b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper

Spatial and temporal variation of photosynthetic

photon flux density within agrivoltaic system in
hot arid region of India

Priyabrata Santra*, Hari Mohan Meena, O.P. Yadav

ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342003, India

article info
Ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) arrays of an agrivoltaic system (AVS) creates shade in
Article history: the interspace areas as well as below PV areas of the AVS. Therefore, availability of
Received 22 October 2020 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) and daily light integral (DLI) in the AVS is
Received in revised form negatively affected, which restricts optimum crop growth and yield. Therefore, in this
7 June 2021 study, spatial and temporal variation of PPFD and DLI in the AVS (105 kWp) developed at
Accepted 20 June 2021 Jodhpur, India were quantified. Among three designs of PV arrays in the AVS, the pro-
Published online 7 July 2021 portion of shaded area in interspace was found highest in single row design and lowest in
triple row design. The amount of PPFD varied widely in the AVS and even within the
Keywords: shaded area. Following semivariogram and kriging approach, spatial variation of PPFD and
Agrivoltaic system (AVS) DLI was quantified within the AVS. Highest amount of PPFD was observed near noon in
Photosynthetic photon flux density unshaded areas (1295 mmol m
2 s
1) whereas lowest amount was observed during morning
(PPFD) at below PV array (24 mmol m
2 s
1). Based on the maps of PPFD and DLI, three distinct
Photosynthetically active radiation zones in the AVS were identified: (i) below PV array (DLI ¼ 0e5 mol m
2 d
1), (ii) interspace
(PAR) area with partial shade (DLI ¼ 5e20 mol m
2 d
1) and (iii) interspace areas with no shade
Daily light integral (DLI) (DLI ¼ 20e30 mol m
2 d
1). Knowledge of spatial and temporal variation of PPFD and DLI
Spatial variation may help in selection of suitable crops for the AVS.
Shade of PV structure © 2021 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of AVS was first proposed by Goetzberger and Zastrow (1982),

1. Introduction
An agrivoltaic system (AVS) is defined as combined produc-
tion of photovoltaic (PV) electricity and food from a single land
unit. In the AVS system, the interspaces between ground-
mounted PV arrays are used for crop cultivation. Even the
areas below PV modules can also be used for the same purpose
if the ground-mounted PV array structure is high enough to
perform agricultural activities below it with ease. The concept
and was later successfully studied experimentally by Dupraz
et al. (2011) and Marrou, Guilioni, et al. (2013). During the
last 3e4 years, there has been growing interest in utilising the
potential of AVS in different parts of the world (Adeh et al.,
2019; Amaducci et al., 2018; Barron-Gafford et al., 2019;
Dayananda, 2018; Dinesh & Pearce, 2016; Dos Santos, 2020;
Elamri et al., 2018; Irie et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2020; Loots, 2018;
Majumdar & Pasqualetti, 2018; Malu et al., 2017; Marrou, 2019;
Othman et al., 2018; Ravi et al., 2016; Santra et al., 2017, 2018a;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Priyabrata.Santra@icar.gov.in (P. Santra).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.06.017
1537-5110/© 2021 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 75

Nomenclature TC Time correction factor

xi Coordinates of location along x-axis, m
a Semivariogram parameter, range, describing
yi Coordinates of location along y-axis, m
spatial variation of PPFD, m
zðsi Þ Measured value of PPFD at location si, mmol
AVS Agrivoltaic system
m
2 s
1
C Semivariogram parameter, partial sill, describing
zðsi þhÞ Value of PPFD at lag distance h from the location si,
spatial variation of PPFD, [mmol m
2 s
1]2
mmol m
2 s
1
C0 Semivariogram parameter, nugget, describing
zobs Mean of observed values of PPFD, mmol m
2 s
1
spatial variation of PPFD, [mmol m
2 s
1]2
zpred Mean of predicted values of PPFD, mmol m
2 s
1
d Julian day, day
b
z ðsi Þ Predicted values of PPFD at location si, mmol m
2
D0 Maximum shade length, m
s
1
Dx Shade length in x-axis, m
b
z ðs0 Þ Kriging estimate of PPFD at unmeasured location
Dy Shade length in y-axis, m
s0, mmol m
2s
1
DLI Daily light integral, mol m
2 d
1
var Variance
EoT Empirical equation of time
d Solar declination, degree
h Lag distance, m
DGMT Time difference with Greenwich Mean Time, h
ht Height of PV array from ground surface, m
gðhÞ Semivariogram value of PPFD at lag distance h,
LCCC Lin's concordance correlation coefficient
[mmol m
2s
1]2
LST Local solar time, hour
li Kriging weight for the data observations z (si)
LSTM Local standard time meridian, degree
located at si
LT Local time, hour
4s Solar azimuth angle, degree
n Number of sampling locations
j Latitude of location, degree
N(h) number of pairs of data locations within a given
r Pearson correlation coefficient
class of lag distance h
s2E ðs0 Þ Error variance of kriged prediction of PPFD at
PAR Photosynthetically active radiation, mmol m
2 s
1
location s0, [mmol m
2 s
1]2
PPFD Photosynthetic photon flux density, mmol m
2 s
1
sobs Standard deviation of observed values of PPFD,
PV Photovoltaic
mmol m
2 s
1
RMSE Root mean squared error
spred Standard deviation of predicted values of PPFD,
SEF Solar energy farming
mmol m
2 s
1
si Coordinates (xi ; yi ) of measurement location, (m,
qs Solar zenith angle, degree
m)
u hour angle at local solar time, degree
s0 Coordinates (x0 ;y0 ) of unmeasured location, (m, m)

Weselek et al., 2019). Solar PV systems have been installed in
agricultural lands with the main focus of growing crops in
association with solar panels; however, nomenclature of the
system other than AVS has also been reported in the literature
e.g. agrophotovoltaic system (Schindele et al., 2020; Weselek
et al., 2019), agri-voltaic system (Santra et al., 2017), solar en-
ergy farming (SEF) (Al-Saidi & Lahham, 2019), co-location of
solar and agriculture (Ravi et al., 2016) etc. Combining PV
generation and agricultural production together in AVS has
led to improvement of land productivity by about 40e70%
(Dupraz et al., 2011; Santra, Singh, Jain, & Yadav, 2018; Valle
et al., 2017). Further, AVS system has also been found to be
environmentally friendly and therefore it may be thought as a
suitable option for mitigating climate change effects specif-
ically in drylands (Santra et al., 2018; Leon & Ishihara, 2018;
Barron-Gafford et al., 2019). PV greenhouses are other aspects
of combining PV and agriculture where controlled cultivation
of horticultural crops is carried out inside protected structures
and PV modules on the roof of the structure are either partially
or fully used to meet the energy requirement for controlled
cultivation (Li et al., 2017; Marucci & Cappuccini, 2016; Marucci
et al., 2018; Wang, Wu, et al., 2017; Yano & Cossu, 2019; Yano
et al., 2010). However, the AVS system is quite different from
PV greenhouses and therefore should not be used
interchangeably.
Arid regions or drylands of the world receiving enough
solar irradiation are ideal place for establishment of AVS
(Barron-Gafford et al., 2019), though high wind regime in the
region restricts the mounting height of PV array above ground
level, otherwise it may be dislodged by high wind action.
Moreover, cleaning of deposited dust from the PV module is
difficult in case of high mounting PV arrays of the AVS since
erosion of topsoil by wind action is a regular phenomenon in
arid regions. Shade created by opaque PV modules of ground
mounted AVS may have significant impact on plant growth
and yield (Kadowaki et al., 2012; Poorter et al., 2019) and this
effect will be more pronounced in the case of low mounting PV
array than high mounting structure. The occurrence of shade
is intermittent in nature since it depends on solar zenith and
azimuth angle, but the cumulated duration of shade at
different locations in AVS is an important factor to govern
crop growth and yield in AVS. Shade does not always nega-
tively affect crop growth if the selected crop can tolerate a
certain degree of shade (Sekiyama, 2019; Sekiyama &
Nagashima, 2019). Sometimes, the shade may be beneficial
to crops, especially during hot summer days, by limiting
76 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3
exposure of crops to excessive light, by improving the soil
water regime for plant growth and by modifying microclimate
(Adeh et al., 2018; Marrou et al., 2013b, 2013c; Oleskewicz,
2020; Patel & Chauhan, 2018).
Therefore, availability of photosynthetic photon flux den-
sity (PPFD) and its spatial and temporal variation plays an
important role in successful crop production in AVS. PPFD is
defined as the number of photosynthetically active photons
that fall on a given surface each second and includes photons
in 400e700 nm region of the solar energy spectrum, which
constitute about 42e49% of the total energy of the whole solar
spectra (Faust & Logan, 2018; Moretti & Marucci, 2019; Zhu
et al., 2008). The photosynthesis process utilises only 3e4%
of the total incident solar energy although this varies across
plant types (Zhu et al., 2008). Therefore, reduced availability of
PPFD under shade negatively affects photosynthesis and plant
growth (Gao et al., 2010; Kla € ring & Krumbein, 2013). Often,
PPFD is expressed as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)
and its cumulated availability is known as daily light integral
(DLI) (Faust et al., 2005; Hodges et al., 2016; Suthaparan et al.,
2017). The situation of the shade created by the PV structure
in AVS can be compared to the shade created by trees in
agroforestry systems, where performance of crop growth de-
pends on the shade of associated trees in the system (Bellow &
Nair, 2003; Meloni & Sinoquet, 1997; Sivakumar & Virmani,
1984). Therefore, knowledge of spatial and temporal varia-
tion of PPFD in AVS may help to select suitable crops for the
AVS. Spatial variation of available PPFD inside a greenhouse
structure has been quantified by Guertal and Elkins (1996) by
applying a geostatistical approach. Later, several attempts
have been made to quantify spatial and temporal variation of
PPFD inside PV greenhouse structure (Castellano et al., 2016;
Cossu et al., 2017; Moretti & Marucci, 2019). However, studies
to quantify spatial and temporal variation of PPFD in AVS and
for low mounting PV arrays have been limited (Wang et al.,
Fig. 1 e Design of ground mounted PV array structure in agrivoltaic system (AVS) at ICAR-CAZRI, Jodhpur.
2017a, 2018; Wang & Sun, 2018). Since, low mounting struc-
ture is generally followed in arid environment or dryland, the
knowledge on pattern of shade and availability of PPFD and
DLI within AVS is important.
The present study was aimed to quantify the spatial and
temporal variability of PPFD and DLI in the 105 kWp AVS
established at Jodhpur, India. The specific objectives were to
quantify the availability of PPFD in the interspace and below
PV areas of the AVS during the winter solstice period and to
develop spatial maps of shade coverage, PPFD and DLI in the
AVS using geostatistical techniques.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Design of AVS
The AVS of 105 kWp was installed at the experimental solar
yard of ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute (ICAR-
CAZRI), Jodhpur. The geographical location of the study site
was 26 150 27.8200 N and 72 590 34.5700 E. The AVS was installed
at three blocks with an area of 32  32 m for each. The PV
system in each block was 35 kWp and the length of the PV
array in each block was 30.75 m. Power output and dimension
of a single PV module was 260 Wp and 1.64 m  0.992 m,
respectively. Design parameters of PV module installations in
each block are given in Fig. 1. Inclination of the PV mounting
structure from ground surface was 26 , which was equal to the
latitude of the experimental site. At the low end of the PV
mounting structure, ground clearance was 0.5 m. Interspace
distance between two PV arrays in block1, block 2 and block 3
were 2.95 m, 5.55 m and 8.90 m, respectively.
The design of the PV array was different in different blocks
of the AVS: (i) single row PV array in block 1 (ii) double row PV
array in block 2 and (iii) triple row PV array in block 3. The
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 77

number of PV arrays in block 1, block 2 and block 3 were 6, 3 2.3. Shade calculation in AVS
and 2, respectively to keep the total size of the PV systems in
each block as 35 kWp. In block 1, PV modules were installed Shade of a ground-mounted solar PV array depends on the
with full density in three PV arrays and half density in the sun's position, which is mainly defined by solar azimuth angle
other three PV arrays. In block 2 and 3, PV density was less and zenith angle (Duffie & Beckman, 2013). Graphical repre-
than its full capacity. The double row model in block 2 con- sentations of solar azimuth and zenith angle and the shade
sisted of the bottom row with full density of PV modules and created by the ground-mounted PV structure are illustrated in
the top row with 60% density of PV module. The triple row Fig. 3.
model in block 3 consisted of two bottom rows with full Solar zenith angle (qs) was calculated using:
density of PV modules and the top row with 60% density of PV
modules. Installation designs of full density in single row PV cosðqs Þ ¼ sinðjÞsinðdÞ þ cosðjÞcosðuÞ (1)
array of block 1, fullþ60% density in double row PV array of
block 2, and fullþfullþ60% density in triple row PV array of where, j is latitude of location, d is the solar declination, u is
block 3 are depicted in Fig. 2. Designs of the other two PV ar- the hour angle at local solar time.
rays in the AVS are not presented here since no observations Solar azimuth angle (4s) was calculated using:
of PPFD were recorded under these PV arrays. Overall, there
sinðdÞ:cosðjÞ
cosðdÞ:sinðjÞ:cosðuÞ
were 28 PV modules in of the full density rows and 17 PV cosð4s Þ ¼ (2)
cosðqs Þ
modules in the 60% PV density rows.
Solar declination angle (d) was calculated using:
2.2. Solar irradiance data of Jodhpur
d ¼ 23:45 sinðBÞ (3)

Solar irradiance (W m
2) at the experimental site was

360
measured at 5-min interval during 2016e2018 using an in- B¼ ðd
81Þ (4)
365
built pyranometer in automatic weather station which was
installed near the AVS. Average hourly variation of solar en- where, B is a factor which corrects the eccentricity of earth's
ergy (Wh m
2) was calculated from the raw data of solar orbit and earth's axial tilt, d is the Julian day in a year with
irradiance (W m
2) for each month in a year. The radiometric values from 1 to 365 at 1st January and 31st December,
data on solar energy was further converted to photosynthetic respectively.
photon flux density (PPFD) using a conversion factor of Hour angle at local solar time was calculated using:
0.007265 mol (400e700 nm) Wh
1 (400e2700 nm) considering
that 45% of solar energy spectrum is available in photosyn- u ¼ 15ðLST
12Þ (5)
thetically active radiation (PAR) (400e700 nm) region and the
conversion factor from radiometric unit to quantum unit is TC
LST ¼ LT þ (6)
4.48 mmol J
1 (Faust & Logan, 2018). 60

Fig. 2 e Agrivoltaic system (AVS) at ICAR-CAZRI, Jodhpur; (aec) design of PV array in three field blocks of the AVS and (def)
field photographs of the installed AVS in block 1, block 2 and block 3, respectively.
78 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3

Fig. 3 e Schematic diagrams of solar azimuth and zenith angle and shade created by ground mounted PV structure (In the
top figure, solid lines are on XeY plane or ground surface whereas dotted lines are above XeY plane). (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

TC ¼ 4ðLongitude
LSTMÞ þ EoT (7) Dy ¼ D0 cosð180
4s Þ (12)

where, Dx is shade length in x-axis and Dy is shade length in y-

LSTM ¼ 15DGMT (8)
axis of x-y plane.

EoT ¼ 9:87 sinð2BÞ
7:53 cosðBÞ
1:5 sinðBÞ
where, LST is the local solar time, LT is the local time, TC is the
time correction factor in minutes which accounts for the
variation of LST within a time zone, LSTM is the local standard
time meridian, DGMT is the time difference with Greenwich
Mean Time in hour (5.5 h in India), EoT is the empirical
equation of time in minutes that corrects for the eccentricity
of the earth's orbit and earth's axial tilt.
Using the solar zenith angle, shade of ground mounted PV
structure was calculated as follows:
ht
D0 ¼
tanð90
qs Þ
where, D0 is the maximum shade length for a particular solar
zenith angle, qs and ht is the height of PV array from ground
surface. The spatial coverage of shade in x-y plane on the ground
surface was further calculated by converting maximum shade
length to perpendicular shade length in x-y plane as follows:
Dx ¼ D0 sinð180
4s Þ
(9) 2.4. Measurement of PPFD in AVS
The PPFD at multiple locations in each selected PV array design
was measured using a line quantum sensor (Apogee, MQ-301,
Series#1178). The line quantum sensor consisted of 10 quan-
tum sensors spaced 5 cm apart. Each quantum sensor mea-
sures the quantity of photons available in the sunlight in the
spectral range of 410e655 nm. In-built wavelength dependent
adjustment coefficients of 0.5 or above were used to quantify
the total number of photons between 410 and 655 nm. Blue light
has lower adjustment coefficients compared to red light.
Spatial averaging of 10 sensors was recorded as a single output
(10)
using a hand-held meter attached to the instrument. During
measurements of PPFD in field at each location, the instrument
was held 10 cm above the ground surface in a west-east di-
rection. Geographical coordinates of each measurement loca-
tions were recorded (Fig. 4). The numbers of sampling locations
in single row PV array, double row PV array and triple row PV
array were 66, 142 and 209, respectively. PPFD was measured
(11) during cloud-free day around winter solstice in northern
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 79

Fig. 4 e Measurement locations of photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) in the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at ICAR-CAZRI,
Jodhpur (dotted line is the border line between below PV area and interspace area of AVS).

hemisphere e.g., on 20th December 2018 in double row PV array 2.5. Mapping spatial variation of PPFD in AVS
(block 2), on 22nd December 2018 in triple row PV array (block 3)
and on 24th December 2018 in single row PV array (block 1). Spatial variation of PPFD in the AVS was determined by
Measurements were recorded around winter solstice because calculating the semivariogram followed by kriging. Semi-
day length was minimum during this period in northern variogram, gðhÞ, measures the average dissimilarity in a
hemisphere and thus the magnitude of shade was greatest and property between data locations separated by a vector h
its effect on availability of PPFD was also greatest. PPFD was (Webster & Oliver, 2007).
recorded during three periods on each measurement day: (i)
1 X
NðhÞ
9:00e10:00 (morning), (ii) 12:00e13:00 (noon), and (iii) 2
gðhÞ ¼ ½zðsi Þ
zðsi þ hÞ (13)
15:00e16:00 (afternoon). 2NðhÞ i¼1
80 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3

where, N (h) is the number of pairs of data locations within a 2.6. Daily light integral map in AVS
given class of lag distance, z (si) is the value of the variable at
the location si with coordinates of (xi, yi), z (si þ h) is the value The PPFD values indicated the instantaneous availability of
of the variable at a lag of h from the location si. photosynthetically active radiation, which varied widely in a
Kriging estimates of PPFD at unmeasured locations, zbðs0 Þ, day. Therefore, an integrated parameter, daily light integral
were obtained using weighted linear combinations of known (DLI), was used to quantify the total availability of light in a
PPFD values, z (si), located within a neighbourhood centred day and was expressed as mol m
2 d
1. DLI was quantified by
around s0 (Webster & Oliver, 2007). summing up the cumulated PPFD for three measured sub
periods in a day (morning, noon, and afternoon). Using the
X
nðs 0Þ
above procedure, maps of PPFD for 9:00e10:00 (morning),
b
z ðs0 Þ ¼ li zðsi Þ (14)
i¼1 12:00e13:00 (noon) and 15:00e16:00 (afternoon) were con-
verted to a DLI map.
where li is the weight assigned to datum zðsi Þ located within a
given neighbourhood centred on s0. Weights for n number of
neighbourhood points were chosen as such to minimise the
3. Results and discussion
estimation or error variance, s2E ðs0 Þ ¼ Varf zbðs0 Þ
zðs0 Þgunder
the constraint of no-bias of the estimator. Semivariogram
3.1. Solar irradiance and estimated PPFD at Jodhpur
calculation and kriging were done using ‘gstat’ package of R
(Pebesma, 2003; R Core Team, 2019).
Average monthly variation of solar irradiation at Jodhpur
Accuracy of spatially predicted PPFD was checked using k-
during 2016e2018 is presented in Fig. 5. The highest solar
fold cross validation (k ¼ 10). In this approach, the whole
irradiance was observed during May (7.3 kWh m
2 d
1) and the
dataset was divided into k-folds and then (k-1) fold datasets
lowest in December (3.7 kWh m
2 day
1). The duration of
were used as training dataset and the kriging system based on
receiving significant amount of solar irradiation (>100 Wh
the training data was tested on the kth fold as validation
m
2) was about 11 h (from 7:00 to 18:00) during summer
dataset. The procedure was repeated till each of k folds got a
months (April, May and June) and about 9 h (from 8:00 to 17:00)
chance to become validation dataset once. The following
during winter months (November, December and January).
validation statistics were calculated to judge the accuracy of
Annual average solar irradiance at the experimental site was
PPFD maps.
5.2 kWh m
2.
   Monthly and daily temporal variation of available PPFD at
P
n
zðsi Þ
zobs b z ðsi Þ
zpred Jodhpur is presented in Table 1. Wide variation in availability of
i¼1
r ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 (15) PPFD was observed across different months and across
P n Pn
zðsi Þ
zobs b
z ðsi Þ
zpred different times in a day. Peak of daily variation in PPFD was
i¼1 i¼1
observed for 12:00e13:00 in each month and the peak value
varied from 1206 mmol m
2 s
1 during December to
2rsobs spred
LCCC ¼  2 (16) 1970 mmol m
2 s
1 during May. Monthly variation of DLI
zobs
zpred þ s2obs þ s2pred showed a range from 27 mol m
2 d
1 during December to
53 mol m
2 d
1 during May. Poorter et al. (2019) reported the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi monthly averaged DLI value in the range of 20e40 mmol m
2 s
1
1X n
2 in tropics, 15e60 mmol m
2 s
1 at 30 latitude and
RMSE ¼ ½zðsi Þ
b z ðsi Þ (17)
n i¼1

1X n
bias ¼ ½zðsi Þ
b
z ðsi Þ (18)
n i¼1

b i Þis the predicted values with variance s2 at the

where, Zðs
location si, and n is the number of sampling location. The
Pearson correlation coefficient (r) measured the precision of
the relationship. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient
(LCCC) (Lin, 1989), on the other hand, was a single statistic
that evaluated both the accuracy and precision of the rela-
tionship. A LCCC value equal to 1 would indicate perfect
positive agreement between observed and predicted values
whereas
1 indicated perfect negative agreement. The RMSE
statistics estimated the accuracy of prediction (e.g., larger
RMSE values indicated less accuracy of prediction). Bias
indicated the mean error of prediction and a value of zero
indicated unbiased prediction. Cross-validation was per-
formed using ‘gstat’ package of R (Pebesma, 2003; R Core Fig. 5 e Average hourly variation of solar irradiation at
Team, 2019). Jodhpur, India for different months (Period: 2016e2018).
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 81

Table 1 e Temporal variation of photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) (mmol m¡2 s¡1) and daily light integral (DLI) (mol
m¡2 d¡1) for different months at Jodhpur, India.
Time PPFD (mmol m
2 s
1)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
5:00e6:00 0 0 0 1 6 8 6 1 0 0 0 0
6:00e7:00 0 1 12 62 138 136 91 48 34 12 3 0
7:00e8:00 30 76 201 340 494 454 312 249 267 205 124 52
8:00e9:00 261 391 537 709 892 823 611 550 616 573 456 328
9:00e10:00 582 770 896 1036 1306 1170 903 870 940 926 809 653
10:00e11:00 857 1118 1267 1348 1588 1502 1128 1148 1236 1177 1104 949
11:00e12:00 1098 1357 1506 1549 1864 1710 1285 1326 1369 1388 1266 1146
12:00e13:00 1248 1450 1582 1628 1970 1821 1434 1326 1531 1460 1329 1206
13:00e14:00 1214 1406 1526 1562 1911 1776 1420 1302 1457 1374 1224 1124
14:00e15:00 1036 1266 1345 1373 1695 1607 1268 1188 1266 1144 999 949
15:00e16:00 800 954 1055 994 1382 1327 1061 1023 937 765 698 670
16:00e17:00 437 611 689 636 936 944 767 691 599 409 340 333
17:00e18:00 118 250 307 340 411 415 438 386 295 108 50 49
18:00e19:00 3 17 43 66 139 153 165 110 38 3 0 0
19:00e20:00 0 0 0 1 10 18 14 6 0 0 0 0
DLI (mol m
2 d
1) 28 35 39 42 53 50 39 37 38 34 30 27

1e40 mmol m
2 s
1 at 60 latitude. Thus, the DLI value for
different months at Jodhpur (latitude ¼ 26 ) as presented in
Table 1 coincides well with the reported values in literature.
PPFD is a critical variable governing the rate of photosyn-
thesis in plants. It has been reported that an increase in PPFD
results in an increase in photosynthesis rate, which is further
reflected in crop growth and yield (Baligar et al., 2005; Chauhan
et al., 2013; Hidaka et al., 2013; Kla € ring & Krumbein, 2013;
Ohashi-Kaneko et al., 2007; Sivakumar & Virmani, 1984).
However, the increasing trend in photosynthesis has generally
been observed up to a critical level of PPFD, which is known as
the light saturation point, beyond which the increasing trend
was flattened. The PPFD corresponding to the light saturation
point has also been reported to vary between different crop
types (Yano & Cossu, 2019) (Table 2). However, most of the
literature has reported the required PPFD for horticultural crops
and such information is limited for field crops. It is because of
the difficulty to conduct controlled experiments on quantifying
the light requirement of field crops. Experimental efforts on
quantifying the light requirement of horticultural crops were
feasible because a controlled experimental set up is compara-
tively easy to build inside greenhouses using artificial lighting.
Overall, it was observed that PPFD at light saturation point
ranged from 450 to 1630 mmol m
2 s
1 with an average value of
992 mmol m
2 s
1 for horticultural crops. This amount of PPFD
was abundantly available at the experimental site at Jodhpur
during most of the period in a year (Table 1) and thus meeting
the light requirement of field crop was not a constraint in the
region. Rather, excess exposure to light, which is quite common
in arid environments e.g., at Jodhpur, negatively affects crop
growth and yield due to heat stress and associated changes in
microclimate. Therefore, to cut off exposure to light that ex-
ceeds the optimum requirement may be a strategy to achieve
optimum crop growth and yield in arid environments. How-
ever, plants should not be denied receiving the minimum
amount of PPFD to overcome the light compensation point,
above which net photosynthesis rate becomes positive. The
information on PPFD requirement at light compensation point
is limited in the literature and specifically for field crops. Shade
on the ground surface created by an opaque object (PV struc-
ture) drastically reduces the availability of PPFD and thus
negatively affects plant growth whereas availability of PPFD
above light saturation point does not positively influence plant
growth. Therefore, optimum availability of PPFD in between
light compensation point and light saturation point is always
beneficial to crop growth and yield and hence its availability in
AVS needs to be ascertained to achieve optimum crop yield.
3.2. Spatial and temporal variation of shade in AVS
Spatial and temporal variation of shade created by ground-
mounted PV arrays of the AVS during winter solstice is

Table 2 e List of crops with required amount of PPFD for optimum growth and yield.
Crops PPFD (mmol m
2 s
1) requirement Reference
Minimum Maximum
Cucumber (Cucumber sativa L.) 250 450 Moretti and Marucci (2019)
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) e 450 Sun et al. (2016)
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) 450 750 Moretti and Marucci (2019)
Muskmelon e 1630 Chen et al. (2003)
Major agricultural C3 plants 1000 1500 Larcher (1995)
Radish e 1366 Oh et al. (2015)
Strawberry e 800 da Costa et al. (2014)
82 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3
presented in Fig. 6. Characteristically, the shade length during
morning (9:00e10:00) and afternoon (15:00e16:00) were higher
than at noon (12:00e13:00). The shade length was higher in
triple row PV array (block 3) followed by double row PV array
(block 2) and single row PV array (block 1). This was because of
greater height of PV array in triple row design (2.56 m) than
double row (1.96 m) and single row (1.20 m) designs. Shade
length in y-axis direction, which was the south-north direc-
tion, was 3.64 m, 2.91 m and 3.14 m in single row PV array
(block 1) during morning, noon and afternoon, respectively.
The shade lengths during morning, noon and afternoon were
6.12 m, 5.23 m and 5.93 m in block 2 and 8.77 m, 7.55 and
8.51 m in block 3, respectively. Ratio of shade length to the
total extent of interspace area in y-axis direction was highest
during morning at 0.71, 0.52 and 0.47 in single row, double
row, and triple row PV designs, respectively. Alternate
occurrence of light and shade was observed in the shaded area
of double row and triple row PV array based AVS designs since
the top row of these PV array designs consisted of PV modules
at 60% density. Variation of solar zenith and azimuth angle
affected the shade length, and therefore shade coverage area
on the ground surface was a dynamic phenomenon. There-
fore, low density design of PV array made it possible to receive
both light and shade intermittently where it would otherwise
be completely shaded.
The shaded areas in the interspace of the AVS during
winter solstice with different PV array designs are presented
in Table 3. Percentage shaded varied from 41.95% to 58.21% of
the interspace area of the AVS with single row PV array design
whereas it varied from 18.01% to 32.40% of interspace area in
double row PV array design and from 20.14% to 28.59% of
interspace area in triple row PV array design. The shaded area
Fig. 6 e Variation of shade created by ground mounted PV structure in the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India during
winter solstice period of 2018 (gray-filled shape represents shade of PV structure).
in the interspace was found to be greater with full density
single row PV array design than with fullþ60% PV density in
double row PV array design and with fullþfullþ60% PV density
in triple row PV array design. The shaded area on winter sol-
stice day as presented above is the maximum possible shade
coverage during the year in northern hemisphere. Afterwards
the solstice, the sun moves northward and thus shade
coverage area is gradually decreased until the summer sol-
stice arrives on 21st June.
3.3. Temporal variation of PPFD within AVS
Temporal variation of PPFD in the AVS designs during morn-
ing, noon and afternoon of winter solstice are presented in
Fig. 7. The area below the PV array received the lowest amount
of PPFD whereas the interspace area away from the PV
structure received the highest amount of PPFD. At noon, the
highest PPFD was received in interspace area of all three PV
array designs as compared to morning and afternoon time.
Few measurements below the PV array showed significantly
higher PPFD than the average values and these were observed
at either the east or the west end of the PV array during
morning or afternoon, when solar elevation angle was low
enough to receive direct solar irradiation at these locations.
Wide variations in measured PPFD in the interspace area of
double row and triple row PV array designs were observed.
This was due to 60% PV density of the top row of these PV
array design, which ultimately led to occurrence of light and
shade in alternate patches on the ground surface and the
measured PPFD under shade was lower than the measured
PPFD under light. Measured PPFD in shaded area of the
interspace was slightly higher than shaded area below the PV
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 83

Table 3 e Shaded area in the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India at different times in a day during winter solstice.
Agrivoltaic system Time Total Shaded Shaded area Shaded area Shaded area Percentage
model area (m2) below PV module in interspace outside block shaded area
(m2) (m2) (m2) in interspace (%)
Single row PV array (Block 1) 9:00e10:00 75.4 19.5 55.9 0.0 58.2
(Total area ¼ 144 m2; 12:00e13:00 66.2 26.0 40.3 e 42.0
Interspace area ¼ 96 m2) 15:00e16:00 73.4 20.1 52.5 0.1 54.7
Double row PV array (Block 9:00e10:00 117.9 62.2 53.8 2.0 32.4
2) 12:00e13:00 103.3 68.7 34.6 e 18.0
(Total area ¼ 288 m2; 15:00e16:00 114.8 63.4 48.7 2.8 25.3
Interspace area ¼ 192 m2)
Triple row PV array (Block 3) 9:00e10:00 193.50 104.5 82.3 6.7 28.6
(Total area ¼ 416 m2; 12:00e13:00 169.47 111.5 58.0 e 20.1
Interspace area ¼ 288 m2) 15:00e16:00 188.41 103.7 77.3 7.4 26.8

array. Likewise, measured PPFD in lit area of intermittent
light/shade zone of the AVS was slightly lower than the PPFD
in lit areas of open space in the AVS. This was because of
scattering of light by the PV array structure which led to the
presence of diffuse radiation in the shaded areas with alter-
nate light and shade. This clearly showed that keeping space
between two PV modules in the PV array design, by lowering
the PV density, provided slightly higher PPFD than the full
density PV array design. Therefore, the PV array design with
low density of PV module in AVS is important for successful
cultivation of crops in the interspace area of AVS for which
PPFD is an essential requirement.
Descriptive statistics of PPFD in the AVS are presented in
Table 4. Measured PPFD values below PV array area of full
density single row PV array design (block 1) were slightly lower
as compared to those of double row PV array (block 2) and
triple row PV array (block 3) designs. This was due to low
height of PV mounting structure in single row PV array design
which led to low chance of getting scattered light below the PV
module. Availability of PPFD in partial shaded areas in the
interspace of double row and triple PV array designs varied
widely from as low as 90 mmol m
2 d
1 to as high as
1280 mmol m
2 d
1 and the maximum value of this variation
was almost the same as the available PPFD in open space areas
in the interspace (refers to no shade area in the Table 4). The
lowest availability of PPFD in the interspace area of the AVS
was observed during morning and afternoon and these values
were 194, 100 and 90 mmol m
2 d
1 in single row, double row,
and triple row PV designs, respectively. Highest availability of
PPFD in interspace of the AVS was observed during noon and
these were 1209, 1295 and 1287 mmol m
2 d
1 in single row,
double row, and triple row PV designs, respectively.
3.4. Spatial maps of PPFD in AVS
Semivariogram parameters [nugget (C0), partial sill (C) and
range (a)] describing spatial variation of PPFD in the AVS are
presented in Table 5. C0 and C together described the amount
of spatial variation of PPFD. C0 was zero in most cases which
indicated very low variation at micro scale as well as the low
measurement error. It indirectly shows that the variation of
PPFD in the AVS designs followed a spatial trend, which is also
evident from the well-defined semivariogram plots (Fig. 8).
The semivariogram plots show an increasing trend of g with
increase in h up to lag distance equals to ‘a’ beyond when it
becomes flat. The average value of ‘a’ across all measurement
periods was 6.39 m in single row PV array (block 1), 8.87 m in
double row PV array (block 2) and 13.86 m in triple row PV
array (block 3). These range parameters were almost equal to
the extent of the AVS designs in y-axis direction, which were
4.5 m, 9 m and 12 m in single row, double row and triple row
PV array designs, respectively. Thus, the range parameter ‘a’
showed that spatial correlation of PPFD existed within the
spatial domain of AVS designs. Therefore, PPFD at any un-
measured locations within the extent of AVS designs can be
estimated using three semivariogram parameters; nugget (C0),
partial sill (C) and range (a).
Variation of shade was a dominant factor governing the
availability of PPFD. Apart from it, quality of shade also affected
the availability of PPFD. Therefore, shade covered area alone
could not fully describe the spatial pattern of PPFD and quality
of shade also needs to be considered for mapping spatial
pattern of PPFD in AVS designs. For example, measured PPFD in
the shaded area below the PV array was slightly lower than
PPFD in shaded area in the interspace of the AVS although both
areas were observed as shaded areas during the measurement
period (Fig. 9). This was due to occurrence of slightly deeper
shade below the PV array than in the interspace area. Lightness
or deepness of shade depended on available scattered light or
diffuse short wave radiation in the shaded area. In the inter-
space areas away from the PV array structure, availability of
scattered light was high and hence the shade was light, which
ultimately led to higher availability of PPFD in the shaded area
of the interspace of the AVS. The availability of PPFD was
further increased with increase in height of the ground-
mounted PV structure of the AVS. Similar the availability of
PPFD in the open space (no shade) area is greater than in the lit
area of the interspace of the AVS. Availability of PPFD in the
open space area (no shade) was greater than the availability of
PPFD in the interspace areas that were not covered by shade.
This indicates an increasing gradient of PPFD away from PV
mounting structure. These observations confirm that spatial
variation of shade was governed by intermittence of shade and
light as well as by the height of PV mounting structure.
Decreasing the PV density in the AVS designs led to intermit-
tence of light and shade and thus increased the availability of
84 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3

Fig. 7 e Spatial and temporal variation of PPFD during 20e24 December, 2018 (winter solstice) in the agrivoltaic systems
(AVS) at Jodhpur, India (for a particular distance in the South-North direction, there are 11 data locations across West-East
direction; black dashed line represents the boundary line between below PV array and interspace area and black dotted line
represents imaginary boundary line between partial shade and no shade area in interspace).

PPFD even in shaded areas. Increase in height of PV mounting
structures also led to increased availability of PPFD. Therefore,
the PV density and height of PV mounting structure may be
considered as critical factors in the design of AVS, which again
depends on the site characteristics, e.g. wind regimes, dust
deposition potential etc.
The kriged maps of PPFD, prepared using the spatial vari-
ation parameters (C, C0 and a), are presented in Fig. 10. These
maps show a range of available PPFD from 0 to
800 mmol m
2 s
1 during morning and afternoon and from 0 to
1400 mmol m
2 s
1 at around noon. The interspace areas of the
PV array designs show a wide variation in PPFD. The PPFD
values were slightly higher under shade of a single PV module
than in the shade of four PV modules in a group (middle
portion of block 2 and 3) or two PV modules in a group (two
flags ends of block 2 and 3). These observations suggest
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 85

Table 4 e Measured PPFD below PV array and in interspace area within the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India
during winter solstice.
Agrivoltaic Time PPFD below PV PPFD in interspace (mmol m
2 s
1) PPFD in total
system array (mmol m
2 s
1) system (mmol m
2 s
1)
Partial shade No shade
Single row PV 9:00e10:00 (Morning) 75 (29e433) 226 (194e444) 426 (394e466) 217 (29e466)
array (Block 1) 12:00e13:00 (Noon) 135 (42e940) 1112 (1050e1150) 1164 (1030e1209) 641 (42e1209)
15:00e16:00 (Afternoon) 79 (33e309) 263 (204e451) 413 (258e467) 221 (33e467)
Double row PV 9:00e10:00 (Morning) 108 (37e547) 264 (100e572) 483 (170e612) 300 (37e612)
array (Block 2) 12:00e13:00 (Noon) 108 (53e235) 644 (134e1190) 1199 (1060e1295) 693 (53e1295)
15:00e16:00 (Afternoon) 130 (41e551) 268 (103e575) 472 (180e630) 304 (41e630)
Triple row PV 9:00e10:00 (Morning) 96 (24e569) 270 (93e608) 521 (195e620) 304 (24e620)
array (Block 3) 12:00e13:00 (Noon) 106 (39e284) 698 (135e1280) 1215 (1150e1287) 706 (39e1287)
15:00e16:00 (Afternoon) 92 (27e541) 241 (90e547) 440 (174e538) 265 (27e538)

Table 5 e Semivariogram parameters of the spatial variation of photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) in the agrivoltaic
system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India.
Agrivoltaic system Time Model Nugget Partial Sill Range (m)
Single row PV array (Block 1) 9:00e10:00 Spherical 0 36,385 6.39
12:00e13:00 Spherical 0 347,127 6.63
15:00e16:00 Spherical 0 31,048 6.15
Double row PV array (Block 2) 9:00e10:00 Spherical 1724 46,534 9.09
12:00e13:00 Spherical 0 303,306 8.74
15:00e16:00 Spherical 1622 39,622 8.78
Triple row PV array (Block 3) 9:00e10:00 Spherical 0 55,068 13.66
12:00e13:00 Spherical 0 322,286 12.75
15:00e16:00 Spherical 0 42,328 15.19

categorisation of partial shade area in interspace since the
quality of shade in terms of availability of PPFD in partial
shade area differed from the shade below PV array. Moreover,
shade at a particular location of the partial shaded area of
interspace did not occur throughout the day but was for a few
hours in a day because the shaded area changed with solar
zenith angle.
The spatial maps of PPFD in the AVS designs may help to
identify the specific crops that could be grown in the inter-
space area, because the availability of PPFD decides the net
rate of photosynthesis in plants. Higher availability of PPFD
will lead to a greater net rate of photosynthesis, and this is
limited by two critical PPFD levels, the lower is the light
compensation point, and the higher is the light saturation
point. The PPFD maps in Fig. 10 shows that the available PPFD
during morning to afternoon varied from 0 to 200 mmol m
2 s
1
below the PV array, from 200 to 600 mmol m
2 s
1 in the partial
shade area of interspace and 400e1400 mmol m
2 s
1 in the
unshaded area of the interspace. Therefore, three cropping
zones may be delineated in the AVS based on the availability
of PPFD; (i) low light requiring plants for below PV array areas
(PPFD ¼ 0e200 mmol m
2 s
1), (ii) moderate light requiring
plants for interspace areas receiving partial shade (PPFD ¼
200e600 mmol m
2 s
1) and (iii) high light requiring plants for
interspace areas with no shade (PPFD ¼ 400e1400
mmol m
2 s
1).
Accuracy of the kriged maps of PPFD was evaluated through
cross-validation statistics, which are presented in Table 6.
Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between observed and pre-
dicted PPFD was found to be close to 1 (0.89e0.97) across AVS
designs, which indicates a strong match between observed and
predicted values. Prediction accuracy was slightly better in
triple row PV array (block 3) than double row PV array (block 2)
and single row PV array (block 1). A greater number of mea-
surement locations in the triple row PV array might be a reason
for higher prediction accuracy. Similarly, the LCCC statistics
were close to 1 in most cases, which indicated strong positive
agreement between observed and predicted values. The RMSE
statistics showed the average deviation of prediction from its
observed values and it was slightly greater during noon than
during morning or afternoon. This was due to wider variation
in measured values of PPFD around noon. Predicted PPFD in the
single row PV array design were slightly negatively biased
whereas in double row and triple row PV array designs, these
were slightly positively biased.
Observed and predicted PPFDs for different AVS designs
and at different times in a day are presented in Fig. 11, which
shows points scattered close to along 1:1 line except for those
points lying in the middle portion of each plot. The PPFD
corresponding to these scatter points represented those lo-
cations in AVS where alternate light and shade was observed
(partial shaded area) and thus good spatial trend could not be
obtained at these points through semivariogram analysis.
Inclusion of shade coverage map as covariate in kriging pro-
cess might have further improved the prediction accuracy of
PPFD at partial shade area of AVS.
86 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3

Fig. 8 e Semivariograms of photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) in PV array designs of the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at
Jodhpur, India.

3.5. DLI map in AVS
Spatial maps of DLI in the AVS designs are presented in Fig. 12.
DLI indicates the cumulated daily availability of PAR whereas
PPFD indicates instantaneous availability of PAR. Since PPFD
widely varies in day from morning to afternoon, therefore DLI
may be a good criterion to select crops on the basis of avail-
ability of light since it quantifies the total amount of light
available in a day. Fig 12 shows three distinctive zones of DLI
in the AVS designs and these are (i) 0e5 mol m
2 d
1, (ii)
5e20 mol m
2 d
1 and (iii) 20e30 mol m
2 d
1. These zones
corresponded to below PV array, interspace with partial shade
and interspace with no shade, respectively.
Based on the availability of DLI in the AVS, suitable crops
can be selected. However, information on DLI requirement of
crops is limited in the literature (Table 7). Most of these crops
mentioned are greenhouse crops. Future efforts should be
carried out to determine the DLI requirement of field crops
and accordingly suitable crops may be identified for AVS.
The DLI map of AVS showed in Fig. 12 corresponds to the
winter solstice period in northern hemisphere. Therefore,
these DLI maps can only be used to select winter crops (rabi).
For selection of crops for year-round cultivation in AVS, DLI
maps for three other critical days, e.g. vernal equinox (23rd
March), summer solstice (21st June) and autumnal equinox
(23rd September), also need to be quantified.
The DLI maps shown in Fig. 12 correspond to AVS with
typical ground mounted PV structure close to ground (~0.5 m
above ground surface). However, other approaches to design
AVS have also been evolved recently, and these may facilitate a
wide range of machine deployment within the system. For
example, Trommsdorff et al. (2021) has reported a design of
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 87

Fig. 9 e Availability of PPFD as affected by shade quality (a) Variation of PPFD in shaded areas with distance from PV
structure (b) average PPFD values under different types of shades. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 10 e Spatial maps on availability of PPFD within the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India at different times in a day
during winter solstice (red dotted line indicates the boundary of the shade covered area in the AVS and white coloured plus
symbol indicates the location of measurements of PPFD). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Table 6 e Cross validation statistics of kriging prediction of PPFD in the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India.
Agrivoltaic system Time r LCCC RMSE Bias
Single row PV array (Block 1) 9:00e10:00 0.96 0.95 46.74
0.99
12:00e13:00 0.91 0.89 217.92
15.51
15:00e16:00 0.89 0.87 73.47
10.98
Double row PV array (Block 2) 9:00e10:00 0.93 0.92 76.81
0.82
12:00e13:00 0.95 0.94 153.57 2.81
15:00e16:00 0.92 0.91 75.43 0.64
Triple row PV array (Block 3) 9:00e10:00 0.95 0.95 62.21 4.45  10
5
12:00e13:00 0.95 0.95 153.30 3.76
15:00e16:00 0.97 0.97 44.01 0.41
88 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3

Fig. 11 e Observed and predicted PPFD (mmol m¡2 s¡1) in the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India.

AVS in which height of the PV structure above ground surface
was kept 5 m. This not only allowed easy operations of farm
machinery within the AVS, but also provided better light dis-
tribution within the system. The only difficulty with such a
high ground-mounted PV structure is the difficulty in manual
cleaning of deposited dust from the top of PV module. Another
innovative design of AVS has been reported by Younas et al.
(2019) in which vertical bifacial PV modules with east/west
facing were used. Bifacial PV modules aligned vertically on the
ground surface could provide a much better distribution of
solar irradiation within the AVS as compared to tilted PV
module in conventional AVS. It is to be noted here that vertical
AVS with bifacial PV module produced almost similar energy
output as obtained from tilted AVS with mono facial PV module
(Riaz et al., 2021). However, the PV array density in bifacial PV
module based AVS was half or even lower relative to that for
the standard ground mounted AVS. Reduction of DLI as influ-
enced by ground-mounted PV array although reduces the
availability of photosynthetically active radiation but positively
influence the field water and energy balance. Limited exposure
of ground surface to open sun radiation in the AVS not only
reduces the evapotranspiration losses but also reduces the
ground heat flux. Thus, shade by the PV structure in AVS
suitably modifies the soil hydrothermal regime and improves
the efficiency of applied irrigation water. For example, Marou
et al. (2013b) reported a reduction of actual evapotranspira-
tion by 10e30% in AVS where light availability was 50e70% of
the full sun irradiation. However, for further increase in water
use efficiency of crops in AVS system, there is a need to select
suitable crops for which light requirement matches with the
available DLI in the system and it should be crops with a low
water requirement with surface cover characteristics.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3 89

Fig. 12 e Daily light integral (DLI) within the agrivoltaic system (AVS) at Jodhpur, India during winter solstice.

Table 7 e DLI requirement of crops.

Crop DLI (mol m
2 d
1) Reference
Tomato 4e30 Dorais (2003)
Tomato (Green house) 30e35 Spaargaren (2001)
Lettuce (hydroponic) 14e16 Morgan (2013)
Bermuda grass 14.5e44 Glenn et al. (2014)
Lettuce 8e14 Baumbauer et al. (2019)
Cucumber 20e25 Moe et al., 2006, Grimstad (2000).
Strawberry 13.57-45.05 Pc et al. (2019)
Brassica spp 13.9e18.6 Tarakanov and Wang (2009)

average was 5.2 kWh m
2 d
1 with a variation from

4. Conclusion
AVS of 105 kWp capacity with three PV array designs was
developed at Jodhpur, India. Since, AVS provides the option
to integrate agriculture with PV generation, availability of
sufficient amount of PPFD in the interspace as well as below
the PV array of AVS needs to be investigated. In this study,
spatial and temporal variation of shade created by PV ar-
rays in the AVS and its effect on availability of PPFD and DLI
was quantified. Following conclusions are noted from the
study:
(i) The experimental site of the AVS located at Jodhpur
in western Rajasthan, India received abundant
amount of solar energy throughout the year (annual
3.7 kWh m
2 d
1 in December to 7.3 kWh m
2 d
1 in
May). Thus the availability of estimated amount of
PPFD was also quite high throughout the year. Peak
value of PPFD was generally observed between 12:00
and 13:00 and ranged from 1206 mmol m
2 s
1 in
December to 1970 mmol m
2 s
1 in May. Thus,
availability of PPFD was not a constraint in Jodhpur
for meeting the requirement of photosynthesis for
optimum plant growth and yield.
(ii) However, the ground-mounted PV array with a
ground clearance of 0.5 m at the bottom end of the
array created shades not only the areas below the PV
array but also the interspace areas of the AVS. Thus,
the shade was expected to decrease the amount of
PPFD in the AVS, which ultimately would affect plant
90 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3
growth and yield. Areas below the PV array remained
under shade during most part in a day throughout
the year. Even, significant amount of shade was
observed in the interspace area during winter sol-
stice. The shaded area in the interspace during the
winter solstice varied from 18 to 58% of the total
interspace area. The proportion of shaded area was
greater in the single row PV array design than in the
double row PV array and triple row PV array designs
of the AVS.
(iii) Assessment of spatial maps of PPFD and DLI corre-
sponding to winter solstice in Jodhpur, India
revealed three different zones in the AVS for opti-
mising agricultural production. These are below PV
array, interspace with partial shade and interspace
with no shade. Available amount of PPFD in these
three zones were 0e200, 200e600 and 400e1400 mmol
m
2 s
1, respectively. The DLI in these three zones
were 0e5, 5e20 and 20e30 mol m
2 d
1, respectively.
These values of available PPFD and DLI are the
deciding factors for best performance of crops in the
AVS. Thus, future efforts may be focused to identify
optimum requirement of PPFD and DLI for different
field crops as well as high value horticultural crops
commonly grown in hot arid region of India. More-
over, such DLI maps for other time periods in a year
may be calculated e.g. summer solstice, autumnal
equinox and vernal equinox. These DLI maps corre-
sponding to four critical days in a year may help to
calculate the area and the duration having DLI
exceeding a minimum value of DLI required to grow
a particular crop. This will not only help to select
suitable crops for AVS but also to achieve maximum
yield from AVS.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Authors express their sincere thanks to DDG (NRM), Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) for providing neces-
sary financial support to carry out the present study under the
ICAR (NRM Division) extramural project titled “Solar farming:
Crop production and electricity generation from a single land
use system (F. No. NRM 11(16)/2015-AFC (25) dated 10/03/2016
and CAZRI/T-08/EF/114)”. We also express our sincere thanks
to Dr. J.S. Samra and Dr. A.K. Sikka for providing necessary
guidance and encouragements to carry out the research work
in agrivoltaic system. Credits are also due to all team members
and staffs, who helped to establish the agrivoltaic system at
ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur. Authors
express their sincere thanks to Mr Chittabrata Santra for his
kind help in preparing the engineering drawings of the
manuscript using AutoCAD.
references
Adeh, E. H., Good, S. P., Calaf, M., & Higgins, C. W. (2019). Solar PV
power potential is greatest over croplands. Scientific Reports,
9(1), 1e6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3
Adeh, E. H., Selker, J. S., & Higgins, C. W. (2018). Remarkable
agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and
water-use efficiency. PloS One, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0203256
Al-Saidi, M., & Lahham, N. (2019). Solar energy farming as a
development innovation for vulnerable water basins.
Development in Practice, 29(5), 619e634. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09614524.2019.1600659
Amaducci, S., Yin, X., & Colauzzi, M. (2018). Agrivoltaic systems to
optimise land use for electric energy production. Applied
Energy, 220, 545e561. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2018.03.081
Baligar, V. C., Bunce, J. A., Bailey, B. A., Machado, R. C., &
Pomella, A. W. V. (2005). Carbon dioxide and photosynthetic
photon flux density effects on growth and mineral uptake of
cacao. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 3, 142e147.
www.world-food.net.
Barron-Gafford, G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Minor, R. L.,
Sutter, L. F., Barnett-Moreno, I., Blackett, D. T., Thompson, M.,
Dimond, K., Gerlak, A. K., Nabhan, G. P., & Macknick, J. E.
(2019). Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the
foodeenergyewater nexus in drylands. Nature Sustainability,
2(9), 848e855. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0364-5
Baumbauer, D. A., Schmidt, C. B., & Burgess, M. H. (2019). Leaf
lettuce yield is more sensitive to low daily light integral than
kale and spinach. Hort Science, 54(12), 2159e2162. https://
doi.org/10.21273/hortsci14288-19
Bellow, J. G., & Nair, P. K. R. (2003). Comparing common methods
for assessing understory light availability in shaded-perennial
agroforestry systems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
114(3e4), 197e211.
Castellano, S., Santamaria, P., & Serio, F. (2016). Photosynthetic
photon flux density distribution inside photovoltaic
greenhouses, numerical simulation, and experimental results.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 32(6), 861e869. https://doi:10.
13031/aea.32.11544@2016.
Chauhan, S. K., Dhillon, W. S., Singh, N., & Sharma, R. (2013).
Physiological behaviour and yield evaluation of agronomic
crops under agri-horti-silviculture system. International Journal
of Plant Research, 3(1), 1e8. http://doi:10.5923/j.plant.20130301.
01.
Chen, N., Gan, Y., & Wang, G. (2003). Photosynthetic responses of
muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) to photon flux density, leaf
temperature and CO2 concentration. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science, 83(2), 393e399. https://doi.org/10.4141/P02-124
Cossu, M., Ledda, L., Urracci, G., Sirigu, A., Cossu, A., Murgia, L.,
Pazzona, A., & Yano, A. (2017). An algorithm for the
calculation of the light distribution in photovoltaic
greenhouses. Solar Energy, 141, 38e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2016.11.024
da Costa, R. C., Calvete, E. O., Mendonça, H. F. C., & Cecatto, A. P.
(2014). Phenology, phyllochron, and gas exchanges in frigo and
fresh strawberry ('Fragaria x ananassa'Duch.) plants of cv.
Albion. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 8(6), 901.
Dayananda, S. R. J. S. B. (2018). Techno economics feasibility study on
agrivoltaic electricity generation in Sri Lanka (Doctoral dissertation).
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3
Dinesh, H., & Pearce, J. M. (2016). The potential of agrivoltaic
systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 299e308.
http://doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.024.
Dorais, M. (2003). The use of supplemental lighting for vegetable
crop production: Light intensity, crop response, nutrition, crop
management, cultural practices. In Canadian greenhouse
conference, Toronto, Ontario (Vol. 9).
Dos Santos, C. N. L. (2020). Agrivoltaic system: A possible synergy
between agriculture and solar energy. Master thesis report.
Sweden: KTH Industrial Engineering and Management.
Duffie, J. A., & Beckman, W. A. (2013). Solar engineering of thermal
processes (4th ed.). Wiley Publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118671603
Dupraz, C., Marrou, H., Talbot, G., Dufour, L., Nogier, A., &
Ferard, Y. (2011). Combining solar photovoltaic panels and
food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic
schemes. Renewable Energy, 36(10), 2725e2732. http://doi:10.
1016/j.renene.2011.03.005.
Elamri, Y., Cheviron, B., Lopez, J. M., Dejean, C., & Belaud, G.
(2018). Water budget and crop modelling for agrivoltaic
systems: Application to irrigated lettuces. Agricultural Water
Management, 208, 440e453. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agwat.2018.07.001
Faust, J. E., Holcombe, V., Rajapakse, N. C., & Layne, D. R. (2005).
The effect of daily light integral on bedding plant growth and
flowering. Hort Science, 40(3), 645e649. https://doi.org/10.21273/
HORTSCI.40.3.645
Faust, J. E., & Logan, J. (2018). Daily light integral: A research
review and high-resolution maps of the United States. Hort
Science, 53(9), 1250e1257. https://doi.org/10.21273/
HORTSCI13144-18
Gao, Y., Duan, A., Qiu, X., Sun, J., Zhang, J., Liu, H., & Wang, H.
(2010). Distribution and use efficiency of photosynthetically
active radiation in strip intercropping of maize and soybean.
Agronomy Journal, 102(4), 1149e1157. http://doi:10.2134/
agronj2009.0409.
Glenn, B., Kruse, J., & Unruh, J. B. (2014). Effect of mowing height
on DLI requirement for warm-season turfgrass. In
C. S. S. A. ASA (Ed.), SSSA international annual meeting. Long
Beach, CA. 2e5 Nov. 2014, Paper No 287-1.
Goetzberger, A., & Zastrow, A. (1982). On the coexistence of solar-
energy conversion and plant cultivation. International Journal of
Solar Energy, 1(1), 55e69.
Grimstad, S. (2000). Year round production of cucumber- Better
utilisation of production factors. NJF-seminar nr (p. 319).
Guertal, E. A., & Elkins, C. B. (1996). Spatial variability of
photosynthetically active radiation in a greenhouse. Journal of
the American Society for Horticultural Science, 121(2), 321e325.
http://doi:10.21273/JASHS.121.2.321.
Hidaka, K., Dan, K., Imamura, H., Miyoshi, Y., Takayama, T.,
Sameshima, K., Kitano, M., & Okimura, M. (2013). Effect of
supplemental lighting from different light sources on growth
and yield of strawberry. Environmental Control in Biology, 51(1),
41e47. https://doi.org/10.2525/ecb.51.41
Hodges, B. P., Baldwin, C. M., Stewart, B., Tomaso-Peterson, M.,
McCurdy, J. D., Blythe, E. K., & Philley, H. W. (2016).
Quantifying a daily light integral for establishment of warm-
season cultivars on putting greens. Crop Science, 56(5),
2818e2826. http://doi:10.2135/cropsci2015.11.0682.
Irie, N., Kawahara, N., & Esteves, A. M. (2019). Sector-wide social
impact scoping of agrivoltaic systems: A case study in Japan.
Renewable Energy, 139, 1463e1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2019.02.048
Kadowaki, M., Yano, A., Ishizu, F., Tanaka, T., & Noda, S. (2012).
Effects of greenhouse photovoltaic array shading on Welsh
onion growth. Biosystems Engineering, 111(3), 290e297. http://
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.12.006.
91
Kim, B., Kim, C., Han, S., Bae, J., & Jung, J. (2020). Is it a good time
to develop commercial photovoltaic systems on farmland? An
American-style option with crop price risk. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 125, 109827. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2020.109827
Kla€ ring, H. P., & Krumbein, A. (2013). The effect of constraining
the intensity of solar radiation on the photosynthesis, growth,
yield and product quality of tomato. Journal of Agronomy and
Crop Science, 199(5), 351e359. http://doi:10.1111/jac.12018.
Larcher, W. (1995). Physiological plant ecology (3rd ed.). Berlin:
Springer.
Leon, A., & Ishihara, K. N. (2018). Influence of allocation methods
on the LC-CO2 emission of an agrivoltaic system. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 138, 110e117. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.017
Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate
reproducibility. Biometrics, 45, 255e268.
Li, C., Wang, H., Miao, H., & Ye, B. (2017). The economic and social
performance of integrated photovoltaic and agricultural
greenhouses systems: Case study in China. Applied Energy, 190,
204e212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.121
Loots, N. (2018). Technologic, biological and economic analysis of a
dynamic agrivoltaic system in the Dutch agriculture sector. Master's
thesis https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/371631.
Majumdar, D., & Pasqualetti, M. J. (2018). Dual use of
agricultural land: Introducing ‘agrivoltaics’ in phoenix
metropolitan statistical area, USA. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 170, 150e168. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2017.10.011
Malu, P. R., Sharma, U. S., & Pearce, J. M. (2017). Agrivoltaic
potential on grape farms in India. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, 23, 104e110. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2017.08.004
Marrou, H. (2019). Co-locating food and energy. Nature
Sustainability, 2(9), 793e794. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-
019-0377-0
Marrou, H., Guilioni, L., Dufour, L., Dupraz, C., & We ry, J. (2013a).
Microclimate under agrivoltaic systems: Is crop growth rate
affected in the partial shade of solar panels? Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology, 177, 117e132. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agrformet.2013.04.012
Marrou, H., Dufour, L., & Wery, J. (2013b). How does a shelter of
solar panels influence water flows in a soilecrop system?
European Journal of Agronomy, 50, 38e51. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.004
Marrou, H., We ry, J., Dufour, L., & Dupraz, C. (2013c). Productivity
and radiation use efficiency of lettuces grown in the partial
shade of photovoltaic panels. European Journal of Agronomy, 44,
54e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.08.003
Marucci, A., & Cappuccini, A. (2016). Dynamic photovoltaic
greenhouse: Energy efficiency in clear sky conditions. Applied
Energy, 170, 362e376. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2016.02.138
Marucci, A., Zambon, I., Colantoni, A., & Monarca, D. (2018). A
combination of agricultural and energy purposes: Evaluation
of a prototype of photovoltaic greenhouse tunnel. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1178e1186. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.029
Meloni, S., & Sinoquet, H. (1997). Assessment of the spatial
distribution of light transmitted below young trees in an
agroforestry system. Annales des sciences forestieres, INRA/EDP
Sciences, 54(4), 313e333.
Moe, R., Grimstad, S. O., & Gislerod, H. R. (2006). The use of
artificial light in year round production of greenhouse crops in
Norway. In V international symposium on artificial lighting in
horticulture 711 (pp. 35e42).
92 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3
Moretti, S., & Marucci, A. (2019). A photovoltaic greenhouse with
passive variation in shading by fixed horizontal PV Panels.
Energies, 12(17), 3269. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12173269
Morgan, L. (2013). Daily Light Integral (DLI) and greenhouse tomato
production (pp. 10e15). The Tomato Magazine. https://www.
specmeters.com/assets/1/7/2013_-_DLI_Greenhouse_
Tomato1.pdf.
Ohashi-Kaneko, K., Takase, M., Kon, N., Fujiwara, K., &
Kurata, K. (2007). Effect of light quality on growth and
vegetable quality in leaf lettuce, spinach and komatsuna.
Environmental Control in Biology, 45(3), 189e198. https://
doi.org/10.2525/ecb.45.189
Oh, S., Moon, K. H., Song, E. Y., Son, I. C., & Koh, S. C. (2015).
Photosynthesis of Chinese cabbage and radish in response to
rising leaf temperature during spring. Horticulture,
Environment, and Biotechnology, 56(2), 159e166. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13580-015-0122-1
Oleskewicz, K. (2020). The Effect of gap spacing between solar panel
clusters on crop biomass yields, nutrients, and the microenvironment
in a dual-use agrivoltaic system. Masters Theses (p. 885). https://
scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2/885.
Othman, N. F., Su, A. M., & Ya’acob, M. E. (2018). May. Promising
potentials of agrivoltaic systems for the development of
Malaysia green economy. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science IOP Publishing (Vol. 146)(1), Article 012002.
http://doi:10.1088/1755-1315/146/1/012002.
Patel, U. R., & Chauhan, P. M. (2018). Studies of climatic
parameters under agrivoltaic structure. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy: An International Journal (RSEJ), 1(1).
Pc, C. B., Vargas-Cruz, J., Quintero-Arias, G., & Jf, C. (2019). Effect
of protected environments on the postharvest quality of
strawberry (Fragaria X Ananassa) produced in the tropical
mountain areas. International Journal of Biological
Instrumentation, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.35840/2631-5025/5104
Pebesma, Z. E. (2003). Gstat user's manual. P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC,
Utrecht, The Netherlands: Dept. of Physical Geography,
Utrecht University. http://www.gstat.org/gstat.pdf.
Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü., Ntagkas, N., Siebenka € s, A.,
Ma € enpa
€a€ , M., Matsubara, S., & Pons, T. (2019). A meta-analysis
of plant responses to light intensity for 70 traits ranging from
molecules to whole plant performance. New Phytologist, 223(3),
1073e1105. http://doi:10.1111/nph.15754.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Ravi, S., Macknick, J., Lobell, D., Field, C., Ganesan, K., Jain, R.,
Elchinger, M., & Stoltenberg, B. (2016). Colocation
opportunities for large solar infrastructures and agriculture in
drylands. Applied Energy, 165, 383e392. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2015.12.078
Riaz, M. H., Imran, H., Younas, R., Alam, M. A., & Butt, N. Z. (2021).
Module technology for agrivoltaics: Vertical bifacial versus
tilted monofacial farms. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 11(2),
469e477. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2020.3048225
Santra, P., Pande, P. C., Kumar, S., Mishra, D., & Singh, R. K. (2017).
Agri-voltaics or solar farming: The concept of integrating solar
PV based electricity generation and crop production in a single
land use system. International Journal of Renewable Energy
Research (IJRER), 7(2), 694e699.
Santra, P., Singh, R. K., Jain, D., & Yadav, O. P. (2018b). Agri-voltaic
system to increase land productivity and income. Indian
Farming, 68(9), 108e111.
Santra, P., Singh, R. K., Meena, H. M., Kumawat, R. N., Mishra, D.,
Jain, D., & Yadav, O. P. (2018a). Agri-voltaic system: Crop
production and photovoltaic-based electricity generation from
a single land unit. Indian Farming, 68(1), 20e23.
Schindele, S., Trommsdorff, M., Schlaak, A., Obergfell, T.,
Bopp, G., Reise, C., Braun, C., Weselek, A., Bauerle, A., Ho € gy, P.,
& Goetzberger, A. (2020). Implementation of
agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-
performance ratio and its policy implications. Applied Energy,
265, 114737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114737
Sekiyama, T. (2019). Performance of agrivoltaic systems for shade-
intolerant crops: Land for both food and clean energy production
(doctoral dissertation). http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.
InstRepos:42004145.
Sekiyama, T., & Nagashima, A. (2019). Solar sharing for both food
and clean energy production: Performance of agrivoltaic
systems for corn, a typical shade-intolerant crop.
Environments, 6(6), 65. http://doi:10.3390/
environments6060065.
Sivakumar, M. V. K., & Virmani, S. M. (1984). Crop productivity in
relation to interception of photosynthetically active radiation.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 31(2), 131e141.
Spaargaren, J. J. (2001). Supplemental lighting for greenhouse crop.
Hortilux schreder B.V. And P.L. Light system, inc., Netherlands.
Sun, J., Lu, N., Xu, H., Maruo, T., & Guo, S. (2016). Root zone cooling
and exogenous spermidine root-pretreatment promoting
Lactuca sativa L. growth and photosynthesis in the high-
temperature season. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 368. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00368
Suthaparan, A., Solhaug, K. A., Stensvand, A., & Gislerød, H. R.
(2017). Daily light integral and day light quality: Potentials and
pitfalls of nighttime UV treatments on cucumber powdery
mildew. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology,
175, 141e148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.08.041
Tarakanov, I. G., & Wang, J. (2009). Light trophic and signal roles
in the control of morphogenesis of the Brassica plants
developing storage roots. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology,
56(2), 232e241. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1021443709020125
Trommsdorff, M., Kang, J., Reise, C., Schindele, S., Bopp, G.,
Ehmann, A., Weselek, A., Ho € gy, P., & Obergfell, T. (2021).
Combining food and energy production: Design of an
agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegetable farming in
Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 140,
110694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110694
Valle, B., Simonneau, T., Sourd, F., Pechier, P., Hamard, P.,
Frisson, T., Ryckewaert, M., & Christophe, A. (2017). Increasing
the total productivity of a land by combining mobile
photovoltaic panels and food crops. Applied energy, 206,
1495e1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.113
Wang, D., & Sun, Y. (2018). Optimizing light environment of the
oblique single-axis tracking agrivoltaic system. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing (Vol. 170)(4),
Article 042069. http://doi:10.1088/1755-1315/170/4/042069.
Wang, D., Sun, Y., Lin, Y., & Gao, Y. (2017a). June. Analysis of light
environment under solar panels and crop layout. In 2017 IEEE
44th photovoltaic specialist conference (PVSC), IEEE (pp.
2048e2053).
Wang, T., Wu, G., Chen, J., Cui, P., Chen, Z., Yan, Y., Zhang, Y.,
Li, M., Niu, D., Li, B., & Chen, H. (2017b). Integration of solar
technology to modern greenhouse in China: Current status,
challenges and prospect. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 70, 1178e1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.12.020
Wang, D., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Y. (2018). A criterion of crop selection
based on the novel concept of an agrivoltaic unit and m-
matrix for agrivoltaic systems. In 2018 IEEE 7th world conference
on photovoltaic energy conversion (WCPEC), A joint conference of
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 2 0 9 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 7 4 e9 3
45th IEEE PVSC, 28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC, IEEE (pp.
1491e1496).
Webster, R., & Oliver, M. A. (2007). Geostatistics for environmental
scientists (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Weselek, A., Ehmann, A., Zikeli, S., Lewandowski, I., Schindele, S.,
& Ho € gy, P. (2019). Agrophotovoltaic systems: Applications,
challenges, and opportunities. A review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 39(4), 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13593-019-0581-3
Yano, A., & Cossu, M. (2019). Energy sustainable greenhouse crop
cultivation using photovoltaic technologies. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 109, 116e137. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.026
93
Yano, A., Kadowaki, M., Furue, A., Tamaki, N., Tanaka, T.,
Hiraki, E., Kato, Y., Ishizu, F., & Noda, S. (2010). Shading and
electrical features of a photovoltaic array mounted inside the
roof of an eastewest oriented greenhouse. Biosystems
Engineering, 106(4), 367e377. http://doi:10.1016/j.
biosystemseng.2010.04.007.
Younas, R., Imran, H., Riaz, M. H., & Butt, N. Z. (2019). Agrivoltaic
farm design: Vertical bifacial vs. tilted monofacial photovoltaic
panels. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01076.
Zhu, X. G., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2008). What is the maximum
efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy
into biomass? Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 19(2), 153e159.
http://doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2008.02.004.