Agrivoltaic Farming Insights: A Case Study on the Cultivation and Quality of Kimchi Cabbage and Garlic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the results of experimental trials on the yield and quality of some horticultural crops relevant for the Korean market and cultivated under an experimental agrivoltaic system. The study is interesting because there are currently few experimental papers on the agronomic performance of agrivoltaic systems on horticultural crops. The Discussion introduces original agronomic practices to increase the productivity of APVs on the considered crops.

However, the Introduction should be improved by introducing the photovoltaic greenhouse cultivation as an alternative and complementary system to grow horticultural crops under photovoltaic panels. The Materials and methods should provide additional data about the APV and experimental setup. The Discussion should support the results by introducing the physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops to shading, based on the available literature. Major revisions required.

Introduction

L. 33-34. “crops growing under allows the light saturation point required for plant growth”. Allows? This part of the phrase is not clear. Please reformulate.

L. 33-34. Which environmental issues? Please specify them briefly.

The agrophotovoltaics include the photovoltaic greenhouses, that are neglected here. The literature survey should be integrated by mentioning at least the latest papers related to the closed agrivoltaic systems, as an alternative to APVs for horticulture.

Materials and methods

L.111. What is Mof ? is it OF instead?

More detailed specifications on the APV systems should be provided:

1.  Please specify the difference between Bif_A and Bif_B in terms of percentage of the cultivation area covered with photovoltaic panels.

2.  What is the height of the axis of the APV from the ground?

3.  Are the photovoltaic panels fixed or installed on dynamic trackers?

4.  Area of the system? Area of the experimental plots? The experimental design is not clear.

L.118. Incubated where and in which microclimate conditions?

Results

Figure 3. How and where was the solar radiation measured on the APV crop area? Provide the details in the materials and methods section.

Table 1. The calculation of the GDD should be specified, instead of reminding to previous papers. Provide the details in the materials and methods section.

Table 2. The radiation use efficiency could be calculated to show if the crops under the APV adapted to the shade condition compared to control. This part should be discussed by introducing the physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops under the photovoltaic panels.

Discussion

Figure 6. Point C was not discussed.

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed feedback on our manuscript that describes the results of experimental trials on the yield and quality of horticultural crops relevant for the Korean market under an experimental agrivoltaic system. We truly appreciate the time and effort you spent in critically reviewing our work.

The manuscript describes the results of experimental trials on the yield and quality of some horticultural crops relevant for the Korean market and cultivated under an experimental agrivoltaic system. The study is interesting because there are currently few experimental papers on the agronomic performance of agrivoltaic systems on horticultural crops. The Discussion introduces original agronomic practices to increase the productivity of APVs on the considered crops.

However, the Introduction should be improved by introducing the photovoltaic greenhouse cultivation as an alternative and complementary system to grow horticultural crops under photovoltaic panels. The Materials and methods should provide additional data about the APV and experimental setup. The Discussion should support the results by introducing the physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops to shading, based on the available literature. Major revisions required.

Introduction

34. 33-34. “Crops growing under allows the light saturation point required for plant growth”. Allows? This part of the phrase is not clear. Please reformulate.

• Thank you for your advice. To avoid mis understanding we reformatted 36-37 and cited.

34. 33-34. Which environmental issues? Please specify them briefly.

• The sentences were revised and mentioned “including carbon emissions from electricity production” at L.42

The agrophotovoltaics include the photovoltaic greenhouses, that are neglected here. The literature survey should be integrated by mentioning at least the latest papers related to the closed agrivoltaic systems, as an alternative to APVs for horticulture.

• Following your advice, we cited and discussed what you suggested in the discussion where we propose methods to obtain agricultural income while also considering the yield at L344. Furthermore, from this perspective, we believe that our research should serve as a guideline for future studies. Therefore, we have added a "Direction for Further Research" section and cited a paper that estimated the use of semi-transparent solar panels in greenhouses.

Materials and methods

L.111.-> What is Mof ? is it OF instead?

More detailed specifications on the APV systems should be provided:

1. Please specify the difference between Bif_A and Bif_B in terms of percentage of the cultivation area covered with photovoltaic panels.
2. What is the height of the axis of the APV from the ground?
3. Are the photovoltaic panels fixed or installed on dynamic trackers?
4. Area of the system? Area of the experimental plots? The experimental design is not clear.

L.118. Incubated where and in which microclimate conditions.

- Thanks for your valuable advises. According to your comment. To clarify, we reformulated 2.1. L.105-122 overall. We described more specific information of panel and agrivoltaic structure. Mof It is other type of solar panel which is Monofacial. However, we didn’t cultivated crops under the Mof panel covered. Bif_A panel and Bif_B panel has only differences at electricity production. Other condition is same. The height of the axis of the APV from was 3.3 meter from ground. We described at figure 1 but we added height information at L.110. In our APV system, all panels were fixed. Moreover, according to your comment, we described temperature condition of incubation seedling at L.134.

