Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Fruit crop species for agrivoltaic systems: state of the art

Altmetrics

Downloads

270

Views

209

Comments

1

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

12 February 2024

Posted:

13 February 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This review explores the combination of renewable energy production and agriculture through agrivoltaic, with a focus on its impact on fruit crops. As the world seeks alternatives to fossil fuels, agrivoltaics offers a promising solution by integrating solar panels with farming practices. The study examines various agrivoltaic configurations with different fruit crops, emphasizing their influence on microclimatic conditions beneath the panels and the effects on crop produc-tion. In particular, it underscores the need for tailored solutions to balance energy yield and crop productivity and quality, with different shading levels affecting fruit quality/production. De-spite ongoing research, a comprehensive understanding of agrivoltaics' potential benefits and challenges remains crucial for its successful application and implementation in sustainable ag-riculture.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Agricultural Science and Agronomy

1. Introduction

Fossil fuel sources have been the main drivers for several human activities in the past and even in the recent years. Continued intergovernmental policy targets try to optimize energy inputs as urgent actions for reducing its reliance but with several feasibility concerns on expected outcomes [1]. Rising frequency and intensity of conflicts, climate extremes, and economic shocks, along with escalating inequality, are impeding the fossil fuel decoupling and the achieving of sustainable development global goals [2]. This pattern invests even the agricultural sector in which the progressive increase in smart farming technologies and mechanization requires high energy demand not to mention the industrial sector. Energy plays a direct role in all stages of agriculture, from plant production to transportation of agricultural goods. Simultaneously, it exerts an indirect influence beyond the farm, encompassing the production and transportation of fertilizers, pesticides, and machineries. All these operational practices cost 30% of the world’s energy along the entire agri-food chain and produce still over one-third in greenhouse gas emissions as recent studies confirmed [3,4,5]. Currently, in order to meet a gradual diversification of energy sources used (not only) in agriculture, renewable sources are much required [6]. Various applications exert biomass fuel product as gasoline replacement in the chain or simply for electricity and heat production on-site [7,8,9]. Alternative renewable solutions, as solar and wind power are considered reliable sources that align effectively with the mitigation purpose reducing over 53,000 metric tons of GHG emissions [3]. Photovoltaics (PV) in particular, are the leading renewable technologies in the world due to continuous decrease in costs over the years along with technological improvements in manufacturing and installation. The theoretical concept is described as a complex system in which agriculture just required elevating the tilt-mounted panels on a stable support structure to optimize both crop (primary use) and electricity yield (secondary use). [10] defined for the first time the hybrid combination agrivoltaic system (AV). This configuration enhancing the increased land use efficiency as key role to improve productivity on the same land unit, even better than agroforestry systems [10]. Nowadays, the success of AV implementation has opened new PV arrangements: mounted vertically on the ground or integrated into greenhouse roofs [11,12]. Under this perspective, a multidisciplinary study (photovoltaic technology, agronomy, engineering) needs to be formalized in view of desired quality objectives [13].
Unused or underutilized drylands/ marginal lands could be potentially restored as productive agricultural lands covering the challenges of loss of cultivable areas [14,15,16].
However, to ensure all these mentioned purposes the reduction of solar radiation for the crops remain the main crucial factor for a successful planning of a promising agricultural activity. In the recent years, several studies focused on horticultural (i.e., lettuces, tomatoes, broccoli, eggplant etc.) and arable crops (i.e., rice, wheat, maize, potato etc.), showing a general profitability from the application of AV systems [17]. Most of these preliminary works have focused on simulations and modelling [18]. More recently, empirical results confirm such profitability maintained up to 25% of shading cover ratio and decrease in yield on around 14% [19,20]. A study on meta-analysis revealed interesting benefit effect on yield responses with shade considering a crop type approach. Berries, fruits, and fruits vegetables may experience increase in harvestable yield under moderate shading conditions [21], however a limited amount of data is available on many crops. Based on their physiological behavior, majority of fruit tree species are generally classified as shade-intolerant crops [22]. Such aspect can partly be justified by long-term yield drawbacks that could be significantly detrimental over years of excessive shade exposition [23].
Nevertheless, as recent studies demonstrated, AV solutions on perennial crops may be successfully integrate as an efficient protection tool against climatic stress conditions often occurring in a climate change scenario [17,24]. On the other hand, no specific guidelines have been developed for defining the productive tolerance threshold over years and in-depth analysis and testing of AV system technologies (panels, height, tilt, etc.) are necessary for the purpose (Figure 1) [13].
To the best knowledge of the authors, there is no specialized review in the field of agrivoltaics related to fruit crops grown underneath the AV. An overview of main AV configurations will be introduced in the first part of this review, whereas in the second section, we attempt to illustrate microclimatic alterations and the resulting impacts on fruit crop performance in term of growth, yield, quality and physiological implications.

2. Different types of agrivoltaic systems

In the last decade, an exponential progress of AV systems was observed, and a multitude of prototypes proposed worldwide thanks to the flexibility of the PV technologies [13,25]. Crop-specific structural criteria may be used to qualify an AV project and each spatial features (PV’ arrays’ transparency, size, height and spacing). To date, the research studies in the field of fruit crops cultivation (grapes, pome and stone fruit species, small fruits, etc.) are conducted on overhead configurations. For this purpose, an elevated support structure at a height of 2 meters or more is required to allow tree cultivation and machinery operation. The type of panel arrangement is determined among static tilted, mobile solar tracking, and mobile crop adaptive tracking [20,26]. Assuming an opaque panel structure, differences may be primarily related to the technical configuration (mounting structure added to the shade of the panels) that could affects shadow distribution underneath the panels and electricity generation. The static setup casts a distinct pattern of stripes with high level of shade intensity (only ≅56% of incident radiation on the ground). Furthermore, the distribution of the irradiance shows heterogeneity in both space and time with some area of the field experiencing significantly more shade than others. On the contrary, the dynamic configuration has a narrower span of available irradiance (from 78% to 94%) and a more homogeneous distribution over the field [27].
Another design related feature is the orientation and the height of PV. As can be seen (Figure 1 and Figure 2), the static one facing a typical south orientation for maximizing electric energy generation (in the Northern Hemisphere) and a tilt angle variation that depends on the latitude. On this setup type, north-south tree distribution of the orchard is the proposed solution by majority of experimentations. Thereby, the trees can experience a partial shade portion of the canopy. Regarding the sun-tracking system, it is generally mounted on North/South direction facing east in the morning, horizontal at noon, and west in the evening. The tree rows could be aligned to the panels’ orientation under or between the row based on shade crop sensitiveness and spacing required. In this regard, [28] proposed a simulation on backtracking strategy for hedgerow trees between trackers. According to this study, the tree crop production benefits from partial interrow shading without affecting the irradiance capture or the tracking mechanism. Moreover, from an energy point of view, the single-axis tracking/backtracking installation performs better electricity yield versus static schemes [27,29].
One attractive solution for tree cultivation is the agronomical tracking. Such advanced tracking is not a conventional system, and it provides more light to crops during light-demanding phenological stages. [20] proposed a conceptual analysis which estimates annual shade reduction on crops by 10% which would induce an increase in relative yield by 8%, assuming a period of direct light exposure two months per year. However, a technical description for both energy and shading comparison is still lacking. A similar approach would be employed on fruit crops by applying the smart-tracking strategy. During smart tracking, a trade-off between tracking (energy yield) and anti-tracking (crop yield) is achieved based on daily photosynthetic and energy production [30]. The author reveals a significant increase in energy yield (+30%) while maintaining comparable crop yield, although this technique has not been applied to fruit crops in any experiments yet.

3. Panels and fruit species: a new agricultural system

The positive adoption of solar PV use in orchard crop can be found in the possibility of replacing plastic cover protection as a current common practice towards a wide range of climate hazard (heavy rainfall, rain, sunburn, hail, etc.) [24]. However, instead of temporary plastic frame, AV systems introduce a permanent fixation of the structure with effects on microclimatic conditions in the orchard.

3.1. Microclimatic condition under the panels

Several mechanisms related to technology implementation of the PV structure (opaque, checkerboard, semi-transparent) as spatial configuration and geographic location may modify considerably the microclimate beneath the panels (such as wind, temperature, and humidity of soil and air). Another factor included is the placement of monitoring systems with respect to different crops [31].
The reduction in solar radiation (shading) underneath the AV canopy is the most apparent change occurring in these new agricultural systems. This, in turn, directly influences air temperature. Significant changes /reductions in the daily fluctuations are observed up to 4 °C in some studies [32,33,34]. Depending on short wave radiation transmitted, the dampening is more pronounced in maximum and minimum values during hot days and cold nights of cloudless sky, preventing damages from summer heatwave and spring frost events, respectively [24,31]. According to this, one set-up placed in China with kiwifruit [35] shows uniform air temperature compared to full sun condition throughout the trial.
Numerous studies deployed on arable and horticultural crops reported an increase in air humidity under AV [36,37]. These results are in line also with regards to taller and permanent crops, in which air mass is more retained between canopy walls of hedgerows.
As shown for kiwifruit, relative humidity resulted higher with increased level of shading [35]; similarly, with an apple orchard, in which a general increase has been detected around midday [32]. This may be beneficial for species with high humidity requirements as kiwifruit for example but can also become adverse with potential risk of pest outbreaks (fungal diseases).
While air pattern tended to be more referenced, only very few studies address the impact of these environmental drivers on soil. Because fruit trees are perennial crops, the soil is an important factor directly affecting root growth, budbreak, water and nutrient uptake for several seasons. [38] found in a vineyard higher average temperature of about 2 °C in spring and winter and no difference in August compared to the control site. For the same species, by contrast, two other studies showed temperature reduction of 1-3 °C under shaded area with respect to full sun conditions [34,39]. This inconsistency may be due, apart for the different climatic conditions of the sites, to different PV transparency levels and spacing, affecting both portion of transmitted irradiation and temperature of the soil itself.
The impact of PV coverage seems to be also positive for soil water savings. Experiments conducted on grape and cranberries display the panels’ role on the soil moisture retention, especially in cooler days and after irrigation [33,34]. Furthermore, a careful consideration must be given to panel-induced heterogeneity of moisture distribution on soil, an aspect that requires further investigations since it is typically a strong predictor of productivity [16]. In terms of evapotranspiration, a proper evaluation is still controversial. A general assessment establishes a reduction of atmospheric water demand but, due to insufficient spatial and crop behavior characterization available in literature for fruit crops, a formal evaluation is still pending. However, it could be emphasized that during periods of severe drought a positive plant response on water limitations is expected [24,40].

3.2. Fruit crop performance and quality

With respect of arable and horticultural crops, a low number of fruit tree species has been subjected to AV studies focusing on growth, yield, and quality (Table 1). Study results are mostly carried out under 30 and 60% shade with yield losses ranging from 16 to 42% (Figure 3). Cranberries cultivation results most negatively affected than other species on total productivity [33]. With lesser shading rate the average yield drop for kiwifruit and apple is approximately 29% by semitransparent and opaque PV configuration types, respectively [32,35]. Exception should be made for a pear orchard based on an estimation model. The simulated results show better performance then studies mentioned above, with only 16% yield reduction predicted [31]. A similar slight reduction (15%) has been recorded under more than 60% of shading rate by a wine grape experiment in Italy [34]. To this severe shading level, no comparable studies are available in literature on other fruit and berry fruit species, neither consistency is detected on yield decrease with increasing shade intensity [20]. Thus, additional data on tree performance are required to confirm whether any tolerance trait is effectively enhanced for perennial crops more than annual ones as observed in that study and further highlighted by the author [20].
Nevertheless, under low shading percentage (≅30%), crops behave well, and productivity is maintained or only little affected (5%) [35,38,39]. Yield components are little affected by mild shading systems thus ensuring a good marketable production. By contrast, over this threshold value, all papers reviewed report a significant decline of fruit mass, size and number [31,32,33,34,35]. Leaf photosynthesis seems to be affected by light shortage under high shading conditions reducing in turn dry matter accumulation and volume of the fruits [32,35]. Occasionally this aspect may not be a completely negative factor when associated with fruit trees that exhibit an alternate bearing behavior as apple. Thereby, shading interaction on flowers and young fruit could naturally regulate florabundity, influencing positively yield load over years as reported by the authors [32].
The decrease in carbon fixation and allocation also impacts quality parameters at harvest. With values of shading above 30% and conventional opaque PV modules such effect on total soluble sugars, and acidity is generally confirmed [33,34,41] with a decrease in the sugar/acid ratio and fruit firmness. More recent studies instead, reveal discrepancies in minimal standard quality and harvest date. As reported in a pear orchard, semitransparent structures should ensure similar fruit quality to full sun conditions [31]. Fluctuant shading rate, conversely, is supposed to not prevent physiological maturity and marketability of apples at harvest time [41]. In addition, it worth to be noting that there are some berry fruits (i.e., raspberries and blueberries), deemed to be compatible with higher shading conditions and in turn able to maintain relevant quality traits [20]. The above statements are supported by preliminary study only, more confirmations on these potential benefits should be provided in future research.
Regarding the skin color of fruits, influenced by compounds such as anthocyanins and polyphenols, the results indicate a high sensitivity to environmental changes [41]. Even for low degrees of shading, the commercial color of grape clusters has been reached with 10 days delay in response to radiation and temperature reduction, in two Korea’s experiments [38,39]. Likewise, apples and grape in the Mediterranean regions resulted greener at harvest because of the shade [41]. To obtain more clarity on these responses, combined effects of shade, panel transparency and transmitted radiation quality aspects should be investigated as suggested by [42]. In fact, if changes in radiation composition will confirm a direct role on qualitative and quantitative performance, novel advancement on panel structure (i. e., semi-transparent organic photovoltaic) and shading strategy (i. e., smart tracking) may optimize internal metabolism of the fruit and ensure a long-term productivity of perennial crops.

4. Conclusions

The global interest on the agrivoltaic sector is growing with significant and accelerated progress on new technologies, particularly concerning PV designs that implement wavelength selection with the aim of minimizing PAR alteration and reduction. Data collected in this review suggest that a shading rate of 30% could be acceptable with fruit tree cultivation. Higher shading levels should be more investigated depending on crop-specific (or variety) sensitiveness. Data are necessary on order to collect information on crop/panel compatibility in order to assist growers and energy providers to select the optimal crop for each agricultural area. However, limited data acquisition is still striking for fruit trees and grape, in semi-arid and arid regions strongly facing the climate changes. Using smart agrivoltaic tools as real-time data on plant stress signals then, it is possible to regulate tilting and thus impose different shading conditions on the canopy. This is particularly true for perennial crops, where such data will secondarily help both carbon assimilation flux and microenvironment, exploiting the full potential of agrivoltaic system suitability.
On the other hand, implementation of comprehensive indicators incorporating additional structural criteria, such as panel elevation above ground, is crucial for a more reliable understanding of agrivoltaic system impacts on perennial crop cultivation and in turn enhancing comparability across various experimental sites. Such aspects as panel elevation and spacing, in fact, are probably the main features to be considered for a reliable evaluation of fruit crops behavior.
The need for standardized measurements and comprehensive models to guide optimal agrivoltaic system have the goal of ensuring that crop productivity remains viable and attractive for farmers, with the ultimate objective of contributing to sustainable agriculture and renewable energy production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Mag. and G.F.; methodology, A.Mag.; formal analysis, A.Mag.; investigation, A.Mag.; data curation, A.Mag.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Mag.; writing—review and editing, A. Mag., A.Maz. G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Svolta farm for all the research carried out in the experimental agrivoltaic vineyard.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. van de Ven, D.-J.; Mittal, S.; Gambhir, A.; Lamboll, R.D.; Doukas, H.; Giarola, S.; Hawkes, A.; Koasidis, K.; Köberle, A.C.; McJeon, H.; et al. A Multimodel Analysis of Post-Glasgow Climate Targets and Feasibility Challenges. Nat Clim Chang 2023, 13, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Leal Filho, W.; Viera Trevisan, L.; Simon Rampasso, I.; Anholon, R.; Pimenta Dinis, M.A.; Londero Brandli, L.; Sierra, J.; Lange Salvia, A.; Pretorius, R.; Nicolau, M.; et al. When the Alarm Bells Ring: Why the UN Sustainable Development Goals May Not Be Achieved by 2030. J Clean Prod 2023, 407, 137108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, T.-C.; Wu, Y.-C.; Chau, C.-F. An Overview of Carbon Emission Mitigation in the Food Industry: Efforts, Challenges, and Opportunities. Processes 2023, 11, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chataut, G.; Bhatta, B.; Joshi, D.; Subedi, K.; Kafle, K. Greenhouse Gases Emission from Agricultural Soil: A Review. J Agric Food Res 2023, 11, 100533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmed, M.; Shuai, C.; Ahmed, M. Analysis of Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trend in China, India, the USA, and Russia. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2023, 20, 2683–2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rokicki, T.; Perkowska, A.; Klepacki, B.; Bórawski, P.; Bełdycka-Bórawska, A.; Michalski, K. Changes in Energy Consumption in Agriculture in the EU Countries. Energies (Basel) 2021, 14, 1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rivera, L.; Jimenez, G.; Kilian, B. Sustainability in the Coffee Growing Business: Coopedota and the Path towards Carbon Neutral Coffee. 2013.
  8. Pochwatka, P.; Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Sołowiej, P.; Wawrzyniak, A.; Dach, J. Biogas Plant Exploitation in a Middle-Sized Dairy Farm in Poland: Energetic and Economic Aspects. Energies (Basel) 2020, 13, 6058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Han, R.; Huo-Gen, W. N2N Regional Circular Agriculture Model in China: A Case Study of Luofang Biogas Project. Cogent Food Agric 2023, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dupraz, C.; Marrou, H.; Talbot, G.; Dufour, L.; Nogier, A.; Ferard, Y. Combining Solar Photovoltaic Panels and Food Crops for Optimising Land Use: Towards New Agrivoltaic Schemes. Renew Energy 2011, 36, 2725–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hassanien, R.H.E.; Li, M.; Dong Lin, W. Advanced Applications of Solar Energy in Agricultural Greenhouses. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 54, 989–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Campana, P.E.; Stridh, B.; Amaducci, S.; Colauzzi, M. Optimisation of Vertically Mounted Agrivoltaic Systems. J Clean Prod 2021, 325, 129091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Toledo, C.; Scognamiglio, A. Agrivoltaic Systems Design and Assessment: A Critical Review, and a Descriptive Model towards a Sustainable Landscape Vision (Three-Dimensional Agrivoltaic Patterns). Sustainability 2021, 13, 6871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Graham, M.; Ates, S.; Melathopoulos, A.P.; Moldenke, A.R.; DeBano, S.J.; Best, L.R.; Higgins, C.W. Partial Shading by Solar Panels Delays Bloom, Increases Floral Abundance during the Late-Season for Pollinators in a Dryland, Agrivoltaic Ecosystem. Sci Rep 2021, 11, 7452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Barron-Gafford, G.A.; Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A.; Minor, R.L.; Sutter, L.F.; Barnett-Moreno, I.; Blackett, D.T.; Thompson, M.; Dimond, K.; Gerlak, A.K.; Nabhan, G.P.; et al. Agrivoltaics Provide Mutual Benefits across the Food–Energy–Water Nexus in Drylands. Nat Sustain 2019, 2, 848–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sturchio, M.A.; Kannenberg, S.A.; Knapp, A.K. Agrivoltaic Arrays Can Maintain Semi-Arid Grassland Productivity and Extend the Seasonality of Forage Quality. Appl Energy 2024, 356, 122418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wydra, K.; Vollmer, V.; Busch, C.; Prichta, S. Agrivoltaic: Solar Radiation for Clean Energy and Sustainable Agriculture with Positive Impact on Nature. In Solar Radiation - Enabling Technologies, Recent Innovations, and Advancements for Energy Transition; 2023; pp. 1–48.
  18. Amaducci, S.; Yin, X.; Colauzzi, M. Agrivoltaic Systems to Optimise Land Use for Electric Energy Production. Appl Energy 2018, 220, 545–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Touil, S.; Richa, A.; Fizir, M.; Bingwa, B. Shading Effect of Photovoltaic Panels on Horticulture Crops Production: A Mini Review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2021, 20, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dupraz, C. Assessment of the Ground Coverage Ratio of Agrivoltaic Systems as a Proxy for Potential Crop Productivity. Agroforestry Systems 2023. [CrossRef]
  21. Laub, M.; Pataczek, L.; Feuerbacher, A.; Zikeli, S.; Högy, P. Contrasting Yield Responses at Varying Levels of Shade Suggest Different Suitability of Crops for Dual Land-Use Systems: A Meta-Analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 2022, 42, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Neupane Bhandari, S.; Schlüter, S.; Kuckshinrichs, W.; Schlör, H.; Adamou, R.; Bhandari, R. Economic Feasibility of Agrivoltaic Systems in Food-Energy Nexus Context: Modelling and a Case Study in Niger. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Atlan, A.; Hornoy, B.; Delerue, F.; Gonzalez, M.; Pierre, J.-S.; Tarayre, M. Phenotypic Plasticity in Reproductive Traits of the Perennial Shrub Ulex Europaeus in Response to Shading: A Multi-Year Monitoring of Cultivated Clones. PLoS One 2015, 10, e0137500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lopez, G.; Chopard, J.; Persello, S.; Juillion, P.; Lesniak, V.; Vercambre, G.; Génard, M.; Fumey, D. Agrivoltaic Systems: An Innovative Technique to Protect Fruit Trees from Climate Change. Acta Hortic 2023, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aroca-Delgado, R.; Pérez-Alonso, J.; Callejón-Ferre, Á.; Velázquez-Martí, B. Compatibility between Crops and Solar Panels: An Overview from Shading Systems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sarr, A.; Soro, Y.M.; Tossa, A.K.; Diop, L. Agrivoltaic, a Synergistic Co-Location of Agricultural and Energy Production in Perpetual Mutation: A Comprehensive Review. Processes 2023, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ali Khan Niazi, K.; Victoria, M. Comparative Analysis of Photovoltaic Configurations for Agrivoltaic Systems in Europe. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 2023. [CrossRef]
  28. Casares de la Torre, F.J.; Varo-Martinez, M.; López-Luque, R.; Ramírez-Faz, J.; Fernández-Ahumada, L.M. Design and Analysis of a Tracking / Backtracking Strategy for PV Plants with Horizontal Trackers after Their Conversion to Agrivoltaic Plants. Renew Energy 2022, 187, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tahir, Z.; Butt, N.Z. Implications of Spatial-Temporal Shading in Agrivoltaics under Fixed Tilt & Tracking Bifacial Photovoltaic Panels. Renew Energy 2022, 190, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Willockx, B.; Lavaert, C.; Cappelle, J. Performance Evaluation of Vertical Bifacial and Single-Axis Tracked Agrivoltaic Systems on Arable Land. Renew Energy 2023, 217, 119181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Willockx, B.; Reher, T.; Lavaert, C.; Herteleer, B.; Van de Poel, B.; Cappelle, J. Design and Evaluation of an Agrivoltaic System for a Pear Orchard. Appl Energy 2024, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Juillion, P.; Lopez, G.; Fumey, D.; Lesniak, V.; Génard, M.; Vercambre, G. Shading Apple Trees with an Agrivoltaic System: Impact on Water Relations, Leaf Morphophysiological Characteristics and Yield Determinants. Sci Hortic 2022, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mupambi, G.; Sandler, H.A.; Jeranyama, P. Installation of an Agrivoltaic System Influences Microclimatic Conditions and Leaf Gas Exchange in Cranberry. In Proceedings of the Acta Horticulturae; International Society for Horticultural Science, April 1 2022; Vol. 1337, pp. 117–124.
  34. Ferrara, G.; Boselli, M.; Palasciano, M.; Mazzeo, A. Effect of Shading Determined by Photovoltaic Panels Installed above the Vines on the Performance of Cv. Corvina (Vitis Vinifera L.). Sci Hortic 2023, 308. [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, S.; Tang, D.; Zhao, L.; Liang, C.; Cui, N.; Gong, D.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Y.; Hu, X.; Peng, Y. Effects of Different Photovoltaic Shading Levels on Kiwifruit Growth, Yield and Water Productivity under “Agrivoltaic” System in Southwest China. Agric Water Manag 2022, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marrou, H.; Wery, J.; Dufour, L.; Dupraz, C. Productivity and Radiation Use Efficiency of Lettuces Grown in the Partial Shade of Photovoltaic Panels. European Journal of Agronomy 2013, 44, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weselek, A.; Bauerle, A.; Hartung, J.; Zikeli, S.; Lewandowski, I.; Högy, P. Agrivoltaic System Impacts on Microclimate and Yield of Different Crops within an Organic Crop Rotation in a Temperate Climate. 2021. [CrossRef]
  38. Cho, J.; Park, S.M.; Reum Park, A.; Lee, O.C.; Nam, G.; Ra, I.H. Application of Photovoltaic Systems for Agriculture: A Study on the Relationship between Power Generation and Farming for the Improvement of Photovoltaic Applications in Agriculture. Energies (Basel) 2020, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ahn, S.Y.; Lee, D.B.; Lee, H.I.; Myint, Z. Le; Min, S.Y.; Kim, B.M.; Oh, W.; Jung, J.H.; Yun, H.K. Grapevine Growth and Berry Development under the Agrivoltaic Solar Panels in the Vineyards. Journal of Bio-Environment Control 2022, 31, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schweiger, A.H.; Pataczek, L. How to Reconcile Renewable Energy and Agricultural Production in a Drying World. Plants People Planet 2023, 5, 650–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Juillion, P.; Lopez, G.; Fumey, D.; Génard, M.; Vercambre, G. Analysis and Modelling of Tree Shading Impacts on Apple Fruit Quality: Case Study with an Agrivoltaic System. In Proceedings of the Acta Horticulturae; International Society for Horticultural Science, April 1 2023; Vol. 1366, pp. 187–194.
  42. Rosati, A.; Proctor, K.; Dazaea, A.; Graham, M.; Ates, S.; Haley M., K.; Chad W., H. Agroforestry versus Agrivoltaic: Spectral Composition of Transmitted Radiation and Implications for Understory Crops. Agroforestry Systems 2023. [CrossRef]
Preprints 98801 g001
Figure 1. Solar PV configurations analyzed in this work for fruit trees: (A) static with optimal tilt, (B) single-axis horizontal tracking. The parameters inter-row spacing s and height h are shown in the figure. Adapted from Ali Khan Niazi & Victoria (2023).
Figure 1. Solar PV configurations analyzed in this work for fruit trees: (A) static with optimal tilt, (B) single-axis horizontal tracking. The parameters inter-row spacing s and height h are shown in the figure. Adapted from Ali Khan Niazi & Victoria (2023).
Preprints 98801 g001
Preprints 98801 g002
Figure 2. Two AV experimental sites on vineyards in Italy and France respectively.
Figure 2. Two AV experimental sites on vineyards in Italy and France respectively.
Preprints 98801 g002
Preprints 98801 g003
Figure 3. The average yield reduction of fruit crops depending on photovoltaic shading rate.
Figure 3. The average yield reduction of fruit crops depending on photovoltaic shading rate.
Preprints 98801 g003
Table 1. Fruit tree publications under agrivoltaic system.
Table 1. Fruit tree publications under agrivoltaic system.
Fruit crop tested Location Type of panels Structure Ground Coverage ratio Shading rate (%) Remarks References
Yield Fruit Quality
Apple Mallemort, France Single-axis horizontal, adaptive solar tracking opaque 0.43 42% Significant affect yield from 27 to 32%, alternate-bearing reduction minimum standard reached though less sugar concentration [32,41]
Pear Bierbeek, Belgium double-sided, fixed, inclined semitransparent 0.6 35% slight 16% yield reduction (estimation) quality aspects remain equal (estimation) [31]
Grape Illasi (Verona province), Italy Fixed, tilted opaque - 75% observed a
decrease in yield, at least in two years		 Total soluble solids resulted lower, reduction of both polyphenols and anthocyanins [34]
Grape (Ongjin Country) South Korea Fixed, tilted opaque - <30 % No significantly affected Not affected sugar content and anthocyanins, late skin coloration [39]
Grape Onjin-Gun, South Korea Fixed on a umbrella-shaped facility, tilted opaque, bifacial, semitransparent - ≤30% Not available (berry weight and number not affected except for opaque type) Similar grape sugar-content level, delay in coloration [38]
Kiwifruit (Puijiang country), China Fixed, tilted semitransparent 0.15; 0.25; 0.31 19%; 30.4 %, 38% Remarkable yield reduction - [35]
Cranberries Massachuttes (USA) Fixed Plywood sheet - 29.3-41.5% Significantly reduced yield Significantly reduced fruit firmness and total soluble solids, color non affected [33]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated