a: On atmospheric stability in the dynamic wake meandering model. Wind Energy, 17, 1689–1710, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1662.
Keck, R.-E., R. Mikkelsen, N. Troldborg, M. de Maré, and K. S. Hansen, 2014b: Synthetic atmospheric turbulence and wind shear in large eddy simulations of wind turbine wakes. Wind Energy, 17, 1247–1267, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1631.
Keith, D. W., J. F. DeCarolis, D. C. Denkenberger, D. H. Lenschow, S. L. Malyshev, S. Pacala, and P. J. Rasch, 2004: The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 16 115–16 120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406930101.
Larsen, G. C., E. Machefaux, and A. Chougule, 2015: Wake meandering under non-neutral atmospheric stability conditions—Theory and facts. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 625, 012036, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/625/1/012036.
Lee, J. C. Y., and J. K. Lundquist, 2017a: Evaluation of the wind farm parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (version 3.8.1) with meteorological and turbine power data. Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4229–4244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4229-2017.
Lee, J. C. Y., and J. K. Lundquist, 2017b: Observing and simulating wind-turbine wakes during the evening transition. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 164, 449–474, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-017-0257-y.
Lu, H., and F. Porté-Agel, 2011: Large-eddy simulation of a very large wind farm in a stable atmospheric boundary layer. Phys. Fluids, 23, 065101, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3589857.
Lu, H., and F. Porté-Agel, 2015: On the impact of wind farms on a convective atmospheric boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 157, 81–96, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-015-0049-1.
Lundquist, J. K., and Coauthors, 2014: Lidar observations of interacting wind turbine wakes in an onshore wind farm. Proc. EWEA 2014, Barcelona, Spain, EWEA, 7 pp., https://www.nrgsystems.com/assets/resources/Lidar-observations-of-interacting-wind-turbine-wakes-Whitepaper.pdf.
Machefaux, E., G. C. Larsen, T. Koblitz, N. Troldborg, M. C. Kelly, A. Chougule, K. S. Hansen, and J. S. Rodrigo, 2016: An experimental and numerical study of the atmospheric stability impact on wind turbine wakes. Wind Energy, 19, 1785–1805, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1950.
Magnusson, M., and A.-S. Smedman, 1999: Air flow behind wind turbines. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 80, 169–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00126-3.
McCaffrey, K., and Coauthors, 2017: Identification of tower-wake distortions using sonic anemometer and lidar measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 393–407, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-393-2017.
Mirocha, J. D., B. Kosovic, M. L. Aitken, and J. K. Lundquist, 2014: Implementation of a generalized actuator disk wind turbine model into the Weather Research and Forecasting Model for large-eddy simulation applications. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy, 6, 013104, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4861061.
Newman, J., J. Lebron, C. Meneveau, and L. Castillo, 2013: Streamwise development of the wind turbine boundary layer over a model wind turbine array. Phys. Fluids, 25, 085108, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4818451.
New York Times, 1910: Paying $307,000,000 for Iowa drainage. New York Times, 23 September.
Odemark, Y., 2012: Wakes behind wind turbines—Studies on tip vortex evolution and stability. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 78 pp., http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:524104.
Peters, D. B., J. W. Pendleton, R. H. Hageman, and C. M. Brown, 1971: Effect of night temperature on grain yield of corn, wheat, and soybeans. Agron. J., 63, 809, https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1971.00021962006300050046x.
Porté-Agel, F., Y. T. Wu, H. Lu, and R. J. Conzemius, 2011: Large-eddy simulation of atmospheric boundary layer flow through wind turbines and wind farms. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 99, 154–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2011.01.011.
Rajewski, D. A., and Coauthors, 2013: Crop Wind Energy Experiment (CWEX): Observations of surface-layer, boundary layer, and mesoscale interactions with a wind farm. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 655–672, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00240.1.
Rajewski, D. A., E. S. Takle, J. K. Lundquist, J. H. Prueger, R. L. Pfeiffer, J. L. Hatfield, K. K. Spoth, and R. K. Doorenbos, 2014: Changes in fluxes of heat, H2O, and CO2 caused by a large wind farm. Agric. For. Meteor., 194, 175–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.03.023.
Rajewski, D. A., E. S. Takle, J. H. Prueger, and R. K. Doorenbos, 2016: Toward understanding the physical link between turbines and microclimate impacts from in situ measurements in a large wind farm. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 121, 13 392–13 414, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025297.
Rhodes, M. E., and J. K. Lundquist, 2013: The effect of wind-turbine wakes on summertime US Midwest atmospheric wind profiles as observed with ground-based Doppler lidar. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 149, 85–103, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-013-9834-x.
Rogers, R. R., and M. K. Yau, 1996: A Short Course in Cloud Physics. Elsevier, 308 pp.
Sescu, A., and C. Meneveau, 2015: Large-eddy simulation and single-column modeling of thermally stratified wind turbine arrays for fully developed, stationary atmospheric conditions. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 32, 1144–1162, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00068.1.
Sharma, V., M. B. Parlange, and M. Calaf, 2017: Perturbations to the spatial and temporal characteristics of the diurnally-varying atmospheric boundary layer due to an extensive wind farm. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 162, 255–282, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-016-0195-0.
Slawsky, L., L. Zhou, S. Baidya Roy, G. Xia, M. Vuille, and R. Harris, 2015: Observed thermal impacts of wind farms over northern Illinois. Sensors, 15, 14 981–15 005, https://doi.org/10.3390/s150714981.
Smith, C. M., R. J. Barthelmie, and S. C. Pryor, 2013: In situ observations of the influence of a large onshore wind farm on near-surface temperature, turbulence intensity and wind speed profiles. Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034006.
Stull, R. B., 1988: An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Springer, 670 pp.
Takle, E. S., 2017: Climate. Wildlife and Wind Farms—Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 1: Onshore Potential Effects, M. Perrow, Ed., Pelagic Publishing, p. 298.
Takle, E. S., D. A. Rajewski, J. K. Lundquist, W. A. Gallus, and A. Sharma, 2014: Measurements in support of wind farm simulations and power forecasts: The Crop/Wind-energy Experiments (CWEX). J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 524, 012174, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012174.
USDA, 2012: Census of agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online.../County.../Iowa/cp19169.pdf.
Vanderwende, B. J., B. Kosović, J. K. Lundquist, and J. D. Mirocha, 2016: Simulating effects of a wind-turbine array using LES and RANS. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 8, 1376–1390, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000652.
Vautard, R., F. Thais, I. Tobin, F.-M. Bréon, J.-G. D. de Lavergne, A. Colette, P. Yiou, and P. M. Ruti, 2014: Regional climate model simulations indicate limited climatic impacts by operational and planned European wind farms. Nat. Commun., 5, 3196, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4196.
Waggy, S. B., S. Biringen, and A. Kucala, 2015: Wake effects on turbulent transport in the convective boundary layer. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 109, 465–479, https://doi.org/10.1080/03091929.2015.1083560.
Wallace, J. M., and P. V. Hobbs, 1977: Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey. Academic Press, 467 pp.
Wang, C., and R. G. Prinn, 2010: Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053–2061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2053-2010.
Xia, G., L. Zhou, J. M. Freedman, S. Baidya Roy, R. A. Harris, and M. C. Cervarich, 2016: A case study of effects of atmospheric boundary layer turbulence, wind speed, and stability on wind farm induced temperature changes using observations from a field campaign. Climate Dyn., 46, 2179–2196, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2696-9.
Xie, S., and C. L. Archer, 2017: A numerical study of wind-turbine wakes for three atmospheric stability conditions. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 165, 87–112, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-017-0259-9.
Zhang, W., C. D. Markfort, and F. Porté-Agel, 2013: Experimental study of the impact of large-scale wind farms on land–atmosphere exchanges. Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 015002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015002.
Zhou, L., Y. Tian, S. Baidya Roy, C. Thorncroft, L. F. Bosart, and Y. Hu, 2012: Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature. Nat. Climate Change, 2, 539–543, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1505.
Zhou, L., Y. Tian, S. Baidya Roy, Y. Dai, and H. Chen, 2013a: Diurnal and seasonal variations of wind farm impacts on land surface temperature over western Texas. Climate Dyn., 41, 307–326, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1485-y.
Zhou, L., Y. Tian, H. Chen, Y. Dai, and R. A. Harris, 2013b: Effects of topography on assessing wind farm impacts using MODIS data. Earth Interact., 17, https://doi.org/10.1175/2012EI000510.1.