Results

Figure 3. How and where was the solar radiation measured on the APV crop area? Provide the details in the materials and methods section.

Table 1. The calculation of the GDD should be specified, instead of reminding to previous papers. Provide the details in the materials and methods section.

Table 2. The radiation use efficiency could be calculated to show if the crops under the APV adapted to the shade condition compared to control. This part should be discussed by introducing the physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops under the photovoltaic panels.

• Thank you for your feedback. Following your suggestions, we have made improvements to 115-112. Additionally, we have included GDD values in the footnote of Table 1. We have also extracted valuable insights related to the "physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops" from the data. Furthermore, we have included a citation at L.344 to support our future study.

Discussion

Figure 6. Point C was not discussed.

• Thanks for your finding. We discussed our point at 371-380.

Reviewer1

The manuscript describes the results of experimental trials on the yield and quality of some horticultural crops relevant for the Korean market and cultivated under an experimental agrivoltaic system. The study is interesting because there are currently few experimental papers on the agronomic performance of agrivoltaic systems on horticultural crops. The Discussion introduces original agronomic practices to increase the productivity of APVs on the considered crops.

However, the Introduction should be improved by introducing the photovoltaic greenhouse cultivation as an alternative and complementary system to grow horticultural crops under photovoltaic panels. The Materials and methods should provide additional data about the APV and experimental setup. The Discussion should support the results by introducing the physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops to shading, based on the available literature. Major revisions required.

Introduction

34. 33-34. “Crops growing under allows the light saturation point required for plant growth”. Allows? This part of the phrase is not clear. Please reformulate.

• Thank you for your advice. To avoid mis understanding we reformatted 36-37 and cited.

34. 33-34. Which environmental issues? Please specify them briefly.

• The sentences were revised and mentioned “including carbon emissions from electricity production” at L.42

The agrophotovoltaics include the photovoltaic greenhouses, that are neglected here. The literature survey should be integrated by mentioning at least the latest papers related to the closed agrivoltaic systems, as an alternative to APVs for horticulture.

• Following your advice, we cited and discussed what you suggested in the discussion where we propose methods to obtain agricultural income while also considering the yield at L344. Furthermore, from this perspective, we believe that our research should serve as a guideline for future studies. Therefore, we have added a "Direction for Further Research" section and cited a paper that estimated the use of semi-transparent solar panels in greenhouses.

Materials and methods

L.111.-> What is Mof ? is it OF instead?

More detailed specifications on the APV systems should be provided:

1. Please specify the difference between Bif_A and Bif_B in terms of percentage of the cultivation area covered with photovoltaic panels.
2. What is the height of the axis of the APV from the ground?
3. Are the photovoltaic panels fixed or installed on dynamic trackers?
4. Area of the system? Area of the experimental plots? The experimental design is not clear.

L.118. Incubated where and in which microclimate conditions.

- Thanks for your valuable advises. According to your comment. To clarify, we reformulated 2.1. L.105-122 overall. We described more specific information of panel and agrivoltaic structure. Mof It is other type of solar panel which is Monofacial. However, we didn’t cultivated crops under the Mof panel covered. Bif_A panel and Bif_B panel has only differences at electricity production. Other condition is same. The height of the axis of the APV from was 3.3 meter from ground. We described at figure 1 but we added height information at L.110. In our APV system, all panels were fixed. Moreover, according to your comment, we described temperature condition of incubation seedling at L.134.

Results

Figure 3. How and where was the solar radiation measured on the APV crop area? Provide the details in the materials and methods section.

Table 1. The calculation of the GDD should be specified, instead of reminding to previous papers. Provide the details in the materials and methods section.

Table 2. The radiation use efficiency could be calculated to show if the crops under the APV adapted to the shade condition compared to control. This part should be discussed by introducing the physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops under the photovoltaic panels.

• Thank you for your feedback. Following your suggestions, we have made improvements to 115-112. Additionally, we have included GDD values in the footnote of Table 1. We have also extracted valuable insights related to the "physiological adaptation strategies of horticultural crops" from the data. Furthermore, we have included a citation at L.344 to support our future study.

Discussion

Figure 6. Point C was not discussed.

• Thanks for your finding. We discussed our point at 371-380.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present article is a study of the influence of the agrivoltaic system on the growth of Kimchi Cabbage and Garlic in Naju-si, Jeollanam Province, Republic of Korea. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of agriculture, agronomy, solar energy and sustainable development. The article presents interesting results of using the agrivoltaic system, however, as recommendations and comments, several points should be noted:

1. What is the difference between the solar panel fields of the Bifacial_A and Bifacial_B modules, except for a small difference in power?

2. There is no reference to figure 1 in the text, as well as its description in the text. References to all figures and their descriptions should be made before the figures themselves. "Figure 4" is repeated twice.

3. Where and how is it planned to use the electrical energy received from photovoltaic modules? The authors should describe this point in more detail (for example, 10.3390/en16073009 etc.), while the effects of shading are considered in detail by the authors.

4. Also of interest is the issue of optimizing the distances between the rows of photovoltaic modules and the transparency of the modules to improve the growing conditions of the crops in question. What were the authors guided by when designing a photovoltaic system?

5. Were the edge effects from the location of plants under the edge modules taken into account?

6. What was the rationale for the principle of planting and the disposition of plants under the modules?

7. Whether humidity and temperature were measured outside and under the modules, as these parameters are also important when growing plants.

8. "Proposed Farming Techniques" authors should expand and describe in more detail in a separate subsection of the article. What is their novelty? These proposals are not currently used in agriculture?

8. The authors should expand the conclusion, as well as indicate where and how it is planned to implement the results obtained.

9. Also, the authors should add a section "Directions for further research", where the authors should describe the planned work on the topic under consideration.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without flaws. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article may be of interest to readers of the journal "Agronomy".

Authors should carefully proofread the text of the article to avoid spelling and punctuation errors, as well as seek help from a native English speaker for the final proofreading of the content of the text.

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed feedback on our manuscript that describes the results of experimental trials on the yield and quality of horticultural crops relevant for the Korean market under an experimental agrivoltaic system. We truly appreciate the time and effort you spent in critically reviewing our work.

The present article is a study of the influence of the agrivoltaic system on the growth of Kimchi Cabbage and Garlic in Naju-si, Jeollanam Province, Republic of Korea. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of agriculture, agronomy, solar energy and sustainable development. The article presents interesting results of using the agrivoltaic system, however, as recommendations and comments, several points should be noted:

1. What is the difference between the solar panel fields of the Bifacial_A and Bifacial_B modules, except for a small difference in power?

Answer: Yes. There were no differences without electricity generation capacity between Bifacial_A and Bifacial_B.

2. There is no reference to figure 1 in the text, as well as its description in the text. References to all figures and their descriptions should be made before the figures themselves. "Figure 4" is repeated twice.

Answer: Thank you for pointing out the needed correction. We cited references at figure 1 description and corrected figure number in paper.

3. Where and how is it planned to use the electrical energy received from photovoltaic modules? The authors should describe this point in more detail (for example, 10.3390/en16073009 etc.), while the effects of shading are considered in detail by the authors.

Answer: Thanks for your valuable advises. According to your comment. To clarify, we reformulated 2.1. L.105-122 overall. We described more specific information of panel and agrivoltaic structure.

4. Also of interest is the issue of optimizing the distances between the rows of photovoltaic modules and the transparency of the modules to improve the growing conditions of the crops in question. What were the authors guided by when designing a photovoltaic system?

Answer: Thank you for your insightful question. The construction of our experimental setup was carried out in compliance with the regulations set forth by the South Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy at the time of experiment design. We have provided a citation and made improvements in L.108.

5. Were the edge effects from the location of plants under the edge modules taken into account?

Answer: Yes. We have considered the edge effects of the module because we regard the edge effect as an integral part of the module's impact on APV crop cultivation.

6. What was the rationale for the principle of planting and the disposition of plants under the modules?

Answer: In each cultivation year, we employed the method of a randomized complete block design (RCBD) experiment layout with four replications. We added description at L.128 according to your question.

7. Whether humidity and temperature were measured outside and under the modules, as these parameters are also important when growing plants.

Answer: Based on your advice, we have made improvements to Table 1. Furthermore, we have included information about the growing temperature parameters at L.136 and L.143

8. "Proposed Farming Techniques" authors should expand and describe in more detail in a separate subsection of the article. What is their novelty? These proposals are not currently used in agriculture?

Answer : These techniques are not currently employed in APV agriculture. To emphasize, we improved L.338-L.345. Therefore, we have proposed them for our future study and relocated our strategy to the subsection (4.2-4.5) and described detail of them.

9. The authors should expand the conclusion, as well as indicate where and how it is planned to implement the results obtained.

Answer : Thank you for your advice. We have enhanced the conclusion by specifying the location.

10. Also, the authors should add a section "Directions for further research", where the authors should describe the planned work on the topic under consideration.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable guidance. Following your advice, we have added the 'Direction for Further Research' section. This paragraph suggests research areas necessary for the effective implementation of future APV farming. Briefly, we propose panel materials for APV agriculture that can maximize photosynthetic efficiency to increase crop yields. We discuss research methods for suitable varieties with low physiological stress and high photosynthetic efficiency under shaded conditions, along with simulations utilizing AI. Furthermore, APV systems can conserve water usage through shading. We emphasize the need to compare the economic significance of these methods in environmentally friendly APV agriculture with conventional farming practices.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without flaws. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article may be of interest to readers of the journal "Agronomy".

Answer: Thank you very much.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

none