Connecting agriculture and renewable energy: insights into microclimatic changes, physiological, biochemical, and yield responses under agrivoltaics: a review

Agrivoltaics, the synergistic integration of agriculture and solar energy production on the same piece of land, has emerged as a compelling dual-use solution that maximizes land productivity while simultaneously addressing the need for sustainable agricultural practices and renewable energy generation. Despite the growing global interest in this dual-use system, the microclimatic shifts created beneath solar panels and their consequences for crop performance remain insufficiently synthesized. This review highlights the intricate interactions between agrivoltaics systems and plant microclimates, discussing their impacts on various physiological processes, metabolic pathways, and overall yield responses in different crop species. Evidence indicates that moderated light intensity and altered microclimates can enhance water-use efficiency, stabilize photosynthetic function, and trigger beneficial metabolic adjustments; however, responses remain highly species-specific and strongly dependent on regional climate conditions and panel configuration. Yield outcomes vary widely among vegetables, cereals, pulses, and fruit crops, highlighting the necessity for tailored agronomic strategies and crop selection within agrivoltaic designs. A critical knowledge gap identified in this review concerns the limited understanding of molecular and omics-level responses underlying plant adaptation to agrivoltaic environments. We further provide a detailed and interdisciplinary overview of adaptive agronomic strategies, and optimal crop selection, tailored to agrivoltaic systems. Despite the benefits of land use efficiency and simultaneous food and energy production, challenges remain concerning initial investment, technological adaptation, social and legal barriers, and shade-induced yield penalties. Further research in this area will be critical to enhancing the agricultural, environmental, and economic sustainability of agrivoltaics while simultaneously augmenting their practical utility and appeal to farmers in the future.

1 Introduction

Climate change and growing human populations pose serious threats to agricultural production and food availability worldwide (Heath et al., 2022). There is a need for agricultural expansion to satisfy rising food demand, yet the amount of land designated for this purpose has not increased in the past few years (Fischer et al., 2023; Dohlman et al., 2024). Over recent decades, rapid population growth and increased per-capita consumption have intensified global pressure on both energy and food systems (Giri and Mohanty, 2024; Chopdar et al., 2023). Global food production is projected to rise by 12% between 2019 and 2030 to meet increasing demand (UN, 2021), while global energy consumption is expected to grow by about 14% over the same period (IEA, 2021). Much of this energy demand is still met through fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risks, underscoring the need for transitioning toward sustainable energy sources such as solar power (Semeraro et al., 2024; Widmer et al., 2024). This trend is further complicated by the increasing frequency of extreme weather events associated with climate change, such as heatwaves, droughts, and heavy precipitation (Weselek et al., 2019). To achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs) and meet future energy demands, the global energy sector must transition toward low-emission resources, with solar energy emerging as the fastest-growing renewable energy source (Walston et al., 2022; Waghmare et al., 2023; Magarelli et al., 2024). Solar panels generate electricity without releasing greenhouse gases or other contaminants, reduce environmental pollution, and align with global effort towards sustainable and climate-resilient energy solutions (Walston et al., 2022; Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Image (A) illustrates the installation of solar panels over a cranberry bog in an experiment to assess the impact on crop yield, while the image (B) shows the enlarged view of shading from solar panels. This integrated system, commonly known as agrivoltaics, exemplifies the intersection of renewable energy generation and crop production. Picture: Manu Priya, UMass Cranberry Station, MA, USA.

Despite their environmental benefits, the rapid expansion of ground-mounted solar installations raises concerns about land-use competition, particularly in agriculturally productive regions (Wagner et al., 2023). To address this challenge, Goetzberger and Zastrow (1982) introduced the concept of agrivoltaics (AV), which enables the simultaneous use of land for agricultural production and solar energy generation. Agrivoltaic system aims to enhance land-use efficiency while supporting renewable energy generation and agricultural productivity (Weselek et al., 2019; Hudelson and Lieth, 2021; Al Mamun et al., 2022; Figure 1). These installations make solar power more accessible and affordable to a wider range of consumers, meeting future energy and food requirements (Heath et al., 2022). However, their implementation is challenged by the limited availability of suitable land resources, necessitating collaborative efforts among policymakers, researchers, stakeholders, and farmers to promote adoption through supportive policies, funding and knowledge exchange (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Agostini et al., 2021). Notably, agrivoltaics can stabilize income for agricultural producers and mitigate the effects of weather hazards, leading to reduced environmental impact compared to traditional agriculture (Dupraz et al., 2011; Hudelson and Lieth, 2021; Huang et al., 2023). Further, the energy generated by agrivoltaics on-site is economically efficient, especially in areas with limited access to power grids, reducing dependence on centralized power infrastructure (Roccaforte, 2021). Beyond energy production, agrivoltaics may indirectly influence microbial activity and nutrient dynamics in soil (Sekiyama and Nagashima, 2019). Under shaded conditions, increased soil moisture may promote microbial-mediated processes such as nitrogen fixation and organic matter mineralization potentially reducing the need for chemical fertilizers and support the production of bio-hydrogen from agricultural waste (Sekiyama and Nagashima, 2019). Overall, agrivoltaics represents a promising approach to addressing the growing energy demands while simultaneously supporting food production particularly in the context of intensifying land-use pressures and increasing climate variability (Elamri et al., 2018; Widmer et al., 2024).

To date, most studies dealing with agrivoltaics systems have mainly focused on simulation-based analysis and theoretical modeling approaches (Dinesh and Pearce, 2016; Amaducci et al., 2018; Elamri et al., 2018; Weselek et al., 2019, Weselek et al., 2021). However, while evaluating the feasibility of agrivoltaic application in agricultural systems, its impact on microclimatic conditions and crop production remains a primary concern (Noor and Reeza, 2022). Consequently, recent research efforts have increasingly explored optimization strategies for solar array configuration to balance light distribution, thermal dynamics, and water-use efficiency to sustain or enhance crop yields under changing climate conditions (Heath et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2023; Figure 2). Several recent reviews have explored the broader potential of agrivoltaic systems, focusing primarily on system design, energy output, and economic viability (Dinesh and Pearce, 2016; Weselek et al., 2019; Agostini et al., 2021; Zainol Abidin et al., 2021; Al Mamun et al., 2022; Sarr et al., 2023; Chopdar et al., 2024; Widmer et al., 2024; Zainali et al., 2025). While these contributions have laid a foundational understanding of agrivoltaics as a sustainable land-use model, they have largely treated crop performance outcomes in a generalized manner, with limited attention to quantitative physiological, biochemical, and microclimatic interactions at the crop level. In contrast, this review provides a targeted synthesis of empirical evidence linking microclimatic changes induced by agrivoltaics to specific plant physiological and biochemical responses and implications for yield performance. This focus allows for a more detailed understanding of plant-environment interactions under agrivoltaic conditions, which is essential for crop selection, system optimization, and adaptation to diverse agroecological zones.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Conceptual illustration of the relationships between agrivoltaic systems and their key outcomes, including food production, water conservation, land-use patterns, and solar energy generation, along with associated social, economic, environmental, and agricultural impacts.

Unlike previous reviews that primarily emphasize engineering design, energy output, or economic feasibility, this review addresses an underrepresented dimension in the current literature: How does the integration of agrivoltaics systems impact microclimatic conditions, and the physiological, biochemical, and yield responses of crops across various agroecosystems? By integrating evidence from ecophysiology, agronomy, and microclimate research, this review delivers a detailed, system-wide compilation of plant adaptation under agrivoltaic environments, outlines crop-specific agronomic strategies, and identifies critical knowledge gaps, particularly at the molecular and omics levels. This multidisciplinary focus synthesized perspective for optimizing agrivoltaic designs and guiding policy, research priorities, and practical adoption across different agroecological contexts. To investigate this, we performed a targeted literature search on works published from 2005 to 2025 using the keywords “agrivoltaics,” “microclimate modification,” “crop ecophysiology,” and “biochemical and yield response” in the Scopus, and Google Scholar databases (Figure 3.). Peer-reviewed publications that presented empirical data on crop-level responses to co-located solar infrastructure or panel shading were included; these studies focused on physiological, biochemical, and agronomic performance metrics. A total of 350 articles were examined, enabling a synthesis of current understanding, identification of research gaps, and formulation of future research directions for optimizing agrivoltaics systems within sustainable agriculture frameworks. Furthermore, we examine agronomic strategies for enhancing agrivoltaic adoption, encompassing crop selection and management practices, while also recognizing limitations and prospects for broader implementation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Conceptual workflow diagram illustrating the methodological steps of the narrative literature review, including scope definition, peer-reviewed literature identification, selection based on relevance criteria, extraction of microclimate and plant-response variables, thematic synthesis, and formulation of conclusions and research gaps.

By bringing together insights from plant physiology, agronomy, and renewable energy, this review presents a multidisciplinary approach vital for advancing research dimensions and policy decisions in this field. We believe this review will be of great interest to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working at the nexus of agriculture, renewable energy, and environmental sustainability.

2 Microclimate impact

One of the most prominent environmental shifts observed in agrivoltaic systems is the reduction in solar radiation reaching the canopy due to solar panel induced shading (Magarelli et al., 2024). This reduction in incident radiation significantly impacts crop yield by altering key microclimatic parameters such as air and soil temperature, relative humidity, wind dynamics, and soil moisture content (Marrou et al., 2013b). The placement of sensors and their geographic position can have a significant impact on the accuracy of microclimate measurements beneath the panels (Teng et al., 2022; Figure 4).

Figure 4

Figure 4. This figure provides a visual representation of the interaction between microclimatic variations, morpho-physiological changes, biochemical responses, and molecular dynamics of plants in agrivoltaics systems. It offers a comprehensive view of how plants adapt and respond to the unique environmental conditions created by the presence of solar panels, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of agrivoltaics agriculture.

2.1 Light availability

Light availability is one of the most critical microclimatic variables influenced by agrivoltaic systems, as light is the primary driver of photosynthesis in plants (Sekiyama, 2019; Waghmare et al., 2023). While the installation of agrivoltaic systems aims to improve land use efficiency by combining agriculture and solar power generation, the partial obstruction of sunlight can limit photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), a key determinant in crop productivity (Colombo et al., 2023). The shading effect from photovoltaics (PV) modules reduces the quantity as well as quality of light reaching the crop surface as observed in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (Edouard et al., 2023). Touil et al. (2021) reported that solar panels can reduce the amount of solar energy received by horticultural crops by more than 40%. This reduction, while potentially detrimental to photosynthesis and crop yield, may concurrently reduce evapotranspiration rates, benefiting crops during dry periods as reported in maize (Zea mays L.), winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Kim and Kim, 2023; Weselek et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2024).

In maize, the total solar radiation recorded under the panels in the different AV plots resulted in shade rates of 29-38% in dynamic panels (DAV), 30-35% in AVhalf (without tracker system; moderate shade), and 54-56% in AVfull (high shade) depending on the season (Ramos-Fuentes et al., 2023). Similarly, Lee et al. (2023) observed a reduction in PAR in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under AV systems compared to the control plot, with the highest decline (57%) around 11:00 A.M during midday. Mohammedi et al. (2023) reported a noteworthy 55% reduction in PAR under semi-transparent modules (ST50%) and up to 86% under conventional opaque panels (Con panels), compared to open field conditions.

Weselek et al. (2021) conducted a field experiment in which four crops viz. celeriac (Apium graveolens L. var. rapaceum), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), grass clover (Trifolium repens L.), and winter wheat were grown under an agrivoltaic system and compared to a reference site without solar panels. The study examined numerous metrics over two years, 2017 and 2018 and found a 30% decline in PAR under solar panels (Table 1). Another study looked at the distribution of radiation and shade on wheat crop surfaces with varying density of PV panels in an agrivoltaic system (Prakash et al., 2023). The study explicitly examined the effect of increasing panel densities (partial density, half density, and full density) on the shaded area over the crop surface, with a focus on the wheat variety (GW 496) grown using line sowing and drip irrigation. Their findings showed that the proportion of shaded area over the crop surface was highest in the full-density plot and lowest in the partial-density plot, negatively impacting PAR availability under full-density plot (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Impact of agrivoltaic (AV) systems on different microclimatic parameters.

Interestingly, some crops may benefit from moderated light conditions through a reduction in photooxidative stress. In a recent study, Colombo et al. (2023) found that installing solar panels boosted crop output in oleaginous crops compared to the control (non-AV) agricultural area. This improvement was attributed to the reduced solar radiation reaching crops during the summer, which helped mitigate the negative effects of water stress, an abiotic stress factor known to impair plant growth. These findings highlight the inherent trade-offs in agrivoltaic design, particularly the balance between optimizing energy yield and maintaining adequate light availability for crops (Prakash et al., 2023). Additionally, appropriate panel configuration and spacing are critical to minimize the negative effects of shading on PAR and crop productivity (Klokov et al., 2023).

Beyond changes in radiation quantity, agrivoltaic systems also modify radiation quality and diffuse light dynamics. Magarelli et al. (2025b) demonstrated that agrivoltaic panels substantially modify both radiation quantity and quality in grapes, increasing the diffuse radiation fraction and altering spectral composition, particularly through blue and far-red enrichment and reduced red:far-red ratios, which triggered pronounced photomorphogenic responses, including enhanced leaf expansion, stem elongation, increased chlorophyll accumulation, and modulation of stomatal conductance. Collectively, these findings highlight the importance of optimizing agrivoltaic designs to manage light availability and spectral characteristics, and suggest that future advances, such as semi-transparent PV modules or adjustable panel configurations may help maximize PAR transmission while maintaining sustainable crop production under agrivoltaic systems (Stallknecht et al., 2023).

2.2 Air temperature and relative humidity

The shade from solar panels alters both air temperature and relative humidity (RH) with direct implications on crop physiology and productivity. The magnitude of these variations is determined by crop height, panel configuration, density, and orientation (Waghmare et al., 2023; Magarelli et al., 2024). For instance, several studies in apple (Malus domestica L.), and grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) have reported substantial reductions in daily air temperatures under shaded conditions, in some cases reaching up to 4°C (Juillion et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2023; Sturchio et al., 2024). Conversely, research conducted on kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis deliciosa, cv. Jin Yan) in China observed minimal temperature variation under agrivoltaics, possibly influenced by site-specific factors such as wind speed (Jiang et al., 2022). Similarly, Hassanpour Adeh et al. (2018) reported reduced mean air temperature beneath solar panels in an unirrigated pasture particularly in areas experiencing water stress.

In winter wheat, the mean daily air temperature was found to be 1.1°C lower during the summer months, creating a cooler microenvironment that may mitigate heat stress (Weselek et al., 2021). In rice, the maximum daily air temperature was reduced by 0.8°C under agrivoltaic systems covering 27% of the ground surface relative to the open-field control, while the minimum air temperature remained statistically unchanged between the two treatments (Thum et al., 2025). Barron-Gafford et al. (2019) further demonstrated that partial shade from agrivoltaic systems significantly altered canopy temperatures in chiltepin pepper (Capsicum annuum var. glabriusculum), jalapenos (Capsicum annuum var. annuum), and cherry tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme), with notably cooler daytime and warmer nighttime temperatures relative to unshaded control. In basil (Ocimum basilicum L.), an increase in minimum nighttime air temperature of 0.19°C was observed under solar panels, while daytime minimum temperature decreased by 0.21°C (Jung et al., 2023). Similarly, daytime air temperature beneath PV panels were found to be 0.3°C lower compared to unshaded conditions in apple trees (Juillion et al., 2022).

However, not all agrivoltaic systems produce pronounced atmospheric modifications. In thyme, oregano, and Greek mountain tea, air temperature and RH beneath photovoltaic modules did not differ significantly from adjacent full-sun control areas, indicating limited alteration of ambient conditions despite the presence of the PV installation (Fagnano et al., 2024). Likewise, daily mean and maximum air temperatures did not differ significantly between agrivoltaic and full-sun treatments in a grapevine agrivoltaic system in Italy (Magarelli et al., 2025a). Nevertheless, a more detailed temporal analysis revealed that daytime average air temperature within the agrivoltaic system was up to 1.1°C lower than under full-sun conditions, with diurnal temperature differences being less pronounced than nighttime variations (Magarelli et al., 2025b).

Increased shading under solar panels is also frequently associated with elevated RH, especially during midday hours when evapotranspiration is high (Jiang et al., 2022; Juillion et al., 2022). Barron-Gafford et al. (2019) reported that RH beneath solar array in semi-arid ecosystems was consistently higher than in adjacent unshaded plots, resulting in improved physiological performance in crops like chiltepin peppers, jalapenos, and cherry tomatoes. While high RH may be beneficial for some crops, it also increases pathogen risks, particularly fungal disease, emphasizing the need for crop-specific microclimate optimization (Jiang et al., 2022). Sekiyama and Nagashima (2019) found that lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) grown under solar panels exhibited enhanced turgor pressure and delayed wilting, correlated with the high RH levels. In apple, RH levels increased significantly under solar panels during the day, particularly at midday and during summer months (Juillion et al., 2022). Mohammedi et al. (2023) also reported elevated RH levels in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants under higher shade densities.

Within grapevine agrivoltaic systems, Magarelli et al. (2025a) reported significant differences in both mean and maximum RH among treatments, with the low-shade (LS) condition exhibiting the highest maximum RH values and the narrowest diurnal variation, indicative of a more stable humidity regime compared with high-shade (HS) and full-sun conditions. This pattern was attributed to localized microclimatic stabilization beneath photovoltaic panels, likely associated with reduced air mixing and partial windbreak effects that limited moisture loss in the LS zone. Consistently, Magarelli et al. (2025b) observed that mean RH was similar between HS and full-sun treatments, while LS conditions resulted in slightly higher RH values (6.1%), further supporting the role of intermediate shading in enhancing moisture retention under agrivoltaic systems. While elevated RH can confer physiological benefits, it may also increase the risk of pathogen development, particularly fungal diseases, underscoring the importance of crop-specific and site-specific microclimate optimization (Jiang et al., 2022). Collectively, these findings highlight the potential of agrivoltaic systems to mitigate abiotic stress in arid and semi-arid regions, where RH regulation plays a critical role in crop resilience and productivity.

2.3 Soil temperature and soil moisture content

Agrivoltaics systems have been consistently shown to influence soil temperature as well as moisture, primarily through the dual effect of shading and altered precipitation. Regarding soil thermodynamics, Weselek et al. (2021) observed that AV installations in winter wheat lowered the daily mean soil temperature approximately by 1.2°C in 2017 and 1.4°C in 2018 compared to open field conditions, primarily due to a reduction in direct solar radiation. Consistent with these findings, a field study in tomatoes showed that 50% shading under agrivoltaics resulted in an average soil temperature reduction of approximately 1.3°C compared to open-field conditions (Mohammedi et al., 2023). Further, the increase in the shading to 80% led to a more pronounced cooling effect, with soil temperatures 2.3°C lower than in unshaded areas. Similarly, Min et al. (2022) reported that average soil temperatures were 17% lower under solar panels compared to control plots in kimchi cabbage (Brassica rapa ssp. Pekinensis). Moreover, shading from solar panels also reduces evapotranspiration by limiting direct solar radiation, thereby enhancing soil water retention (Sturchio et al., 2024). Yue et al. (2021) reported an increase in average soil moisture by 15% under fixed panels and 11% under oblique single-axis tracking panels in a desert region, compared to unshaded conditions. Similarly, Hassanpour Adeh et al. (2018) observed that AV systems increased soil moisture retention and water-use efficiency (WUE) by 328% in an unirrigated sheep pasture, due to reduced temperatures and evaporation. In the Gobi Desert, Wu et al. (2022) observed substantial increase in soil moisture content, ranging from 59 to 113% in shaded zones beneath solar array, along with concurrent decrease in soil temperatures (1.5-1.7°C), due to increased rainfall interception and reduced incoming radiation. This improved moisture retention is especially notable on cooler days and post-irrigation, benefiting crops such as cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) and grapevines (Mupambi et al., 2021; Ferrara et al., 2023). Further, Magarelli et al. (2025b) reported that, under high-shade conditions, soil moisture was 16% higher than in full-sun treatments, while soil temperatures were moderately stabilized, indicating improved soil water retention and enhanced thermal buffering under agrivoltaic shading.

In contrast, the findings of Weselek et al. (2021) regarding significantly reduced soil moisture under agrivoltaic in four crops (celeriac, winter wheat, potato and grass-clover) during two consecutive years (2017 and 2018), are particularly intriguing. Their study showed that the daily mean soil moisture levels were much lower under AV until the middle of April, after which moisture levels began to rise and then remained high beyond the end of October. These findings are interesting because soil moisture was expected to be higher under AV in the summer due to lower evapotranspiration as reported in previous studies (Marrou et al., 2013a; Amaducci et al., 2018).

However, the spatial heterogeneity in soil moisture distribution induced by panel configurations can strongly influence productivity and remains an area requiring further investigation (Sturchio et al., 2024). Several studies also emphasized that soil moisture trends are not uniform; while some crops such as tomatoes and kimchi cabbage exhibited lower soil temperatures and improved water conservation under AV systems (Min et al., 2022; Mohammedi et al., 2023), other findings observed reductions in soil moisture depending on local climate variability, panel configuration and seasonal effects in crops such as celeriac, winter wheat, potato and grass-clover (Weselek et al., 2021). These findings necessitate the importance of site-specific AV system design, particularly in water-limited environments, to optimize the synergic effects of shading and moisture retention for enhanced agricultural sustainability.

2.4 Wind speed and rainfall patterns

Agrivoltaic systems alter local microclimate conditions, particularly affecting wind speed and precipitation patterns beneath and around solar panel installations. Research has demonstrated that AV systems create substantial wind sheltering effects. Vertical agrivoltaic configurations showed the most pronounced impacts on wind speed reduction, which enhanced crop yields in wind-exposed regions of Northern Europe (Honningdalsnes et al., 2025). Wind speed affects both system cooling and plant microclimate; moderate winds can lower panel and canopy temperatures (Deline et al., 2010), whereas high winds pose structural risks and require robust mounting designs. Although quantitative data remain limited, these variables play a significant role in shaping the microenvironment under agrivoltaics and warrant further investigation (Marrou et al., 2013b). Computational fluid dynamics modeling has revealed complex interactions between solar panels and atmospheric conditions, showing that panel configurations directly influence wind flow patterns and turbulence in the understory environment (Zainali et al., 2023).

Empirical field studies provide growing evidence of wind attenuation beneath agrivoltaic systems. Disciglio et al. (2023) reported reduced air movement under dynamic agrivoltaic installations, inferred from consistently lower air and infrared leaf temperatures in permanently shaded zones compared with intermittently shaded and full-sun areas. Similarly, field characterization of both vertical and tilted agrivoltaic systems documented pronounced differences in wind velocity profiles across panel orientations and spacing configurations, highlighting the sensitivity of airflow patterns to system design (Victoria et al., 2025). The effects of co-locating photovoltaic (PV) panels with aromatic crops including thyme, oregano, and Greek mountain tea were investigated under hot and dry conditions at an Enel Green Power PV plant in Greece (Fagnano et al., 2024). Their findings showed that net radiation and wind speed in the testing area (the corridors between two modules rows) were reduced by 44% and 38%, respectively, relative to the control, indicating substantial microclimatic effects induced by the PV structures.

Recent evidence from a grapevine agrivoltaic system under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions clearly demonstrates that crop responses are driven by complex radiation and wind-mediated microclimatic modifications rather than by light reduction alone (Magarelli et al., 2025a). The study reported significant alterations in wind regimes beneath the panels, characterized by reduced wind speed, increased calm periods, and strong nighttime cooling effects, which interacted with radiation changes to influence vapor pressure deficit, leaf temperature, and plant water status. These wind speed effects combined with radiation interactions contributed to improved midday water status, altered diurnal gas exchange dynamics, and modified yield components, highlighting that agrivoltaic effects on crop physiology and productivity arise from integrated microclimatic regulation rather than shading intensity (Magarelli et al., 2025a). Together, these findings demonstrate that agrivoltaic impacts on crop physiology and productivity arise from integrated regulation of wind and radiation rather than from shading intensity alone, underscoring the need to explicitly consider airflow dynamics in agrivoltaic system design.

The microclimate modifications extend beyond wind effects to influence water availability and distribution, as agrivoltaic systems alter rainfall interception and redistribution patterns, affecting soil moisture dynamics and evapotranspiration rates (Paschalis et al., 2025). Rainfall contributes to natural cleaning of panel surfaces, improving light transmission and reducing dust accumulation on PV modules (Kimber et al., 2006; Diniz et al., 2014), while prolonged cloudy or rainy periods can modify the shading-light balance experienced by crops.

Different studies have shown that these microclimate changes, including modified wind speeds and altered precipitation, can be both beneficial and challenging depending on crop requirements and system design (Jung et al., 2023). Advanced modeling approaches combining computational fluid dynamics, radiative transfer models, and plant growth models have been developed to capture the intricate interactions between solar panels, atmospheric conditions, soil moisture, and plant responses in agrivoltaic configurations (Vernier et al., 2025). Recent studies have revealed trade-offs in agrivoltaic system design, where microclimate modifications affecting wind speed, temperature, and water availability must be balanced against impacts on crop physiology, yield outcomes, and canopy thermal characteristics (Hassanpour Adeh et al., 2018). The ecohydrological dynamics in agrivoltaic grassland systems demonstrate that wind speed reduction and precipitation redistribution work synergistically to control vegetation growth patterns, soil water retention, and overall ecosystem functioning (Paschalis et al., 2025). Field investigations in temperate climates have further explored the meteorological dimensions of vertical agrivoltaics, documenting how these systems modify not only wind patterns but also precipitation access, humidity levels, and the overall water balance in agricultural landscapes (Victoria et al., 2025).

3 Impact on plant performance

Agrivoltaic systems impact plant growth and productivity by modifying the accessibility of light, temperature, and soil moisture (Turan, 2021). Although solar panels can provide relief from excessive heat and decrease water loss through transpiration, they can also hinder the overall photosynthetic activity and growth rate of plants, especially if the shade is too intense (Kadowaki et al., 2012; Poorter et al., 2019; Yajima et al., 2023; Figure 4).

Moreover, the impact of agrivoltaics on agricultural productivity might vary based on various aspects, such as crop type, panel orientation, and the agronomic practices utilized for crop and pest management (Touil et al., 2021). While some studies have reported a modest decrease in yield under agrivoltaic conditions, others have demonstrated similar or even greater yields compared to traditional open-field cultivation (Trommsdorff et al., 2021; Weselek et al., 2021). In arid and semi-arid regions, agrivoltaics systems have demonstrated potential for conserving soil moisture and regulating extreme temperatures, creating a more favorable microclimatic environment for drought sensitive crops, such as wheat (Pataczek et al., 2023). This leads to improved water-use efficiency, particularly under conditions of water-limited environments (Schweiger and Pataczek, 2023; Wydra et al., 2023). In the context of horticultural crops, particularly berry production, solar panels can reduce the need for plastic foils and hail nets, which are traditionally used to protect crops from hail, frost, and sunburn (Giri et al., 2023; Wydra et al., 2023).

Implementation of precision agriculture practices, specifically efficient shade control, emerges as critical factors influencing crop quality and yield consistency under agrivoltaics (Leon and Ishihara, 2018; Sekiyama, 2019; Cuppari et al., 2021). As research continues to evolve, integrating such adaptive management strategies will be crucial for aligning crop improvement and energy production goals, particularly in the face of climate variability and resource constraints.

3.1 Physiological impacts

3.1.1 Photosynthesis

The presence of solar panels can significantly impact the process of photosynthesis in plants growing underneath them (Al Mamun et al., 2022; Figure 4). While solar panels provide clean energy, they can also cast shadows and reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the plants below (Klokov et al., 2023), which can ultimately affect the rate of photosynthesis. Additionally, some studies suggested that certain types of solar panels can alter the light spectrum that reaches the plants (Katul, 2023). Changes in the light spectrum may influence the plant’s ability to optimally carry out photosynthesis (Klokov et al., 2023). However, it is worth noting that the specific impact on photosynthesis depends on various factors including plant selection, the design of the solar panel installation, and the amount of shading caused by the panels (Katul, 2023). For instance, shade-sensitive crops such as rice and soybean (Glycine max L.) exhibited lower photosynthetic efficiency and yield reductions of 13-30% and 18-20%, respectively, when grown under agrivoltaic systems compared to control plots (Lee et al., 2023). In sweet corn (Zea mays subsp. Mays), a 50% shade (nested design) treatment reduced plant height stem diameter and photosynthetic rate, particularly in genotypes with low shade tolerance, likely due to diminished chlorophyll content and light intensity (Susanti et al., 2023). Photosynthesis was diminished when kiwifruit plants were subjected to higher levels of shade, resulting in a decrease in yield ranging from 26% to 39% (Jiang et al., 2022; Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Physiological alterations in different crop plants under agrivoltaics systems (AV).

Apple trees exhibited an 18% decline in photosynthetic activity when exposed to irradiances exceeding 1000 μmol/m²/s (Juillion et al., 2024; Table 2). In wine grapes, photosynthetic activity decreased by 40% in the morning but increased later in the day, reaching its peak around midday (Ferrara et al., 2023). Shading protects from excessive radiation, resulting in greater grape performance at midday compared to plants exposed to full sunlight. Similarly, Loik et al. (2017) observed that shading from PV covering significantly reduced photosynthesis and WUE in tomato plants. Another study on soybean crops found that AV-generated shade improved growth and maintained photosynthetic potential in certain genotypes (Potenza et al., 2022).

At the physiological level, the effects of shading on photochemical processes can be captured through chlorophyll fluorescence parameters such as electron transport rate (ETR) and non-photochemical quenching (NPQ). In soybean and rice, ETR did not differ significantly across different AV treatments; however, photosynthetic rates declined overall under shaded conditions due to increased NPQ, indicating inefficient energy utilization and stress responses in the light-harvesting complexes (Cho et al., 2021).

The Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) index, which exhibits a strong correlation with leaf chlorophyll concentration and quantifies photosynthetic capacity, has demonstrated stable or elevated values in some crops (Kapotis et al., 2003; Netto et al., 2005). In various leafy vegetables such as komatsuna (Brassica rapa L. var. perviridis group cv. natsurakuten), kabu (Brassica rapa L. Rapifera Group cv. CR Yukibana) and mizuna mustard (Brassica rapa L. Japonica Group cv. kyoshigure), the SPAD values were highest in control, while under solar panels there was no significant difference across treatments (Kirimura et al., 2022). Since chlorophyll content is a critical determinant of photosynthetic capacity, stable or elevated SPAD values imply that photosynthesis was likely unaffected or potentially optimized under these conditions in these crops. Reduced solar radiation might have mitigated excessive light stress, while the cooler microclimate may have enhanced photosynthetic efficiency by preventing heat stress, creating conditions beneficial for sustained or improved photosynthetic performance (Kirimura et al., 2022). Although lettuce was also evaluated in the above study, the trends in SPAD values were less pronounced in lettuce. Similarly, Jeong et al. (2022) observed that rice plants under agrivoltaic conditions exhibited increased chlorophyll content and SPAD values; however, leaf thickness was reduced compared to control. These adaptations were linked to changes in light quality and quantity, suggesting a complex photomorphogenic adjustment. Although the presence of solar panels might decrease direct sunlight exposure and potentially hinder photosynthetic activity by casting shade, it also helps to regulate temperature extremes and conserve water, which can have a positive impact on plant growth (Juillion et al., 2024). Emerging technologies (e.g., semi-transparent, spectrally selective photovoltaic modules) can enhance crop yields by allowing specific wavelengths of light to penetrate, which can be beneficial for photosynthesis (Zotti et al., 2024). This technology has been shown to provide a photo-protective effect, promoting plant growth under excessive light conditions. For instance, the net photosynthetic rate under SPM (semi-transparent photovoltaic shading) was consistently higher than that under TPM (traditional photovoltaic shading with no light) in soybean, due to the influence on the photosynthetic rate by solar irradiance (Hu et al., 2024).

Some research findings also indicated that optimizing the light spectrum transmitted through PV cells can maximize photosynthesis, particularly by targeting red-light wavelengths, which are more effective for certain crops (Katul, 2023). Although agrivoltaic systems can reduce photosynthetic efficiency due to shading, they also offer innovative solutions to optimize light quality and enhance crop resilience, suggesting a complex interplay between light management and agricultural productivity (Yajima et al., 2023). This raises important questions about the relationship between photosynthesis and shade avoidance/tolerance in plants. Specifically, could signals generated by reduced photosynthesis influence or regulate shade avoidance/tolerance responses? How does microclimate shift affect the balance between photosynthesis and water loss at biochemical levels across different crop species? Understanding these interactions is essential for optimizing crop adaptation and productivity under solar panels.

3.1.2 Water-use efficiency

Agrivoltaic systems are anticipated to significantly enhance (WUE) in agricultural environments through microclimatic alterations (Gorjian et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2022; Omer et al., 2022). The partial shading provided by solar panels may lower crop transpiration rates and improve soil moisture retention, leading to more efficient water use, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Giudice et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2022; Chamara et al., 2023; Roxani et al., 2023; Warmann et al., 2024). In lettuce, the reduction in crop evapotranspiration (AET) by 10-30% in agrivoltaic systems suggests that the presence of solar panels influenced the amount of water transpired by the plants significantly (Marrou et al., 2013b; Figure 4). These effects were pronounced when the available light in agrivoltaic systems was maintained at 50-70% of full-sun radiation. Notably, seasonal variability modulated these effects, implying that the impact of agrivoltaics on WUE is climate dependent (Ersoy et al., 2021). Further, Marrou et al. (2013a) demonstrated that despite reduced soil water potential and soil moisture gradient beneath the panels, final fresh weight in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and lettuce increased. In addition, cucumber and lettuce grown under solar panels exhibited a higher rate of leaf canopy expansion associated with decreased evaporation, which could contribute to improved crop growth. Similarly, Giudice et al. (2021) observed that lettuce under solar panels required significantly less irrigation than full-sun controls, further supporting the fact that agrivoltaics reduce water input requirements while maintaining crop viability. These findings support the hypothesis that shading from solar panels can lead to microclimatic modifications (e.g., reduced radiation and temperature) that lower water demand while still supporting or even enhancing crop productivity, key indicators of improved WUE (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019).

Similar results were obtained by Ravi et al. (2014) on agave (Agave americana L.) plants, where water utilization was more efficient beneath solar panels. Jiang et al. (2022) investigated the impact of varying PV shading densities (19%, 30% and 38%) on growth, yield, and water productivity, respectively, of kiwifruit under a south-facing agrivoltaic system (Table 2). Although increased shading improved RH and reduced air temperature, it also resulted in lower transpiration and photosynthetic rates, indicating a physiological trade-off between water conservation and photosynthetic efficiency.

Research conducted by Juillion et al. (2022) examined the impact of variable shade on apple trees and observed that AV induced shading led to an average air temperature reduction of 3.8 °C with a 14% increase in RH. These microclimatic modifications correspond to a 6-31% decrease in irrigation demand, a direct indicator of water-use efficiency (Table 1). Similarly, Warmann et al. (2024) highlighted that agrivoltaics can reduce irrigation needs by 30-40%, depending on local climate. Further, they also observed that higher air temperature under the array leads to a drop in water savings by 3% while water-savings rise by 3% for each degree decrease in air temperature.

Although numerous studies have examined the impact of agrivoltaic systems on WUE, several critical questions remain unanswered. How does shading from solar panels influence the biochemical mechanisms that regulate WUE in crop plants? What role do osmolytes, antioxidant enzymes and stomatal behavior play in mediating plant responses to reduced light or evapotranspiration? Can changes in panel orientation or system design optimize these responses to improve water conservation without compromising productivity. Addressing these questions is essential for developing resilient and water-efficient agrivoltaic systems.

3.2 Biochemical and metabolic impacts

As a wide array of research on agrivoltaic systems has primarily focused on crop growth and yields, significantly less attention has been given to biochemical and associated metabolomic changes, highlighting an interesting research gap in literature (Moon and Ku, 2023). There is limited data available on crop quality, as well as biochemical and metabolomic alterations (Moon and Ku, 2022). Emerging research has begun exploring the impacts of shading on plant metabolites under solar panels (Figure 4). One such study was done in green tea (Camellia sinensis L.) leaves, where shading treatment increased the amino acid content (e.g., theanine), and reduced the content of bitter-tasting compounds like caffeine and catechin in leaves (Ku et al., 2010). Similarly, shading has been found to influence various biochemical components, including 5-oxoproline content and modified amino acid composition, particularly elevated aspartic acid content (Unno et al., 2020). The altered metabolic processes in tea leaves grown under solar panels indicated that shading has broader effects on the biochemical pathways within the plants (Unno et al., 2020).

A study conducted by Moon and Ku (2023) compared the cultivation of “Winter Storm” cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) under solar panels (AV conditions) and in an open field. Although glucosinolates level and their hydrolysis products in the fresh cabbage were not significantly different between the two conditions, the juice extracted from cabbages grown under open-field conditions showed higher amounts of volatile organic compounds compared to the cabbages grown under solar panel conditions. A recent study by Chae et al. (2022) reported that additional shading under AV systems led to greener broccoli and greater consumer preference compared to open-field broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica), although no significant difference was observed in yield, antioxidant capacity and key metabolites like glucosinolates. Further research by Moon and Ku (2023) assessed the visual characteristics, metabolites, and yield of broccoli during the fall growing season cultivated under an agrivoltaic system, supplemented with a polyethylene shading curtain. In the spring, a cultivar that does not produce anthocyanins was included in the study. Regardless of cultivar, broccoli florets showed increased chlorophyll content, while anthocyanin and glucosinolate content decreased (roughly 20% of that obtained in open fields). Further, additional shading treatment increased the aspartic acid content, suggesting metabolic changes induced by the cultivation method (Table 3). These findings are of particular interest to farmers and policymakers pursuing sustainable agriculture, as they demonstrate potential quality improvements without compromising essential crop characteristics. A field experiment investigated the influence of panel-generated shade on chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) crop production (Semeraro et al., 2024). The study assessed various parameters related to food quality (e.g., leaf water content, chlorophylls a and b, carotenoids, metabolite profile, and antioxidant capacity). The shading system did not compromise the quality of chicory for human consumption, indicating that the shaded chicory retained its nutritional and health-promoting attributes (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Impact of agrivoltaic (AV) on plant metabolites.

A three-year study (2017-2019) evaluated the effects of photovoltaic panels on grapevine cultivar “Corvina” in Italy (Ferrara et al., 2023). The researchers observed a significant reduction in anthocyanins, total soluble solids (TSS), and polyphenols content in grape clusters produced under solar panels compared to fruit collected from vines grown in open-field conditions (Table 3). Fruit color, influenced by compounds such as anthocyanins, carotenoids, and polyphenols, is particularly sensitive to environmental changes (Juillion et al., 2023). In two South Korean trials, slight shading delayed grape cluster pigmentation by 10- days due to reduced radiation and temperature (Cho et al., 2020; Ahn et al., 2022). Similarly, apples and grapes in Mediterranean locations exhibited a greener color at the time of harvest under shading (Ferrara et al., 2023; Juillion et al., 2023; Table 3).

In a study where shade levels exceed 30% and typical opaque PV modules were used, negative effects on starch, total soluble sugars, and titratable acidity were observed in several crops. Specifically, there was a drop in the accumulation of starch and sugar, as well as a decrease in the sugar/acid ratio in grapes and apples (Ferrara et al., 2023; Juillion et al., 2023). These declines likely resulted from reduced carbon assimilation and consequent suppression of starch and sugar biosynthesis, leading to lower sugar to acid ratios (Juillion et al., 2023). Moreover, decreased carbon fixation and allocation have a remarkable impact on harvest quality indicators, such as kiwi fruit volume (Jiang et al., 2022). Further, certain types of berry fruits, such as raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.) and blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.), are suitable for growing in areas with more shade as these fruits can preserve their desired quality characteristics and produce satisfactory yields under low-light conditions (Dupraz, 2024).

Although research in this area is still emerging, more studies are needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the interactions between solar panels and plant metabolism (Jiang et al., 2022). Further, evaluation of key biochemical parameters such as antioxidant activity, osmolyte accumulation, carbohydrate metabolism and nutrient assimilation are essential for assessing crop responses to altered environments in agrivoltaics systems. These indicators support the development of targeted strategies for optimizing crop productivity and improving overall efficiency and sustainability of agrivoltaics systems.

3.3 Yield and biomass

Solar radiation is a primary determinant of crop biomass, quality and yield output (Abbate et al., 1997), with overall productivity dependent on the crop capacity to intercept incoming solar radiation (Prakash et al., 2023). A decrease in solar radiation and alteration in its spectral composition can substantially impact yield and productivity of crops (Klokov et al., 2023; Prakash et al., 2023; Figure 4). Moreover, the quantity of light accessible for plant growth also directly influences the potential productivity of crops (Mkhabela et al., 2018; Mina et al., 2019).

The installation of photovoltaic panels resulted in shading of the crops grown underneath the array (Pascaris et al., 2020), thereby reducing the availability of PAR, ultimately affecting yield and overall crop productivity (Kadowaki et al., 2012; Poorter et al., 2019; Manoj et al., 2021; Figure 4). Insufficient light during the vegetative stage reduced the biomass and the economic yield by affecting the source strength, which in turn limited photosynthetic capacity, and assimilates availability (Prakash et al., 2023). Conversely, shading during the reproductive stage primarily affected sink capacity affecting components such as the number of spikelets per spike, grains per spike, and harvest index as observed in wheat (Acreche et al., 2009; Prakash et al., 2023). This section reviews the impact of agrivoltaics on vegetable crops, cereals and pulses, and fruit crops, especially in terms of crop yield and biomass.

3.3.1 Vegetable crops

Recent research on vegetable crops grown under agrivoltaics demonstrates a spectrum of responses in terms of yield and productivity. For instance, lettuce grown under solar panels showed variable or no significant changes in yield (Ravishankar et al., 2021). In contrast, potatoes demonstrated promising results in a two-year study conducted in southwest Germany, with yields surpassing the national average (Weselek et al., 2021). The performance of sweet peppers (Capsicum annuum L.), broccoli, and cabbage was also favorable under agrivoltaics, while garlic, onion, spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), and sun-loving basil showed decreased yield (Widmer et al., 2024). In broccoli, yield parameters such as head weight, stem thickness, and stem height, were not substantially different between open-field and AV, indicating that broccoli produced under solar panels could retain commercially important characteristics (Chae et al., 2022). Similarly, the harvest of cabbage cultivated in open fields was 100%, while the cabbage grown under agrivoltaics yielded 90% (Moon and Ku, 2022; Table 4). Further, there was a notable variation in the yield outcomes of garlic (Allium sativum L.) and onion (Allium cepa L.) grown under solar panels for two consecutive seasons (Jo et al., 2022). In the 2018–2019 growing season, the yield indices for garlic and onion under agrivoltaic systems were 79% and 81%, respectively. These values increased to 83% for garlic and 91% for onion in 2019-2020 (Jo et al., 2022). These results indicate that the harvested yields under the AV system were approximately 19% lower for garlic and 9% for onion, compared to open-field cultivation. Despite these reductions, the yield remained relatively high, demonstrating the potential viability of AV systems for bulb crops with minimal compromise in productivity.

Table 4

Table 4. Impact of agrivoltaics/photovoltaic modules on yield and biomass of different crop plants.

In another study, yield and biomass for basil grown under AV were similar to open-field basil; however, spinach had a 26% decrease in biomass (AV vs. open field) (Thompson et al., 2020). Research on winter crops, such as komatsuna, kabu, mizuna, and spinach, under solar panels showed significant reduction in solar radiation and altered air and soil temperatures (Kirimura et al., 2022). Nonetheless, these crops maintained acceptable yield and quality levels, suggesting potential for sustainable integration of food and energy. In a German case study, yield of potato and celery decreased almost 20% in the first year and more than 10% in second year under agrivoltaics (Trommsdorff et al., 2021; Table 4). The outcomes are explained in the context of specific weather conditions, highlighting that shading can lead to yield decline when light availability is below the saturation point, but shading may have a positive impact during periods of drought and high temperature stress. Further studies on chicory indicated that AV-generated shade can significantly increase edible biomass, particularly under varying irrigation regimes, while enhancing yield (Semeraro et al., 2024). Variable responses were reported for tomatoes with some studies indicating increased production despite reduced light, while others noted lower yields or changes in color (Mohammedi et al., 2023). A study on cherry tomatoes in a Mediterranean environment demonstrated that 50% shading under AV reduced yields below profitable levels (Cossu et al., 2014). In contrast, fixed solar panels with 9.8% shading showed no significant impact on tomato yield or quality (Aroca-Delgado et al., 2018). Further, Lopez-Diaz et al. (2020) found that up to 30% shading had minimal effect on tomato yield; however, an increase in shading led to decline in both yield and fruit quality. Interestingly, solar panels reduced fruit size but improved certain fruit quality attributes, such as titratable acidity, which is closely correlated with fruit flavor as reported in tomato (Mohammedi et al., 2023). Above research findings on vegetable crops highlight the challenges of cultivating shade-intolerant crops under agrivoltaics in a Mediterranean climate, while dry tropical conditions may offer more favorable prospects for crop production.

3.3.2 Cereals and pulses

While many agrivoltaic studies may focus on vegetable crops, concerns about food insecurity often revolve around staple crops like maize, rice, and grains (Sarr et al., 2023). These crops are fundamental to global food security as they constitute the primary sources of calories for a significant portion of the world’s population (Fischer et al., 2023).

A recent agrivoltaic study conducted in South Korea examined the response of maize to varying shading levels under an agrivoltaic system (Kim and Kim, 2023). The findings revealed that maize yield improved under moderate shading of up to 21.3%, but declined under higher shade intensities, suggesting a complex relationship between light exposure and crop productivity. The results were consistent with maize yields grown in Japan, where researchers identified optimal light saturation levels and reduced soil evaporation as key factors contributing to improved maize performance in AV environments. However, under combined stress conditions, specifically, limited light under AV and water availability, maize exhibited significant reductions in leaf area index, total dry matter accumulation, and grain yield (Ramos-Fuentes et al., 2023).

In the context of rice cultivation, a study by Gonocruz et al. (2021) demonstrated that rice yield could be maintained at 80% of conventional levels under shading intensities ranging from 27%-39%. Further, implementation of agrivoltaic systems at a panel coverage density of 28% in rice fields was projected to contribute up to 29% of Japan national electricity demand based on 2018 energy consumption data (Gonocruz et al., 2021). This highlights the potential for agrivoltaic systems to play a role in addressing energy needs while supporting agricultural productivity. Long-term field studies (2018-2023) in rice revealed that yield reductions under agrivoltaic systems were predominantly associated with declines in aboveground biomass and panicle numbers (Thum et al., 2025). Over a six-year period, grain yield in rice was significantly lower under the agrivoltaic system in 4 out of 6 years, with an average reduction of 23% compared to open-field control.

Soyabean responses to agrivoltaic conditions were also investigated by Potenza et al. (2022) who assessed the impact of different shade levels (29%, 18%, 16%, and 9%) generated by solar panels on the growth, physiology, and yield of soybean crops. The average grain yield and the number of pods per plant declined by 8% and 13%, respectively, under agrivoltaic conditions. However, one agrivoltaic site (AV2) exhibited a localized increase in grain yield by 4.4% compared to full light conditions, suggesting that microclimate and management factors may alter agrivoltaic outcomes. In pulses like green gram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek), areas under solar panels showed higher biomass (90% increase in biomass); yield was reduced compared to control (Modi and Patel, 2024).

3.3.3 Fruit crops

While research on agrivoltaic systems on fruit crops, including berries, may be limited, researchers are increasingly recognizing the potential benefits of integrating solar panels with fruit crops (Widmer et al., 2024). A Chinese study demonstrated that rooftop-grown strawberries (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.), benefited from shade provided by organic photovoltaic (OPV) panels, which resulted in improved fruit quality and yield compared to shading from silicon-based panels (Tang et al., 2019). Similarly, Mupambi et al. (2021) showed that moderate shading had a greater detrimental impact on cranberry productivity compared to control.

Grapevines have been widely studied under agrivoltaics, particularly in Italy. Ferrara et al. (2023) observed a 15% reduction in grape yield when shading from solar panels exceeded 60%, although reduced fruit drop events were also noted under moderate shading, possibly due to small cluster sizes. Further, Lavado et al. (2023) found that reductions in grape sugar content and yield under agrivoltaic conditions could be mitigated by delaying harvest by 1–2 weeks. Additionally, this strategy (i.e., adjustment of harvesting time) may lead to an increase in the market price of goods delivered outside the typical high-offer interval as well as a decrease in the price of crop harvesting and transportation outside of the period of peak demand for equipment and labor (Toledo and Scognamiglio, 2021; Lavado et al., 2023). In contrast, Magarelli et al. (2025a), Magarelli et al. (2025b)) showed that shade heterogeneity created by photovoltaic panels, with an average light reduction of approximately 50%, resulted in a significant increase in yield at harvest compared with full-sun vines. This yield enhancement was primarily driven by a higher number of clusters per vine and increased cluster weight, largely attributable to greater berry weight under shaded conditions. Despite these advances, comparable studies examining the effects of severe shading levels on other fruit species remain limited (Magarelli et al., 2024).

The use of semitransparent or partially opaque PV modules, imposing lower shading rates has been associated with less yield reductions of approximately 29% in apples and kiwifruit (Jiang et al., 2022; Juillion et al., 2024). However, performance under these conditions varies depending on species and shade intensity. When shading remains in the low to moderate range (up to 30%), crops such as apple, grape and pears (Pyrus communis L.) generally sustain stable yields or experience only minor reductions (up to 5%), with minimal impact on key quality parameters (Ahn et al., 2022; Ferrara et al., 2023; Warmann et al., 2024), ensuring a satisfactory level of marketable production for farmers. In contrast, excessive shading levels (>60%) result in more pronounced reductions in fruit size, biomass and quality as reported in strawberry and wine grapes (Hermelink et al., 2024; Magarelli et al., 2024), although variability in results across studies is notable. According to an estimating model, pear orchards outperformed, with just a 16% yield drop projected under AV conditions (Willockx et al., 2024).

Another study conducted by Laub et al. (2022) focused on developing crop-specific yield response curves and suggested a nonlinear relationship between achieved crop yields and the reduction in solar radiation. The results indicated that berries, fruits, and fruity vegetables benefited from a reduction in solar radiation by up to 30%, while maize and grain legumes experienced strong crop yield losses even at low shade levels (Laub et al., 2022) The detailed yield response curves presented in the study can be valuable tools for optimizing the output of annual crop traits under agrivoltaic systems.

4 Molecular responses of crops under agrivoltaics

While multiple studies have explored the physiological and biochemical impacts of agrivoltaics on crops, a significant knowledge gap remains in understanding the molecular responses of crops under these conditions (Figure 4). The dynamic and heterogeneous microclimate beneath solar panels could lead to unique gene expression patterns, signaling pathways activation, protein activities, and metabolite profiles that differ from those induced by natural shading. Despite altered environmental modifications induced by agrivoltaic systems such as reduced PAR, temperature fluctuations, changes in humidity and soil moisture, and abiotic stress episodes (Amaducci et al., 2018; Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Weselek et al., 2021; Wydra et al., 2023; Magarelli et al., 2024; Nasukawa et al., 2025), there is limited research applying multi-omics approaches to evaluate crop response to these changes.

Temperature is a pivotal environmental factor that, together with light, alters plant growth, development and metabolic regulation (Han et al., 2024). These two environmental factors typically exhibit a strong positive correlation under natural conditions: high light levels coincide with elevated temperatures, while shading is often associated with a cooler microclimate (Legris et al., 2019; Qi et al., 2022). However, AV disrupts this natural correlation by introducing partial shading, which reduces incident light while also modifying thermal conditions below the panel array. This decoupling of light and temperature presents a complex signaling environment for plants, necessitating integrated responses across photoreceptors and thermosensory networks (Jung et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022). Such integration is crucial for regulating key developmental processes including crop phenology, flowering time, fruit development, and stress resilience (Han et al., 2024). Hence, dissecting the crosstalk between light and temperature signaling pathways at the molecular level is essential for optimizing plant performance and ensuring agronomic sustainability under agrivoltaic conditions.

Recent transcriptomic studies under semi-transparent organic solar cells (ST-OSCs) provides essential insights into molecular response of crops to altered light environments (Charles et al., 2023). In experiments involving lettuce and tomato, gene expression profiling revealed that spectral modifications through ST-OSCs showed differential expression of key regulatory genes, suggesting that light quality can influence developmental processes such as flowering and fruit development (Charles et al., 2023). These gene expression shifts have potential economic implications: for instance, early flowering in lettuce can hamper market quality, while enhanced fruit development in tomatoes can improve yields. Such findings underscore the capacity of transcriptomic analyses to reveal emergent traits that may not be immediately visible in phenotype and may provide benefits under agrivoltaic systems, where the light spectrum is similarly altered due to shading.

Another important aspect of agrivoltaic induced microclimate alteration is its potential to alleviate drought stress by reducing solar radiation (Montanaro et al., 2009). This partial shading reduces evapotranspiration rates and can control the intensity of drought episodes particularly in arid and semi-arid regions (Pataczek et al., 2023). Drought stress is known to trigger a significant increase in abscisic acid (ABA), a hormone that regulates key stress responses such as stomatal closure and root growth modulation (Han et al., 2024). Interestingly, light and ABA signaling pathways are highly interconnected and often antagonistic (Li et al., 2012; Lin and Tang, 2014). Under agrivoltaic systems, where light intensity is reduced but not eliminated, plants may experience a unique balance in these regulatory pathways. This dual modulation by both light perception and water availability may attenuate stress response, optimizing resource allocations towards plant growth rather than defense (Peng et al., 2022; Qi et al., 2022). Moderate shading could reduce drought-induced ABA accumulation by maintaining better hydration status, while also altering light signals in ways that co-ordinate with ABA responsiveness (Lin and Tang, 2014). These factors can significantly influence transcriptional regulation of drought-responsive and water-use efficiency-related genes. Hence, characterizing differential expressions of these genes and understanding molecular pathways regulating light-ABA signaling and stomatal control under agrivoltaic specific microclimates is critical not only for energy co-production but also as a strategic tool for climate-resilient agriculture.

To advance understanding of crop adaptation under agrivoltaic systems on molecular level, several critical questions require investigation. For example, how do species-specific molecular responses vary under the decoupled light and temperature conditions characteristic of agrivoltaic environments? What are the key photoreceptors, thermo-sensors, and hormonal pathways involved, and how do they interact at the transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic levels? Furthermore, can light-ABA crosstalk be strategically modulated to enhance resilience under low light conditions without compromising productivity? Addressing these questions through integrated multi-omics approaches will be essential for identifying molecular markers and guiding the development of cultivars resilient to agrivoltaic environment. Future research should prioritize the application of these integrated omics tools to elucidate the molecular responses of crops in agrivoltaic environment, thereby bridging this critical knowledge gap and supporting more informed crop selection and management strategies in dual-use agricultural landscapes (Figure 2).

5 Considerations for growing crops under agrivoltaic systems

5.1 Selecting suitable crops

Despite the growing interest in agrivoltaic systems as a sustainable approach for crop production and renewable energy together, several critical research gaps remain. One of the foremost challenges is crop selection, as the intermittent shading imposed by solar panels creates microclimatic conditions that are unsuitable for many traditional crops (Elamri et al., 2018; Cuppari et al., 2021; Riaz et al., 2022). While shade-tolerant species offer promise, comprehensive, region-specific agronomic data are lacking, limiting the ability to generalize optimal crop-panel combinations (Chopdar et al., 2024). The primary consideration for selecting suitable crops is the reduction in light availability for crops beneath the panels which can significantly impact plant physiological processes such as photosynthesis, leaf area expansion, biomass accumulation and yield (Yajima et al., 2023). Key parameters to consider include crop shade tolerance, water requirements, irrigation strategy, crop height, growth duration, and crop rotation (Laub et al., 2022). Agronomically, heavy shade (less than 75% of natural radiation levels) generally diminishes plant performance, although comprehensive data on the shade tolerance of most crop species remains limited (Perna et al., 2019).

Certain crops have been identified as more adaptable to agrivoltaics due to their inherent shade tolerance and their ability to benefit from protective effects of solar panels (Santiteerakul et al., 2020; Macknick et al., 2022). A wide variety of crops have been studied in combination with agrivoltaic systems, including cereals such as wheat (Marrou et al., 2013a; Schindele et al., 2020) and corn (Grubbs et al., 2020), rice (Gonocruz et al., 2021), legumes like soybean (Potenza et al., 2022), and root crops such as potato (Yajima et al., 2023). Perennial crops including grape (Ferrara et al., 2023) as well as vegetables like lettuce (Elamri et al., 2018), basil and spinach (Thompson et al., 2020) even pasture crops have shown promising responses (Klokov et al., 2023). Despite this, few screening studies on crop tolerance to shade exist, making it challenging to recommend specific species that are particularly shade-adapted (Lytle et al., 2021).

Experimental studies demonstrate that certain crops, such as maize, experience significant reductions in biomass accumulation, leaf area, and overall yield under 50% shade (Amaducci et al., 2018), with similar findings for perennial crops like alfalfa (Qin et al., 2022). Furthermore, interactions between radiation stress and other limiting factors, such as thermal stress or photoinhibition, may exacerbate yield losses (Majumdar and Pasqualetti, 2018).

Interestingly, bananas (Musa acuminata L.) have been identified as a species capable of optimizing light use under high shade conditions, with an optimum shade level for maximizing photosynthetic productivity (Nurmas et al., 2021). Other resilient species include fruit trees, berries, tomatoes, sweet peppers, coffee (Coffea arabica L.), and ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) especially in specific high-altitude tropical or arid zones (Zainol Abidin et al., 2021). Selecting crops that are compatible with solar installation is therefore a pivotal factor influencing the overall effectiveness of dual-use agriculture systems (Cho et al., 2020).

Lettuce is mentioned as a suitable crop for agrivoltaics because it responds to shade by increasing leaf area to overcome the drawbacks associated with reduced sunlight (Tani et al., 2014; Elamri et al., 2018; Cossu et al., 2023). The increased leaf area is crucial for the plant’s productivity, making lettuce cultivars attractive for integration into agrivoltaic setups (Cossu et al., 2023). While long-term benefits may outweigh costs, the upfront expenses can be a barrier for some farmers. Not all crops are suitable for agrivoltaics, and careful consideration is needed in crop selection and management.

Shade-tolerant vegetables such as spinach and basil not only maintained their yield under agrivoltaic conditions but also contributed to synergistic increase in overall land productivity with 18% increase in crop yield and 13% increase in energy efficiency (Kumpanalaisatit et al., 2022). System-specific variables such as inter-row spacing also influence light distribution patterns and crop performance under agrivoltaics. For instance, a site-specific study conducted in Sweden showed that a row spacing of 9 meters was optimal for oats (Avena sativa L.), whereas 8.5 meters was more suitable for potatoes under agrivoltaics (Campana et al., 2021).

In Peru’s high Andean region, mungbean (Phaseoulus vulgaris L.) varieties Chaucha and Panamito showed strong adaptability to agrivoltaic systems (Gosgot Angeles et al., 2025). The Chaucha variety grown under bifacial panels with 25-cm spacing showed high yield (700.5 kg/ha) compared to conventional systems, highlighting potential for sustainable food and energy production in high solar radiation zones. Further, in tropical regions agrivoltaic installation in mungbean with west-east orientation showed comparable overall crop performance compared to control (Ukwu et al., 2025). Notably, two cultivars (Tvr28 and Tvr83) exhibited superior yield, underscoring the importance of cultivar selection. This study provides the first tropical specific data confirming that optimizing panel orientation can mitigate shading effects and enhance both crop productivity and energy efficiency.

Moreover, agrivoltaic systems offer additional resilience benefits by shielding crops against adverse weather conditions (Trommsdorff et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the capacity of many tropical crops to endure and adjust to low light levels remains poorly characterized, underscoring the need for more targeted agrivoltaic evaluations (Dinesh and Pearce, 2016). In addition, the height of the vegetation is a crucial factor as taller plants may require solar panels to be raised higher, impacting the structural design and integrity of the system (Riaz et al., 2022; Stehr et al., 2023).

To summarize, many challenges and complexities are associated with plant productivity under solar panels, especially concerning the effects of reduced light levels and potential interactions with other stress factors (Gnayem et al., 2024; Park et al., 2024; Widmer et al., 2024). Hence, the need for more research, particularly experimental evidence, is needed to better understand and recommend crops for adaptation to shade tolerance (Chopdar et al., 2024).

5.2 Agronomic practices

Agrivoltaic systems provide benefits by enhancing agricultural productivity and generating clean energy while mitigating competition for agricultural land (Liao et al., 2021; Gorjian et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022). The integration of AV techniques in landscapes where solar energy production coexists with agriculture (García-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Othman et al., 2020; Pascaris et al., 2021) can generate mutually reinforcing benefits, enhancing ecosystem services such as crop production (Aguilar et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017; Dos Santos, 2020), local climate regulation, water conservation, and renewable energy output (Agostini et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2024).

To ensure resource efficiency and sustained production, agronomic management in agrivoltaic systems must follow principles similar to those used in conventional agriculture (Zainol Abidin et al., 2021). This includes thorough site assessment, appropriate system design, strategic crop selection, effective soil and water management, proper nutrient application, pest and disease control, and regular solar panel maintenance, each of which is essential for maintaining resource efficiency, crop productivity, and optimal energy generation (Chopdar et al., 2024).

Effective agronomic management in AV systems begins with careful site selection and evaluation, followed by appropriate panel installation and strategic crop selection (Chopdar et al., 2024). Moreover, it is imperative to provide crops with precise irrigation and ensure regular cleaning of solar panels to maintain optimal energy production (Zainol Abidin et al., 2021). Effective pest and disease control employing cultural, biological, and chemical approaches is also an essential aspect of agronomic practices (Moswetsi et al., 2017). Considering this, crop rotation can be used as an effective way to guard against pests and diseases, optimize space and resources, and protect solar panels (Zainol Abidin et al., 2021). Frequent array maintenance keeps solar panels clean by clearing away dirt, dust, and debris, which increases the panels’ lifespan and maintains energy efficiency (Chopdar et al., 2024). Lastly, tracking crop development, soil moisture content, and solar panel effectiveness enables continuous system optimization (Chopdar et al., 2024).

As stated earlier, photosynthesis fundamentally relies on adequate light, carbon dioxide, and water availability to synthesize glucose, which serves as the primary energy source for plants (Zainol Abidin et al., 2021). However, to maximize the rate of photosynthesis, it is necessary to provide an optimal amount of irrigation water, assuming that the sources of light and carbon dioxide are not restricted (Pascaris et al., 2020). Therefore, areas with limited water resources are expected to be more suitable for agrivoltaics due to reduction in potential evapotranspiration and water demand (Hassanpour Adeh et al., 2018; Higgins and Abou Najm, 2020; Weselek et al., 2021). While the presence of panels can reduce evapotranspiration and lower overall water demand, ensuring adequate water supply remains vital to maintaining crop yields (Elamri et al., 2018; Patel et al., 2019; Riaz et al., 2022). Despite these potential benefits, there is a notable lack of systematic implementation and evaluation of water management strategies such as rainwater harvesting and frost mitigation systems in agrivoltaic systems (Chopdar et al., 2024). This gap is especially critical in regions facing irregular rainfall patterns, saline groundwater, or prolonged droughts, where such innovations could substantially enhance system resilience and agricultural productivity (Hernandez et al., 2019; Mavani et al., 2019).

Agricultural management, such as tillage and harvesting operations, can exacerbate dust deposition on panel surfaces, significantly reducing their electrical efficiency (Majumdar and Pasqualetti, 2018; Patel et al., 2019; Sekiyama, 2019). In regions experiencing limited rainfall or prolonged periods of dry weather, such as monsoon climates, it is advisable to implement regular solar panel cleaning regimens (Dinesh and Pearce, 2016). Integrating irrigation systems with panel cleaning processes offers a strategy to conserve water (Ravi et al., 2016), although the absence of targeted water distributors beneath the panels may cause uneven irrigation (Yu and Ko, 2021). Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly evaluate evapotranspiration, soil moisture profiles, and panel cleansing prior to irrigation system design (Ravi et al., 2016).

Due to the obstructions posed by solar panels, conventional tillage is often impractical, leading to the adoption of no-till or reduced-till practices (Weselek et al., 2019). These alternatives may significantly alter soil nutrient composition, microbial activity, and organic matter turnover, yet empirical data on these effects within agrivoltaic systems remain sparse (Hassanpour Adeh et al., 2018; Barron-Gafford et al., 2019). Consequently, nutrient management under AV systems must be carefully adapted, as altered microclimatic conditions particularly reduced solar radiation and heterogeneous soil moisture can significantly influence nutrient uptake, organic matter decomposition rates, and fertilizer use efficiency (Marrou et al., 2013a; Hassanpour Adeh et al., 2018). Furthermore, the spatially variable shading induced by solar panels often results in uneven crop growth and development, necessitating site-specific nutrient application strategies to prevent localized nutrient deficiencies or over fertilization (Sekiyama and Nagashima, 2019; Weselek et al., 2019). Collectively, these challenges underscore the importance of developing integrated nutrient management practices unique to microclimatic conditions under agrivoltaic systems.

6 Water-energy-food nexus under agrivoltaics: integrated resource management

Renewable energies are becoming progressively vital in addressing the issue of climate change (Mehta et al., 2024). Their advancement and extensive application can substantially diminish greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and assist in alleviating the impacts of climate change (Liao et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2023). Agrivoltaics presents a unique opportunity for simultaneous transition to a renewable energy (RE) system, transforming the agri-food sector contributing to the achievement of a “net-zero” carbon economy (Zheng et al., 2024). Additionally, placing solar panels above agricultural fields circumvents the conflict between solar energy production and agricultural land utilization (Omer et al., 2022). This may potentially alleviate the effects of climate change on agricultural productivity, anticipated to decline due to a warmer and drier future environment (Mehta et al., 2024).

To effectively transition towards clean, affordable energy systems, it is essential to understand the intricate connections between water, energy and food resources (Wagner et al., 2023; Widmer et al., 2024). Climate change intensifies water stress, alters growing seasons, and exacerbates extreme events such as droughts, all of which undermine water and food security (IPCC, 2022; FAO, 2022). The Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus framework offers a holistic approach to manage these interconnected challenges, emphasizing opportunities to enhance synergies and minimizes trade-offs between essential resources (Terrapon-Pfaff et al., 2018; Srigiri and Dombrowsky, 2022). Agrivoltaics naturally align with the WEF Nexus by simultaneously influencing water availability, energy production, and food output.

Decentralized solar electricity is emerging as a cost-effective solution to fulfill energy requirements and is pivotal in realizing the objectives of the WEF Nexus (Trommsdorff et al., 2021). In agrivoltaic systems, solar panels not only generate electricity but also provide shade for crops, reducing water evaporation and consequently lowering irrigation requirements (Omer et al., 2022). This efficient use of water resources enhances water security within agricultural contexts (Zribi et al., 2015). Moreover, solar panels can serve as channels for rainwater collection, further contributing to water availability for irrigation purposes (Wu et al., 2017). Furthermore, the electricity generated by solar panels can power essential agricultural activities such as water pumping, irrigation, and crop processing, thus ensuring energy security within the agricultural sector (Warmann et al., 2024). By altering the microclimate and improving water and energy efficiency, agrivoltaics support stable or enhanced crop yields, contributing to long-term food security (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019).

The combination of reduced water requirements, enhanced energy efficiency, and optimal land use facilitates sustainable food production, thereby enhancing future agricultural sustainability (Warmann et al., 2024). Various solar power solutions effectively address the WEF Nexus and showcase instances of their implementation (Chalgynbayeva et al., 2023; Alhajeri et al., 2024). Collectively, these interactions illustrate how agrivoltaics functions as an integrated resource-management strategy that supports Water-Energy-Food Nexus objectives in both climate adaptation and mitigation contexts.

7 Agrivoltaics and the sustainable development goals

Energy and food security are central to addressing global climate change and advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Ghasemi and Sadeghkhani, 2025). Agrivoltaic contributes directly to several SDGs through their integrated approach to food, energy, and land management (Adeh et al., 2019; Kumar J and Majid, 2020; Cuppari et al., 2024). These SDGs are organized into interconnected thematic areas such as food security, clean energy transitions, sustainable resource use, and climate action; agrivoltaics naturally intersect several of these domains (Mehta et al., 2024; Gadhiya and Chakraborty, 2025). Agostini et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative evaluation of agrivoltaic systems in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals and reported that agrivoltaics can positively contribute to 14 of the 17 SDGs. However, these assessments remain largely conceptual. Additional empirical evidence, particularly from diverse climatic, agronomic, and socioeconomic contexts, is still needed to fully substantiate the extent of these contributions. By stabilizing or enhancing crop yields under changing climatic conditions, agrivoltaics advances SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by supporting resilient agricultural production and contributing to food security (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Walston et al., 2022). Agrivoltaic systems can also support SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) by improving on-farm water-use efficiency through multiple mechanisms (Walston et al., 2022). AV installations can repurpose water used for cleaning photovoltaic panels for crop irrigation, thereby reducing freshwater demand (Medonna and Ghosh, 2025). Additionally, shading from solar panels lowers crop transpiration rates, which decreases overall irrigation requirements and enhances water conservation within the system (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019). These combined benefits demonstrate how agrivoltaic systems can contribute to more sustainable water management in agricultural landscapes. Furthermore, the generation of clean and renewable electricity aligns strongly with SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), helping reduce dependence on carbon-intensive power sources (Abubakar et al., 2025). Improved land-use efficiency, achieved by producing food and energy simultaneously on the same land, supports SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by optimizing resource use and minimizing environmental pressure (Kumdokrub and You, 2025). Additionally, by lowering greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil-fuel-based electricity and mitigating climate-related risks to agriculture, agrivoltaics contributes to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land) (Shahsavari and Akbari, 2018; Adeh et al., 2019). Although the focus of this review is on microclimatic and plant-level responses, these broader sustainability contributions highlight the potential of agrivoltaics as a cross-cutting strategy that enhances resilience while meeting interconnected food, energy, and climate goals.

8 Adoption challenges

Meeting the growing demands for energy and food requires a multifaceted approach that prioritizes productivity while simultaneously reducing reliance on fossil fuels (Brudermann et al., 2013). This necessitates a concerted effort to enhance the ecological and environmental benefits of agricultural systems, optimize land and water resources, and ensure both profitability and social acceptance (Pascaris et al., 2020). Integrating solar panels within agricultural systems presents a promising solution for achieving these goals by increasing yields, energy production, and resilience per unit of land (Irie et al., 2019; Othman et al., 2020; Meitzner et al., 2021; Al Mamun et al., 2022; Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023). However, the large-scale implementation of agrivoltaic systems is constrained by a range of technical, economic, policy-making, and agronomic challenges. High capital investment costs associated with photovoltaic infrastructure, coupled with limited access to financing mechanisms and uncertain economic returns, pose significant barriers, particularly for small stakeholders and resource-constrained farmers (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Weselek et al., 2021). From a technical perspective, optimizing panel orientation, tilt, and spacing to achieve an effective balance between solar energy production and crop light requirements remains complex, especially across varying agroecological zones (Amaducci et al., 2018). Agronomically, the absence of standardized crop selection criteria, planting densities, and management practices under altered microclimatic conditions restrict practical adoption (Elamri et al., 2018). Moreover, institutional hurdles such as fragmented policy frameworks, restrictive land-use regulations, and limited stakeholder awareness further pose hinderance in integration of agrivoltaics into existing agricultural systems (Hassanpour Adeh et al., 2018; Potenza et al., 2022; Figure 2). These barriers underscore the importance of region-specific pilot studies, AV-friendly policy frameworks, and inclusive stakeholder engagement to ensure successful and equitable integration of agrivoltaics into food and energy systems (Amaducci et al., 2018; Barron-Gafford et al., 2019).

Strategic management and careful selection of plant species and agrivoltaic technologies can yield additional ecological benefits, such as biodiversity enhancement and water conservation, compared to traditional agricultural methods (Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023). The utilization of agrivoltaics for renewable energy has the potential to alleviate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with fossil fuels (Verstraeten et al., 2008; Marrou et al., 2013b; Higgins and Abou Najm, 2020; Schindele et al., 2020). However, comprehensive research is needed to elucidate the impacts of agrivoltaics on energy, agriculture, biodiversity, and biogeochemical processes across diverse environments. Additionally, advancements in technology and bioengineering, coupled with improved economic assessments and stakeholder engagement, are critical for the widespread adoption of agrivoltaics (Jensen and Allen, 2016; Sharu and Ab Razak, 2020).

Currently, AV supports mainly shade-loving plants; this limits the types of crops that can benefit from this technology (Santiteerakul et al., 2020; Macknick et al., 2022). Not all crops can thrive under solar panels, and the efficiency of temperature control provided by the panels may vary in different climates (Gayathri et al., 2023; Widmer et al., 2024). Some crops may require specific light conditions, and the shading effect of solar panels could impact their growth (Imran et al., 2020). Additionally, the temperature regulation benefits may be less pronounced in regions with more stable climates; continuous research and development are needed to expand the range of crops that can thrive in the shade created by solar panels (Santiteerakul et al., 2020; Meitzner et al., 2021; Laub et al., 2022; Gayathri et al., 2023). Keeping this in view, detailed insight and efforts are required to improve and optimize these dual-use systems, making them more efficient and cost-effective.

Balancing the economic benefits of renewable energy generation with agricultural productivity is crucial for attracting investments, promoting adoption, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of agrivoltaic projects (Lytle et al., 2021; Potenza et al., 2022). However, these challenges require collaborative efforts from researchers, engineers, policymakers, growers, and industry stakeholders to develop innovative solutions and create a supportive regulatory environment (Magarelli et al., 2024).

9 Conclusion and future trends

By maximizing land use efficiency, agrivoltaics systems simultaneously support food production and clean energy generation (Figure 2). The partial shade provided by solar panels can enhance resource efficiency by reducing water consumption, mitigating extreme temperatures, and protecting crops from harsh environmental conditions. The current review provides a detailed overview of how agrivoltaic systems modulate the microclimate beneath panels and how these changes translate into physiological, biochemical, and yield responses across diverse crop species. Research findings showed that, while moderate shading can enhance water-use efficiency and protect against heat stress, excessive reduction in photosynthetically active radiation may suppress yield in light-demanding crops. Consequently, optimizing shading intensity is critical to strike a balance between abiotic stress mitigation and maintaining adequate light for photosynthetic performance, metabolic functions, and yield sustainability in such crops. Despite these research findings, significant research gaps exist in understanding the complex interactions between microclimate dynamics, and physiological and biochemical responses of plants within these systems. Addressing these gaps requires interdisciplinary collaboration and a holistic approach to evaluate the environmental, agronomic, and technological aspects of agrivoltaics. Moreover, unraveling the molecular mechanisms underlying varied crop response under agrivoltaics could unlock new avenues for enhancing crop performance.

Future research should focus on the optimization of agrivoltaic system design, including panel height, spacing, orientation, and shading intensity, to balance renewable energy generation with crop productivity across diverse cropping systems. Systematic testing of agrivoltaic configurations under different climatic conditions, soil types, and management practices is required to establish robust, crop-specific performance thresholds. In addition, advances in sensor technologies, remote sensing, and crop-microclimate modeling can support predictive assessment and adaptive management of agrivoltaic systems. Collectively, these research directions will provide a scientific basis for improving agrivoltaic performance, scalability, and reliability across diverse agricultural contexts. Such strategies can facilitate the broader integration of agrivoltaic technologies systems into conventional agricultural and energy infrastructures, thereby advancing the shift toward more sustainable and resource-efficient food and energy production systems.

Ultimately, agrivoltaics should be viewed not merely as a technical innovation but as a system-level intervention for sustainable food and energy futures. Interdisciplinary collaboration between plant scientists, engineers, economists, and policymakers will be essential to unlock its full potential and ensure equitable, climate-resilient deployment across global agroecosystems. Moreover, continuous monitoring and adaptive management, guided by empirical data, will be essential to ensure long-term success and feasibility of these innovative systems.

Author contributions

MP: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HS: Writing – review & editing. PJ: Writing – review & editing. HN: Writing – review & editing. GM: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Solar Energy Technologies Office Award Number DE-EE0009374.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abbate P. E., Andrade F. H., Culot J. P., and Bindraban P. S. (1997). Grain yield in wheat: effects of radiation during spike growth period. Field Crops Res. 54, 245–257. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00059-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abubakar S. I., See C. H., Sukki F. M., Mahendiran R., Sundaram S., Abidin M. I. Z., et al. (2025). Deploying agrivoltaics in sub-saharan africa: A sustainable pathway towards energy-food security-challenges and opportunities: A review. IEEE Access. 14, 87810–87833. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3568717

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Acreche M. M., Briceño-Félix G., Sánchez J. A. M., and Slafer G. A. (2009). Grain number determination in an old and a modern Mediterranean wheat as affected by pre-anthesis shading. Crop Pasture Sci. 60, 271–279. doi: 10.1071/CP08236

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Adeh E. H., Good S. P., Calaf M., and Higgins C. W. (2019). Solar PV power potential is greatest over croplands. Scientific reports, 9, 11442. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agostini A., Colauzzi M., and Amaducci S. (2021). Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: An economic and environmental assessment. Appl. Energy. 281, 116102. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116102

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguilar J., Rogers. D., and Kisekka I. (2015). Irrigation scheduling based on soil moisture sensors and evapotranspiration. Kansas Agric. Experiment Station Res. Rep. 1, 20. doi: 10.4148/2378-5977.1087

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahn S. Y., Lee D. B., Lee H. I., Myint Z. L., Min S. Y., Kim B. M., et al. (2022). Grapevine growth and berry development under the agrivoltaic solar panels in the vineyards. J. Bio-Env. Con. 31, 356–365. doi: 10.12791/KSBEC.2022.31.4.356

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-agele H., Proctor K., Murthy G., and Higgins C. W. (2021). A case study of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon var. legend) production and water productivity in agrivoltaic systems. Sustainability. 13, 2850. doi: 10.3390/su13052850

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alhajeri N. S., Al-Fadhli F. M., Deshpande A. A., and El-Halwagi M. M. (2024). Optimization of water-energy-food nexus via an integrated system of solar-assisted desalination and farming. J. Clean. Prod. 434, 140362. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140362

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Al Mamun M. A., Dargusch P., Wadley D., Zulkarnain N. A., and Aziz A. A. (2022). A review of research on agrivoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 161, 112351. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amaducci S., Yin X., and Colauzzi M. (2018). Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production. Appl. Energy. 220, 545–561. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.081

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aroca-Delgado R., Pérez-Alonso J., Callejón-Ferre Á.J., and Velázquez-Martí B. (2018). Compatibility between crops and solar panels: An overview from shading systems. Sustainability. 10, 743. doi: 10.3390/su10030743

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barron-Gafford G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman M. A., Minor R. L., Sutter L. F., Barnett-Moreno I., Blackett D. T., et al. (2019). Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands. Nat. Sustain. 2, 848–855. doi: 10.1038/S41893-019-0364-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blando F., Gerardi C., Renna M., Castellano S., and Serio F. (2018). Characterisation of bioactive compounds in berries from plants grown under innovative photovoltaic greenhouses. J. Berry. Res. 8, 55–69. doi: 10.3233/JBR-170258

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brudermann T., Reinsberger K., Orthofer A., Kislinger M., and Posch A. (2013). Photovoltaics in agriculture: A case study on decision making of farmers. Energy Policy. 61, 96–103. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.081

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campana P. E., Stridh B., Amaducci S., and Colauzzi M. (2021). Optimisation of vertically mounted agrivoltaic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 325, 129091. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129091

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chae S. H., Kim H. J., Moon H. W., Kim Y. H., and Ku K. M. (2022). Agrivoltaic systems enhance farmers’ profits through broccoli visual quality and electricity production without dramatic changes in yield, antioxidant capacity, and glucosinolates. Agronomy. 12, 1415. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12061415

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chalgynbayeva A., Gabnai Z., Lengyel P., Pestisha A., and Bai A. (2023). Worldwide research trends in agrivoltaic systems- A bibliometric review. Energies. 16, 611. doi: 10.3390/en16020611

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chamara R. M. S. R., Beneragama C. K., Kodithuwakku S. P., Hettiarachchi M. H. S. M., Dilrukshi R. P. W. A., Nagalla A. D., et al. (2023). “Photovoltaic-integrated greenhouses for sustainable crop production in the tropics,” in Handbook of energy management in agriculture. Eds. Rakshit A., Biswas A., Sarkar D., Abhilash P. C., and Abedin Z. (Springer Nature, Singapore), 1–30. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-1017-0_35

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Charles M., Edwards B., Ravishankar E., Calero J., Henry R., Rech J., et al. (2023). Emergent molecular traits of lettuce and tomato grown under wavelength-selective solar cells. Front. Plant Sci. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1087707

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen D., Lyu M., Kou X., Li J., Yang Z., Gao L., et al. (2022). Integration of light and temperature sensing by liquid–liquid phase separation of phytochrome B. Mol. Cell. 82, 3015–3029. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2022.05.026

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cho Y., Kim H., Jo E., Oh D., Jeong H., Yoon C., et al. (2021). Effect of partial shading by agrivoltaic systems panel on electron transport rate and non-photochemical quenching of crop. Korean J. Agric. For. Meteorol. 23, 100–107. doi: 10.5532/KJAFM.2021.23.2.100

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cho J., Park S. M., Park A. R., Lee O. C., Nam G., and Ra I. H. (2020). 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. 13, 4815. doi: 10.3390/en13184815

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chopdar R. K., Sengar N., and Giri N. C. (2023). “Agrivoltaic systems for enhancing sustainability in hot arid and semi-arid climates,” in Advances in green energy technologies. ICGEST 2023. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, vol. 1314 . Eds. Vadhera S., Kumar R., and Dewan A. (Springer, Singapore). doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-0861-4_8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chopdar R. K., Sengar N., Giri N. C., and Halliday D. (2024). Comprehensive review on agrivoltaics with technical, environmental and societal insights. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 197, 114416. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114416

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Colombo M., Fighera G., Ferrari M., Galli N., Rulli M. C., and Manzolini G. (2023). “Modelling the effects of the reduced light availability on rainfed energy crops under an agrivoltaic system,” in Paper presented at the OMC Med Energy Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, 24 October 2023, Ravenna, Italy: OMC Med Energy Conference & Exhibition (the organizing body that publishes the conference proceedings) Paper Number: OMC-2023-470.

Google Scholar

Cossu M., Murgia L., Ledda L., Deligios P. A., Sirigu A., Chessa F., et al. (2014). Solar radiation distribution inside a greenhouse with south-oriented photovoltaic roofs and effects on crop productivity. Appl. Energy. 133, 89–100. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.070

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cossu M., Yano A., Solinas S., Deligios P. A., Tiloca M. T., Cossu A., et al. (2020). Agricultural sustainability estimation of the European photovoltaic greenhouses. European Journal of Agronomy, 118, 126074. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2020.126074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cossu M., Tiloca M. T., Cossu A., Deligios P. A., Pala T., and Ledda L. (2023). Increasing the agricultural sustainability of closed agrivoltaic systems with the integration of vertical farming: A case study on baby-leaf lettuce. Appl. Energy. 344, 121278. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121278

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cuppari R. I., Higgins C. W., and Characklis G. W. (2021). Agrivoltaics and weather risk: A diversification strategy for landowners. Appl. Energy. 291, 116809. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116809

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cuppari R. I., Fernandez-Bou A. S., Characklis G. W., Ramirez M., Nocco M. A., Abou-Najm M., et al. (2024). Drivers of agrivoltaic perception in California and North Carolina. Environmental Research: Food Systems, 1, 021003. doi: 10.1088/2976-601X/ad5449

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deline C., Marion B., Granata J., and Gonzalez S. (2010). Performance and economic analysis of distributed power electronics in photovoltaic systems (No. NREL/TP-5200-50003) (Golden, CO (United States: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). doi: 10.2172/1004490

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dinesh H. and Pearce J. M. (2016). The potential of agrivoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 299–308. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Diniz A. S. A. C., Neto L. D. V. M., Costa S. C., De Souza M. E., Souza F. H., Padrão W. C., et al. (2014). “Development of a grid-connected photovoltaic-storage,” in IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC). 2728–2733 (Piscataway, New Jersey, USA: IEEE). doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2014.6925493

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Disciglio G., Frabboni L., Tarantino A., and Stasi A. (2023). Association between dynamic agrivoltaic system and cultivation: viability, yields and qualitative assessment of medical plants. Sustainability. 15, 16252. doi: 10.3390/su152316252

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dohlman E., Maguire K., Davis W. V., Husby M., Bovay J., Weber C., et al. (2024). “Trends, insights, and future prospects for production in controlled environment agriculture and agrivoltaics systems,” in U.S. Department of agriculture, economic research service, report no. EIB-264. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10919/117401 (Accessed January 11, 2025).

Google Scholar

Dos Santos C. N. L. (2020). Agrivoltaic system: a possible synergy between agriculture and solar energy (Stockholm, Sweden: KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Energy Technology, Heat and Power Technology).

Google Scholar

Dupraz C. (2024). Assessment of the ground coverage ratio of agrivoltaic systems as a proxy for potential crop productivity. Agrofor. Syst. 98, 2679–2696. doi: 10.1007/s10457-023-00906-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dupraz C., Marrou H., Talbot G., Dufour L., Nogier A., and Ferard Y. (2011). Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes. Renew. Energy. 36, 2725–2732. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Edouard S., Combes D., Van Iseghem M., Tin M. N. W., and Escobar-Gutiérrez A. J. (2023). Increasing land productivity with agriphotovoltaics: Application to an alfalfa field. Appl. Energy. 329, 120207. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120207

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Elamri Y., Cheviron B., Lopez J. M., Dejean C., and Belaud G. (2018). Water budget and crop modelling for agrivoltaic systems: Application to irrigated lettuces. Agric. Water Manage. 208, 440–453. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.07.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ersoy S. R., Terrapon-Pfaff J., Ribbe L., and Alami Merrouni A. (2021). Water scenarios modelling for renewable energy development in Southern Morocco. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 9, 11. doi: 10.13044/j.sdewes.d8.0335

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fagnano M., Fiorentino N., Visconti D., Baldi G. M., Falce M., Acutis M., et al. (2024). Effects of a photovoltaic plant on microclimate and crops’ growth in a mediterranean area. Agronomy 14, 466. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14030466

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO (2022). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022: repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). doi: 10.4060/cc0639en

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferrara G., Boselli M., Palasciano M., and Mazzeo A. (2023). Effect of shading determined by photovoltaic panels installed above the vines on the performance of cv. Corvina (Vitis vinifera L.). Sci. Hortic. 308, 111595. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111595

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fischer E., Pappalardo V., and Martinico F. (2023). “Landscape and renewable energy sources: exploring potentialities of current land uses in Sicily,” in International Conference on Safety, Health and Welfare in Agriculture and Agro-food Systems. 475–484 (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-37448-8_48

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gadhiya G. A. and Chakraborty S. (2025). Agrivoltaics in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands: Assessing the geo-spatial potential for sustainable development. Energy Sustain. Dev. 88, 101807. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2025.101807

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

García-Rodríguez A., García-Rodríguez S., Díez-Mediavilla M., and Alonso-Tristán C. (2020). Photosynthetic active radiation, solar irradiance and the cie standard sky classification. Appl. Sci. 10, 8007. doi: 10.3390/app10228007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gayathri A., Madhukar B., Sravani A., Vikram N., Chandra M. S., Kumar M. S., et al. (2023). Agrivoltaics: A sustainable method of farming for various suita ble crops. AATCC Review. 11, 208–216. doi: 10.58321/AATCCReview.2023.11.04.208

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghasemi S. and Sadeghkhani I. (2025). Toward sustainable energy-agriculture synergies: A review of agrivoltaics systems for modern farming practices. Solar RRL. 9, 202500041. doi: 10.1002/solr.202500041

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Giri N. C. and Mohanty R. C. (2024). Turmeric crop farming potential under Agrivoltaic system over open field practice in Odisha, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1-19, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-05086-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Giri N. C., Mohanty R. C., Pradhan R. C., Abdullah S., Ghosh U., and Mukherjee A. (2023). Agrivoltaic system for energy-food production: A symbiotic approach on strategy, modelling, and optimization. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 40, 100915. doi: 10.1016/j.suscom.2023.100915

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Giudice B. D., Stillinger C., Chapman E., Martin M., and Riihimaki B. (2021). “Residential agrivoltaics: energy efficiency and water conservation in the urban landscape,” in 2021 IEEE Green Technologies Conference (GreenTech). 237–244 (Denver, CO, USA: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)).

Google Scholar

Gnayem N., Magadley E., Haj-Yahya A., Masalha S., Kabha R., Abasi A., et al. (2024). Examining the effect of different photovoltaic modules on cucumber crops in a greenhouse agrivoltaic system: A case study. Biosyst. Eng. 241, 83–94. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2024.03.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goetzberger A. and Zastrow A. (1982). On the coexistence of solar-energy conversion and plant cultivation. Int. J. Sol. Energy. 1, 55–69. doi: 10.1080/01425918208909875

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gomez-Casanovas N., Mwebaze P., Khanna M., Branham B., Time A., DeLucia E. H., et al. (2023). Knowns, uncertainties, and challenges in agrivoltaics to sustainably intensify energy and food production. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 4, 1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101518

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gonocruz R. A., Nakamura R., Yoshino K., Homma M., Doi T., Yoshida Y., et al. (2021). Analysis of the rice yield under an Agrivoltaic system: A case study in Japan. Environments. 8, 65. doi: 10.3390/environments8070065

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gorjian S., Bousi E., Özdemir Ö.E., Trommsdorff M., Kumar N. M., Anand A., et al. (2022). Progress and challenges of crop production and electricity generation in agrivoltaic systems using semi-transparent photovoltaic technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 158, 112126. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112126

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gosgot Angeles W., Banda Martinez D., Barrena Gurbillón M.Á., Espinoza Canaza F. I., Santillan Gomez H., Mori Servan D. C., et al. (2025). Productivity and morphological adaptation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. @ in agrivoltaic systems with different photovoltaic technologies: a case study in Chachapoyas, Amazonas, Peru. Agronomy 15, 529. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15030529

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grubbs E. K., Imran H., Agrawal R., and Bermel P. A. (2020). “Coproduction of solar energy on maize farms - Experimental validation of recent experiments,” in 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Calgary, AB, Canada. Piscataway, New Jersey, USA: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 2071–2075. doi: 10.1109/PVSC45281.2020.9300459

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Han R., Ma L., Terzaghi W., Guo Y., and Li J. (2024). Molecular mechanisms underlying coordinated responses of plants to shade and environmental stresses. Plant J. 117, 1893–1913. doi: 10.1111/tpj.16653

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassanpour Adeh E., Selker J. S., and Higgins C. W. (2018). Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency. PloS One 13, 203256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203256

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Heath G., Ravikumar D., Ovaitt S., Walston L., Curtis T., Millstein D., et al. (2022). Environmental and circular economy implications of solar energy in a decarbonized US grid (Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)), NREL/TP–6A20-80818. doi: 10.2172/1844985

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hermelink M. I., Maestrini B., and de Ruijter F. J. (2024). Berry shade tolerance for agrivoltaics systems: a meta-analysis. Sci. Hortic. 330, 113062. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113062

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hernandez R. R., Armstrong A., Burney J., Ryan G., Moore-O’Leary K., Diédhiou I., et al. (2019). Techno–ecological synergies of solar energy for global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2, 560–568. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0309-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hernández V., Cos J., Andrés R., Di Blasi M., Genovese M., Hellín P., et al. (2022). “Impact of an agrivoltaic system on Aloe vera growth in a semi-arid climate,” in XXXI international horticultural congress (IHC2022): international symposium on agroecology and system approach for sustainable, Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS) vol. 1355. , 449–454. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2022.1355.57

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins C. W. and Abou Najm M. (2020). An organizing principle for the water-energy-food nexus. Sustainability. 12, 8135. doi: 10.3390/su12198135

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Honningdalsnes E. H., Marstein E. S., Lindholm D., Bonesmo H., and Riise H. N. (2025). Wind sheltering in vertical agrivoltaics can increase crop yields: a modeling study for Northern Europe. Energy Nexus 19, 100516. doi: 10.1016/j.nexus.2025.100516

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hsiao C. L., Wang C. Y., and Hsu Y. T. (2023). Effect of simulated photovoltaic roofs on the yield and nitrate content of pak choi and rape. HortScience. 58, 1297–1305. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI17240-23

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hu Y., Zhang X., and Ma X. (2024). Agrivoltaics with semitransparent panels can maintain yield and quality in soybean production. Sol. Energy. 282, 112978. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2024.112978

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huang K., Shu L., Li K., Chen Y., Zhu Y., and Valluru R. (2023). Sustainable and intelligent phytoprotection in photovoltaic agriculture: new challenges and opportunities. Electronics 12, 1221. doi: 10.3390/electronics12051221

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hudelson T. and Lieth J. H. (2021). Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers. In: Am. Institute Phys. Conf. Ser. 2361, pp. doi: 10.1063/5.0055174

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Imran H., Riaz M. H., and Butt N. Z. (2020). “Optimization of single axis tracking of photovoltaic modules for agrivoltaic systems,” in 2020 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Vol. pp. 1353–1356 (Piscataway, New Jersey, USA: IEEE). doi: 10.1109/PVSC45281.2020.9300586

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021). World energy outlook 2021. Available online at: https://www.iea.org/topics/world-energy-outlook (Accessed November 07, 2025).

Google Scholar

IPCC (2022). “Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability,” in Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). doi: 10.1017/9781009325844

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Irie N., Kawahara N., and Esteves A. M. (2019). Sector-wide social impact scoping of agrivoltaic systems: A case study in Japan. Renew. Energy 139, 1463–1476. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.048

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jensen M. E. and Allen R. G. (2016). Evaporation, evapotranspiration, and irrigation water requirements: Task Committee on Revision of Manual 70. 2nd Edn (Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 744, ISBN: ISBN: 9780784414057.

Google Scholar

Jeong H., Choi M. G., and Hwang W. H. (2022). Effects of shading on the growth and chlorophyll fluorescence under agrivoltaic system conditions. Proc. Korean Soc. Crop Sci. Conference., 120–120.

Google Scholar

Jiang S., Tang D., Zhao L., Liang C., Cui N., Gong D., et al. (2022). Effects of different photovoltaic shading levels on kiwifruit growth, yield and water productivity under “agrivoltaic” system in Southwest China. Agric. Water Manage. 269, 107675. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107675

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jo H., Asekova S., Bayat M. A., Ali L., Song J. T., Ha Y. S., et al. (2022). Comparison of yield and yield components of several crops grown under agro-photovoltaic system in Korea. Agriculture. 12, 619. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12050619

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jones G. F., Evans M. E., and Shapiro F. R. (2022). Reconsidering beam and diffuse solar fractions for agrivoltaics. Sol. Energy. 237, 135–143. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.03.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Juillion P., Lopez G., Fumey D., Lesniak V., Génard M., and Vercambre G. (2022). Shading apple trees with an agrivoltaic system: Impact on water relations, leaf morphophysiological characteristics and yield determinants. Sci. Hortic. 306, 111434. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111434

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Juillion P., Lopez G., Fumey D., Lesniak V., Génard M., and Vercambre G. (2024). Combining field experiments under an agrivoltaic system and a kinetic fruit model to understand the impact of shading on apple carbohydrate metabolism and quality. Agrofor. Syst. 98, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10457-024-00845-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Juillion P., Lopez G., Verambre G., Génard M., Lesniak V., and Fumey D. (2023). Specific leaf area and photosynthesis of apple trees under a dynamic agrivoltaic system. AgriVoltaics Conf. Proc. 2, 1–8. doi: 10.52825/agripv.v2i.999

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jung J. H., Barbosa A. D., Hutin S., Kumita J. R., Gao M., Derwort D., et al. (2020). A prion-like domain in ELF3 functions as a thermosensor in Arabidopsis. Nature 585, 256–260. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2644-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jung D., Schönberger F., and Spera F. (2023). Effects of agrivoltaics on the microclimate in horticulture: enhancing resilience of agriculture in semi-arid zones. AgriVoltaics Conf. Proc. 2, 1–8. doi: 10.52825/agripv.v2i.1033

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kadowaki M., Yano A., Ishizu F., Tanaka T., and Noda S. (2012). Effects of greenhouse photovoltaic array shading on Welsh onion growth. Biosyst. Eng. 111, 290–297. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.12.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kapotis G., Zervoudakis G., Veltsistas T., and Salahas G. (2003). Comparison of chlorophyll meter readings with leaf chlorophyll concentration in Amaranthus vlitus: correlation with physiological processes. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 50, 395–397. doi: 10.1023/A:1024036215027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Katul G. G. (2023). Agrivoltaics in color: going from light spectra to biomass. Earths Futur. 11, e2023EF003512. doi: 10.1029/2023EF003512

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kavga A., Trypanagnostopoulos G., Zervoudakis G., and Tripanagnostopoulos Y. (2018). Growth and physiological characteristics of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and rocket (Eruca sativa Mill.) plants cultivated under photovoltaic panels. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobo. 46, 206–212. doi: 10.15835/nbha46110846

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim S. and Kim S. (2023). Optimization of the design of an agrophotovoltaic system in future climate conditions in South Korea. Renew. Energy. 206, 928–938. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.090

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kimber A., Mitchell L., Nogradi S., and Wenger H. (2006). “The effect of soiling on large grid-connected photovoltaic systems in california and the southwest region of the United States,” in 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference. 2391–2395 (Waikoloa, HI, USA: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)). doi: 10.1109/WCPEC.2006.279690

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kirimura M., Takeshita S., Matsuo M., Zushi K., Gejima Y., Honsho C., et al. (2022). Effects of agrivoltaics (photovoltaic power generation facilities on farmland) on growing condition and yield of komatsuna, mizuna, kabu, and spinach. Environ. Control Biol. 60, 117–127. doi: 10.2525/ecb.60.117

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klokov A. V., Loktionov E. Y., Loktionov Y. V., Panchenko V. A., and Sharaborova E. S. (2023). A mini-review of current activities and future trends in agrivoltaics. Energies. 16, 3009. doi: 10.3390/en16073009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ku K. M., Choi J. N., Kim J., Kim J. K., Yoo L. G., Lee S. J., et al. (2010). Metabolomics analysis reveals the compositional differences of shade grown tea (Camellia sinensis L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 418–426. doi: 10.1021/jf902929h

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar J C. R. and Majid M. A. (2020). Renewable energy for sustainable development in India: current status, future prospects, challenges, employment, and investment opportunities. Energy Sustain. Soc 10, 2. doi: 10.1186/s13705-019-0232-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumdokrub T. and You F. (2025). A techno-economic-ecological systems approach to sustainable agrivoltaics development: current advancements, key challenges, and future directions. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 13, 19440–19455. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c04919

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumpanalaisatit M., Setthapun W., Sintuya H., and Jansri S. N. (2022). Efficiency improvement of ground-mounted solar power generation in agrivoltaic system by cultivation of bok choy (Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis L.) under the panels. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 11, 103–110. doi: 10.14710/ijred.2022.41116

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Laub M., Pataczek L., Feuerbacher A., Zikeli S., and Högy P. (2022). Contrasting yield responses at varying levels of shade suggest different suitability of crops for dual land-use systems: a meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42, 51. doi: 10.1007/s13593-022-00783-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lavado N., Prieto M. H., Mancha L. A., Moreno D., Valdés M. E., and Uriarte D. (2023). Combined effect of crop forcing and reduced irrigation as techniques to delay the ripening and improve the quality of cv. Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) berries in semi-arid climate conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 288, 108469. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108469

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee S., Lee J. H., Jeong Y., Kim D., Seo B. H., Seo Y. J., et al. (2023). Agrivoltaic system designing for sustainability and smart farming: Agronomic aspects and design criteria with safety assessment. Appl. Energy. 341, 121130. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121130

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Legris M., Ince Y. C., and Fankhauser C. (2019). Molecular mechanisms underlying phytochrome-controlled morphogenesis in plants. Nat. Commun. 10, 5219. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13045-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leon A. and Ishihara K. N. (2018). Assessment of new functional units for agrivoltaic systems. J. Environ. Manage. 226, 493–498. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.013

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li L., Ljung K., Breton G., Schmitz R. J., Pruneda-Paz J., Cowing-Zitron C., et al. (2012). Linking photoreceptor excitation to changes in plant architecture. Genes Dev. 26, 785–790. doi: 10.1101/gad.187849.112

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li C., Wang H., Miao H., and Ye B. (2017). The economic and social performance of integrated photovoltaic and agricultural greenhouses systems: Case study in China. Appl. Energy. 190, 204–212. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.121

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liao Y., Cao H. X., Liu X., Li H. T., Hu Q. Y., and Xue W. K. (2021). By increasing infiltration and reducing evaporation, mulching can improve the soil water environment and apple yield of orchards in semiarid areas. Agric. Water Manage. 253, 106936. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106936

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin R. and Tang W. (2014). “Cross talk between light and ABA signaling,” in Abscisic acid: metabolism, transport and signaling. Netherlands, dordrecht. Ed. Zhang D. P. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer), 255–269. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9424-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu B. and Shen W. (2024). Evaluation of the agrivoltaic projects’ Contribution to the SDGs and their prospects for applications in central asia. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5153210.

Google Scholar

Loik M. E., Carter S. A., Alers G., Wade C. E., Shugar D., Corrado C., et al. (2017). Wavelength-selective solar photovoltaic systems: powering greenhouses for plant growth at the food-energy-water nexus. Earths Futur. 5, 1044–1053. doi: 10.1002/2016EF000531

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lopez-Diaz G., Carreño-Ortega A., Fatnassi H., Poncet C., and Diaz-Perez M. (2020). The effect of different levels of shading in a photovoltaic greenhouse with a north–south orientation. Appl. Sci. 10, 882. doi: 10.3390/app10030882

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lu L., Ya’acob M. E., Anuar M. S., and Mohtar M. N. (2022). Comprehensive review on the application of inorganic and organic photovoltaics as greenhouse shading materials. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 52, 102077. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102077

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lu S. M., Zainali S., Zidane T. E. K., Hörndahl T., Tekie S., Khosravi A., et al. (2024). Data on the effects of a vertical agrivoltaic system on crop yield and nutrient content of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in Sweden. Data Brief. 57, 110990. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2024.110990

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Luo J., Luo Z., Li W., Shi W., and Sui X. (2024). The early effects of an agrivoltaic system within a different crop cultivation on soil quality in dry–hot valley eco-fragile areas. Agronomy. 14, 584. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14030584

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lytle W., Meyer T. K., Tanikella N. G., Burnham L., Engel J., Schelly C., et al. (2021). Conceptual design and rationale for a new agrivoltaics concept: Pasture-raised rabbits and solar farming. J. Clean Prod. 282, 124476. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124476

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Macknick J., Hartmann H., Barron-Gafford G., and Beatty B. (2022). The 5 Cs of agrivoltaic success factors in the United States: Lessons from the InSPIRE research study. (No. NREL/TP-6A20-83566) (Golden, CO (United States: National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL).

Google Scholar

Magarelli A., Mazzeo A., Ali S. A., and Ferrara G. (2025b). Shading enhanced microclimate variability, photomorphogenesis and yield components in a grapevine agrivoltaic system in semi-arid Mediterranean conditions in Puglia region, southeastern Italy. Scientia Hortic. 350, 114311. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2025.114311

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Magarelli A., Mazzeo A., and Ferrara G. (2024). Fruit crop species with agrivoltaic systems: A Critical Review. Agronomy. 14, 722. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14040722

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Magarelli A., Mazzeo A., and Ferrara. G. (2025a). Exploring the grape agrivoltaic system: climate modulation and vine benefits in the Puglia region, Southeastern Italy. Horticulturae 11, 160. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae11020160

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Majumdar D. and Pasqualetti M. J. (2018). Dual use of agricultural land: Introducing ‘agrivoltaics’ in Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 170, 150–168. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Manoj K. N., Shekara B. G., Sridhara S., Jha P. K., and Prasad P. V. (2021). Biomass quantity and quality from different year-round cereal–legume cropping systems as forage or fodder for livestock. Sustainability. 13, 9414. doi: 10.3390/su13169414

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marrou H., Dufour L., and Wery J. (2013b). How does a shelter of solar panels influence water flows in a soil-crop system? Eur. J. Agron. 50, 38–51. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marrou H., Guilioni L., Dufour L., Dupraz C., and Wery J. (2013a). Microclimate under agrivoltaic systems: is crop growth rate affected in the partial shade of solar panels? Agric. For. Meteorol. 177, 117–132. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mavani D. D., Chauhan P. M., and Joshi V. (2019). Beauty of agrivoltaic system regarding double utilization of same piece of land for generation of electricity and food production. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 10, 1–31.

Google Scholar

Medonna A. and Ghosh A. (2025). Harvesting sun amplified: A comprehensive review of agrivoltaics and floatovoltaics with a focus on India’s potential. Solar Compass 15, 100132. doi: 10.1016/j.solcom.2025.100132

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehta K., Shah M. J., and Zörner W. (2024). Agri-PV (Agrivoltaics) in Developing Countries: advancing sustainable farming to address the water–energy–food nexus. Energies. 17, 4440. doi: 10.3390/en17174440

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meitzner R., Schubert U. S., and Hoppe H. (2021). Agrivoltaics-The perfect fit for the future of organic photovoltaics. Adv. Energy Mater. 11, 2551. doi: 10.1002/aenm.202002551

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Min S. Y., Kim B. M., Yoon H. G., Jeong J. H., and Oh W. (2022). Effects of environmental changes by an agrivoltaic system on growth and quality characteristics of kimchi cabbage. Soc People Plants Environ. 25, 659–667. doi: 10.11628/ksppe.2022.25.6.659

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mina U., Singh S. D., Singh B., Tiwari S., Singh D., and Kumar P. (2019). Assessment of low intensity solar radiation susceptibility in 20 wheat varieties under field conditions grown in Indo-Gangetic plains of India. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 22, 193–203. doi: 10.1007/S12892-018-0134-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mkhabela M. S., Bullock P. R., and Sapirstein H. D. (2018). Characterising the most critical climatic parameters that impact the quality of spring-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) on the Canadian Prairies using partial least squares (PLS) analysis. J. Cereal Sci. 81, 44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2018.02.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Modi V. V. and Patel S. K. (2024). Performance evaluation of agrivoltaic system for the synergy among greengram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) production and solar electric power generation. Energy Sci. Eng. 12, 5385–5397. doi: 10.1002/ese3.1870

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohammedi S., Dragonetti G., Admane N., and Fouial A. (2023). The impact of agrivoltaic systems on tomato crop: a case study in Southern Italy. Processes. 11, 3370. doi: 10.3390/pr11123370

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Montanaro G., Dichio B., and Xiloyannis C. (2009). Shade mitigates photo-inhibition and enhances water use efficiency in kiwifruit under drought. Photosynthetica. 47, 363–371. doi: 10.1007/s11099-009-0057-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moon H. W. and Ku K. M. (2022). Impact of an agriphotovoltaic system on metabolites and the sensorial quality of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and its high-temperature-extracted juice. Foods. 11, 498. doi: 10.3390/foods11040498

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moon H. W. and Ku K. M. (2023). The effect of additional shading utilizing agriphotovoltaic structures on the visual qualities and metabolites of broccoli. Front. Plant Sci. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1111069

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moswetsi G., Fanadzo M., and Ncube B. (2017). Cropping systems and agronomic management practices in smallholder farms in South Africa: constraints, challenges and opportunities. J. Agron. 16, 51–64. doi: 10.3923/ja.2017.51.64

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mupambi G., Sandler H. A., and Jeranyama P. (2021). “Installation of an agrivoltaic system influences microclimatic conditions and leaf gas exchange in cranberry,” in IX international symposium on light in horticulture, Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS) vol. 1337. , 117–124.

Google Scholar

Nasukawa H., Kuwabara Y., Tatsumi K., and Tajima R. (2025). Rice yield and energy balance in an agrivoltaic system established in Shonai plain, northern Japan. Sci. Total Environ. 959, 178315. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178315

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Netto A. T., Campostrini E., de Oliveira J. G., and Bressan-Smith R. E. (2005). Photosynthetic pigments, nitrogen, chlorophyll a fluorescence and SPAD-502 readings in coffee leaves. Sci. Hortic. 104, 199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2004.08.013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Noor N. F. M. and Reeza A. A. (2022). “Effects of solar photovoltaic installation on microclimate and soil properties in UiTM 50MWac Solar Park, Malaysia,” in IOP conference series: earth and environmental science., Bristol, United Kingdom: IOP Publishing vol. 1059. , 012031. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1059/1/012031

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nurmas A., Sadimantara G. R., Leomo S., Yusuf D. N., and Ridwan I. (2021). “Effect of differential shading on the vegetative character of dwarf banana cavendish,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 681. 012035 (Bristol, United Kingdom: IOP Publishing).

Google Scholar

Omer A. A. A., Liu W., Li M., Zheng J., Zhang F., Zhang X., et al. (2022). Water evaporation reduction by the agrivoltaic systems development. Sol. Energy 247, 13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.10.022

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Othman N. F., Yaacob M. E., Mat Su A. S., Jaafar J. N., Hizam H., Shahidan M. F., et al. (2020). Modeling of stochastic temperature and heat stress directly underneath agrivoltaic conditions with orthosiphon Stamineus Crop Cultivation. Agronomy. 10, 1472. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10101472

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Park S., Kim J., and Oh W. (2024). Growth and leaf color of Coleus under light conditions modified by translucent agrivoltaic panels and light-emitting diodes in a greenhouse. Horticulturae. 10, 115. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae10020115

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pascaris A. S., Schelly C., Burnham L., and Pearce J. M. (2021). Integrating solar energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Res. Soc Sci. 75, 102023. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102023

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pascaris A. S., Schelly C., and Pearce J. M. (2020). A first investigation of agriculture sector perspectives on the opportunities and barriers for agrivoltaics. Agronomy. 10, 1885. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10121885

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Paschalis A., Bonetti S., and Fatichi S. (2025). Controls of ecohydrological grassland dynamics in agrivoltaic systems. Earth’s Future 13, e2024EF005183. doi: 10.1029/2024EF005183

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pataczek L., Weselek A., Bauerle A., Högy P., Lewandowski I., Zikeli S., et al. (2023). Agrivoltaics mitigate drought effects in winter wheat. Physiol. Plant 175, 14081. doi: 10.1111/ppl.14081

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Patel B., Gami B., Baria V., Patel A., and Patel P. (2019). Co-generation of solar electricity and agriculture produce by photovoltaic and photosynthesis-dual model by abellon, India. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 141, 031014. doi: 10.1115/1.4041899

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peng J., Wang M., Wang X., Qi L., Guo C., Li H., et al. (2022). COP1 positively regulates ABA signaling during Arabidopsis seedling growth in darkness by mediating ABA-induced ABI5 accumulation. Plant Cell. 34, 2286–2308. doi: 10.1093/plcell/koac073

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Perna A., Grubbs E. K., Agrawal R., and Bermel P. (2019). “Design considerations for agrophotovoltaic systems: maintaining PV area with increased crop yield,” in 2019 IEEE 46th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC). 0668–0672 (Piscataway, New Jersey, USA: IEEE).

Google Scholar

Poorter H., Niinemets Ü., Ntagkas N., Siebenkäs A., Mäenpää M., Matsubara S., et al. (2019). A meta-analysis of plant responses to light intensity for 70 traits ranging from molecules to whole plant performance. New Phytol. 223, 1073–1105. doi: 10.1111/NPH.15754

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Potenza E., Croci M., Colauzzi M., and Amaducci S. (2022). Agrivoltaic system and modelling simulation: A case study of soybean (Glycine max L.) in Italy. Horticulturae. 8, 1160. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8121160

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Prakash V., Lunagaria M. M., Trivedi A. P., Upadhyaya A., Kumar R., Das A., et al. (2023). Shading and PAR under different density agrivoltaic systems, their simulation and effect on wheat productivity. Eur. J. Agron. 149, 126922. doi: 10.1016/J.EJA.2023.126922

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Qi L., Shi Y., Terzaghi W., Yang S., and Li J. (2022). Integration of light and temperature signaling pathways in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 64, 393–411. doi: 10.1111/jipb.13216

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Qin F., Shen Y., Li Z., Qu H., Feng J., Kong L., et al. (2022). Shade delayed flowering phenology and decreased reproductive growth of Medicago sativa L. Front. Plant Sci. 13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.835380

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramos-Fuentes I. A., Elamri Y., Cheviron B., Dejean C., Belaud G., and Fumey D. (2023). Effects of shade and deficit irrigation on maize growth and development in fixed and dynamic agrivoltaic systems. Agric. Water Manage. 280, 108187. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108187

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ravi S., Lobell D. B., and Field C. B. (2014). Tradeoffs and synergies between biofuel production and large solar infrastructure in deserts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 3021–3030. doi: 10.1021/es404950n

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ravi S., Macknick J., Lobell D., Field C., Ganesan K., Jain R., et al. (2016). Colocation opportunities for large solar infrastructures and agriculture in drylands. Appl. Energy. 165, 383–392. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.078

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ravishankar E., Charles M., Xiong Y., Henry R., Swift J., Rech J., et al. (2021). Balancing crop production and energy harvesting in organic solar-powered greenhouses. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100381

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Riaz M. H., Imran H., Alam H., Alam M. A., and Butt N. Z. (2022). Crop-specific optimization of bifacial PV arrays for agrivoltaic food-energy production: The light-productivity-factor approach. IEEE J. Photovolt. 12, 572–580. doi: 10.1109/jphotov.2021.3136158

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roccaforte G. (2021). Eclipse: A new photovoltaic panel designed for greenhouses and croplands. AIP Conf. Proc., 2361. doi: 10.1063/5.0054544/14232760/070002_1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roxani A., Zisos A., Sakki G. K., and Efstratiadis A. (2023). Multidimensional role of Agrovoltaics in era of EU green Deal: Current status and analysis of water–energy–food–land dependencies. Land 12, 1069. doi: 10.3390/land12051069

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Santiteerakul S., Sopadang A., Yaibuathet Tippayawong K., and Tamvimol K. (2020). The role of smart technology in sustainable agriculture: A case study of wangree plant factory. Sustainability. 12, 4640. doi: 10.3390/su12114640

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarr A., Soro Y. M., Tossa A. K., and Diop L. (2023). Agrivoltaic, a synergistic co-location of agricultural and energy production in perpetual mutation: A comprehensive review. Processes. 11, 948. doi: 10.3390/pr11030948

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Savalle-Gloire N., Vercambre G., Chopard J., Blanchard-Gros R., Catala J., Fumey D., et al. (2025). Transient shading in agrivoltaic greenhouses: its impact on growth, architecture, and dry matter accumulation and partition in tomato plants. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 100, 138–151. doi: 10.1080/14620316.2024.2371593

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Scarano A., Semeraro T., Calisi A., Aretano R., Rotolo C., Lenucci M. S., et al. (2024). Effects of the agrivoltaic system on crop production: the case of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Appl. Sci. 14, 3095. doi: 10.3390/app14073095

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schindele S., Trommsdorff M., Schlaak A., Obergfell T., Bopp G., Reise C., et al. (2020). Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications. Appl. Energy. 265, 114737. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114737

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schweiger A. H. and Pataczek L. (2023). How to reconcile renewable energy and agricultural production in a drying world. Plants People Planet 5, 650–661. doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10371

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sekiyama T. (2019). Performance of agrivoltaic systems for shade-intolerant crops: land for both food and clean energy production. (Master’s thesis) (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Extension School). Available online at: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42004145.

Google Scholar

Sekiyama T. and Nagashima A. (2019). Solar sharing for both food and clean energy production: Performance of agrivoltaic systems for corn, a typical shade-intolerant crop. Environ. 6, 65. doi: 10.3390/Environments6060065

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Semeraro T., Scarano A., Curci L. M., Leggieri A., Lenucci M., Basset A., et al. (2024). Shading effects in agrivoltaic systems can make the difference in boosting food security in climate change. Appl. Energy. 358, 122565. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122565

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shahsavari A. and Akbari M. (2018). Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 275–291. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.065

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharu E. H. and Ab Razak M. S. (2020). Hydraulic performance and modelling of pressurized drip irrigation system. Water. 12, 2295. doi: 10.3390/w12082295

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Srigiri S. R. and Dombrowsky I. (2022). Analysing the water-energy-food nexus from a polycentric governance perspective: Conceptual and methodological framework. Front. Environ. Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.725116

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stallknecht E. J., Herrera C. K., Yang C., King I., Sharkey T. D., Lunt R. R., et al. (2023). Designing plant–transparent agrivoltaics. Sci. Rep. 13, 1903. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-28484-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stehr H., Adelhardt N., Bingwa B., and Wolf S. (2023). Unlocking the potential of agrivoltaics. Rural 21. 57, 28–30.

Google Scholar

Sturchio M., Kannenberg S., and Knapp A. K. (2024). Agrivoltaic arrays can maintain semi-arid grassland productivity and extend the seasonality of forage quality. Appl. Energy. 356, 122418. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122418

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Susanti E. D., Chozin M. A., Ritonga A. W., and Sulistyowati D. (2023). Identification of morpho-physiological and yield traits of sweet corn hybrids at various shade levels. Caraka Tani J. Sustain. Agric. 38, 327–338. doi: 10.20961/carakatani.v38i2.62128

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tang Y., Li M., and Ma X. (2019). “Study on photovoltaic modules on greenhouse roof for energy and strawberry production,” in E3S web of conferences. (Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences), 03049.

Google Scholar

Tang Y., Ma X., Li M., and Wang Y. (2020). The effect of temperature and light on strawberry production in a solar greenhouse. Solar Energy, 195, 318–328. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.11.070

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tani A., Shiina S., Nakashima K., and Hayashi M. (2014). Improvement in lettuce growth by light diffusion under solar panels. J. Agric. Meteorol. 70, 139–149. doi: 10.2480/agrmet.D-14-00005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Teng J. W. C., Soh C. B., Devihosur S. C., Tay R. H. S., and Jusuf S. K. (2022). Effects of agrivoltaic systems on the surrounding rooftop microclimate. Sustainability. 14, 7089. doi: 10.3390/su14127089

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Terrapon-Pfaff J., Ortiz W., Dienst C., and Gröne M. C. (2018). Energising the WEF nexus to enhance sustainable development at local level. J. Environ. Manage. 223, 409–416. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.037

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thompson E. P., Bombelli E. L., Shubham S., Watson H., Everard A., D’Ardes V., et al. (2020). Tinted semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and electricity on the same cropland. Adv. Energy Mater. 10, 2001189. doi: 10.1002/aenm.202001189

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thum C. H., Okada K., Yamasaki Y., and Kato Y. (2025). Impacts of agrivoltaic systems on microclimate, grain yield, and quality of lowland rice under a temperate climate. Field Crops Res. 326, 109877. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2025.109877

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Toledo C. and Scognamiglio A. (2021). Agrivoltaic systems design and assessment: A critical review, and a descriptive model towards a sustainable landscape vision (Three-dimensional agrivoltaic patterns). Sustainability. 13, 6871. doi: 10.3390/SU13126871

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Touil S., Richa A., Fizir M., and Bingwa B. (2021). Shading effect of photovoltaic panels on horticulture crops production: A mini review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 20, 281–296. doi: 10.1007/s11157-021-09572-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Trommsdorff M., Kang J., Reise C., Schindele S., Bopp G., Ehmann A., et al. (2021). Combining food and energy production: Design of an agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegeta ble farming in Germany. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 140, 110694. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110694

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Turan N. (2021). Agrivoltaics and their effects on crops: A review. Muş Alparslan Univ. J. Agric. Nat. 1, 39–47.

Google Scholar

Ukwu U. N., Muller O., Meier-Grüll M., and Uguru M. I. (2025). Agrivoltaics shading enhanced the microclimate, photosynthesis, growth and yields of Vigna radiata genotypes in tropical Nigeria. Sci. Rep. 15, 1190. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-84216-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

United Nation (UN) (2021). The future of food and agriculture report 2020-21. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf (Accessed November 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

Unno K., Furushima D., Nomura Y., Yamada H., Iguchi K., Taguchi K., et al. (2020). Antidepressant effect of shaded white leaf tea containing high levels of caffeine and amino acids. Molecules. 25, 3550. doi: 10.3390/molecules25153550

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vernier J., Amiot B., Edouard S., Dupont E., Ferrand M., Trotin V., et al. (2025). How to model wind flows in vegetative canopies and plant-air convective heat exchanges? A special focus on agrivoltaics (Preprint). Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5761642.

Google Scholar

Verstraeten W. W., Veroustraete F., and Feyen J. (2008). Assessment of evapotranspiration and soil moisture content across different scales of observation. Sensors 8, 70–117. doi: 10.3390/s8010070

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Victoria M., Pullens J. W. M., Torma G., Lindhardt M. K. K., Niazi K. A. K., Jahangirlou M. R., et al. (2025). Vertical agrivoltaics in a temperate climate: Exploring technical, agricultural, meteorological, and social dimensions. Energy Nexus, 19, 100526. doi: 10.1016/j.nexus.2025.100526

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waghmare R., Jilte R., Joshi S., and Tete P. (2023). Review on agrophotovoltaic systems with a premise on thermal management of photovoltaic modules therein. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 30, 25591–25612. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-23202-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wagner M., Lask J., Kiesel A., Lewandowski I., Weselek A., Högy P., et al. (2023). Agrivoltaics: the environmental impacts of combining food crop cultivation and solar energy generation. Agronomy. 13, 299. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13020299

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walston L. J., Barley T., Bhandari I., Campbell B., McCall J., Hartmann H. M., et al. (2022). Opportunities for agrivoltaic systems to achieve synergistic food-energy-environmental needs and address sustainability goals. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.932018/full

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Warmann E., Jenerette G. D., and Barron-Gafford G. (2024). Agrivoltaic system design tools for managing trade-offs between energy production, crop productivity and water consumption. Environ. Res. Lett. 19, 034046. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad2ab8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weselek A., Bauerle A., Hartung J., Zikeli S., Lewandowski I., and Högy P. (2021). Agrivoltaic system impacts on microclimate and yield of different crops within an organic crop rotation in a temperate climate. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 59. doi: 10.1007/s13593-021-00714-y/Published

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weselek A., Ehmann A., Zikeli S., Lewandowski I., Schindele S., and Högy P. (2019). Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39, 35. doi: 10.1007/s13593-019-0581-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Widmer J., Christ B., Grenz J., and Norgrove L. (2024). Agrivoltaics, a promising new tool for electricity and food production: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 192, 114277. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.114277

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams H. J., Hashad K., Wang H., and Zhang K. M. (2023). The potential for agrivoltaics to enhance solar farm cooling. Appl. Energy. 332, 120478. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120478

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Willockx B., Herteleer B., and Cappelle J. (2020). Combining photovoltaic modules and food crops: first agrovoltaic prototype in Belgium. Renew. Energy Power Qual. J. 18, 875–880.

Google Scholar

Willockx B., Reher T., Lavaert C., Herteleer B., Van de Poel B., and Cappelle J. (2024). Design and evaluation of an agrivoltaic system for a pear orchard. Appl. Energy. 353, 122166. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122166

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wolske E., Chatham L., Juvik J., and Branham B. (2021). Berry quality and anthocyanin content of ‘Consort’ black currants grown under artificial shade. Plants. 10, 766. doi: 10.3390/plants10040766

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu Y., Du T., Ding R., Yuan Y., Li S., and Tong L. (2017). An isotope method to quantify soil evaporation and evaluate water vapor movement under plastic film mulch. Agric. Water Manage. 184, 59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.01.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu C., Liu H., Yu Y., Zhao W., Liu J., Yu H., et al. (2022). Ecohydrological effects of photovoltaic solar farms on soil microclimates and moisture regimes in arid Northwest China: A modeling study. Sci. Total Environ. 802, 149946. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149946

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wydra K., Vollmer V., Busch C., and Prichta S. (2023). “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 (London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen). doi: 10.5772/intechopen.111728

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yajima D., Toyoda T., Kirimura M., Araki K., Ota Y., and Nishioka K. (2023). Agrivoltaic system: Estimation of photosynthetic photon flux density under solar panels based on solar irradiation data using all-climate solar spectrum model. Clean Eng. Technol. 12, 100594. doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2022.100594

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ye W., Ma E., Liao L., Hui Y. A., Liang S., Ji Y., et al. (2023). Applicability of photovoltaic panel rainwater harvesting system in improving water-energy-food nexus performance in semi-arid areas. Sci. Total Environ. 896, 164938. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164938

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yu Y. and Ko Y. (2021). “A review of the attributes of successful agriphotovoltaic projects,” in 4th APRU Sustainable Cities and Landscapes Virtual Conference 2020 (Hong Kong, China: Association of Pacific Rim Universities). doi: 10.17608/k6.auckland.13578179.v2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yue S., Guo M., Zou P., Wu W., and Zhou X. (2021). Effects of photovoltaic panels on soil temperature and moisture in desert areas. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 28, 17506–17518. doi: 10.1007/S11356-020-11742-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zainali S., Lu S. M., Fernández-Solas Á., Cruz-Escabias A., Fernández E. F., Zidane T. E. K., et al. (2025). Modelling, simulation, and optimisation of agrivoltaic systems: a comprehensive review. Appl. Energy. 386, 125558. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125558

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zainali S., Qadir O., Parlak S. C., Lu S. M., Avelin A., Stridh B., et al. (2023). Computational fluid dynamics modelling of microclimate for a vertical agrivoltaic system. Energy Nexus 9, 100173. doi: 10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100173

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zainol Abidin M. A., Mahyuddin M. N., and Mohd Zainuri M. A. A. (2021). Solar photovoltaic architecture and agronomic management in agrivoltaic system: A review. Sustainability 13, 7846. doi: 10.3390/su13147846

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang S., Gong J., Xiao C., Yang X., Li X., Zhang Z., et al. (2024). Bupleurum chinense and Medicago sativa sustain their growth in agrophotovoltaic systems by regulating photosynthetic mechanisms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 189, 114024. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.114024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng Y., Chen A., Fu X., and Li D. (2024). Photovoltaics and agriculture nexus: exploring the influence of agrivoltaics on food production and electricity generation. IEEE J. Photovolt. 14, 705–719. doi: 10.1109/jphotov.2024.3421298

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zotti M., Mazzoleni S., Mercaldo L. V., Della Noce M., Ferrara M., Veneri P. D., et al. (2024). Testing the effect of semi-transparent spectrally selective thin film photovoltaics for agrivoltaic application: a multi-experimental and multi-specific approach. Heliyon. 10, e24772. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26323

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zribi W., Aragüés R., Medina E., and Faci J. M. (2015). Efficiency of inorganic and organic mulching materials for soil evaporation control. Soil Tillage Res. 148, 40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2014.12.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar