Litcius/Paper detail

Agrivoltaic systems: Trade-offs on microclimate, physiology, yield and canopy thermal-spectral maps

Maryam Rahimi Jahangirlou, Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Pullens, Magnus Kamau Katana Lindhardt, Yannick Valentin El Khoury, Vita Antoniuk, Kiril Manevski, Carl-Otto Ottosen, Uffe Jørgensen

2025Agricultural Systems5 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

CONTEXT Competition between solar energy deployment and cropland use is intensifying. Agrivoltaics (APV), which co-produces food and electricity, modifies the microclimate between panels, influencing plant physiology, yield, and quality. Comparative field-scale evidence across different PV configurations and crops is required to optimize APV design for both productivity and resilience. OBJECTIVE To evaluate how APV-induced microclimate alters crop physiology, canopy traits, yield, and quality over two years, with interannual weather variability and to determine system- and crop-specific responses that inform climate-smart APV design. METHODS Two bifacial APV systems (25° south-tilted and vertical east–west) were compared with an open-field reference in rotations of winter wheat, grass–clover, and soybean in a temperate climate. Measurements stratified by panel-relative zones (shaded, semi-shaded, open) included: (i) microclimate (air temperature, humidity, wind speed) used to derive VPD and ET₀; (ii) leaf traits (temperature, stomatal conductance, Fv/Fm) at key growth stages; (iii) UAV-based thermal multispectral maps (NDVI, surface temperature); (iv) yield and quality at harvest. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Grass–clover biomass was consistently higher between vertical panels (5.8 and 14.8 t/ha in 2023 and 2024) than between tilted panels (4.3 and 14.0 t/ha, p < 0.01), and comparable to open field. Wheat yields were similar across treatments in the dry year 2023 (3.7–4.7 t/ha), but declined between panels in the wet year 2024 (6.0–6.2 vs 7.0–7.1 t/ha in reference). However, wheat quality improved under APV in both years: grain protein (9.5–9.8 % vs 8.1 %) and gluten (17–18 % vs 15–16 %, p < 0.01). Soybean yields were reduced in APV zones (3.25–3.50 vs 4.91 t/ha, p < 0.01), although dry matter content remained ∼35 %. APV reduced mean wind speed (vertical 1.19, tilted 1.58 vs reference 2.17 m/s) and ET₀, and lowered canopy/leaf temperatures while increasing Fv/Fm. NDVI and thermal maps partly reflected these physiological patterns. Responses varied with interannual weather: APV conferred greater shelter benefits in the dry year, particularly in the vertical system. SIGNIFICANCE By linking leaf-level physiology to canopy and landscape indicators, this framework enables systematic APV assessment across weather conditions and designs. Findings highlight vertical APV as a promising configuration for stabilizing yields under drought, supporting evidence-based decisions for land-efficient, climate-resilient food–energy systems.

Topics & Concepts

MicroclimateCanopyEnvironmental scienceTemperate climateAgronomyAtmospheric sciencesBiomass (ecology)EvapotranspirationYield (engineering)Relative humidityVegetation (pathology)Grain qualityGrain yieldStrawCropHumidityVapour Pressure DeficitProductivityCrop yieldMultispectral imageWind speedPrecision agricultureNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexLeaf area indexDewPhotovoltaic Systems and SustainabilityPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Agrivoltaic systems: Trade-offs on microclimate, physiology, yield and canopy thermal-spectral maps | Litcius