and ecosystems. This understanding
becomes even more compelling
when applied to areas that are very
sunny and that may also suffer water shortages.
shading. There was also less difference between night and day temperatures. The soil was also drier,
leading to less vegetation and fewer species, dominated by grass.
“The shade under the panels may
allow crops to be grown that can’t
survive in full sun. Water losses may
also be reduced, and water could
be collected from the large surfaces
of the solar panels and used for
crop irrigation.”
Diversity of species
In contrast, the area between the
panels supported a higher diversity
of species in the warmer temperatures in summer, despite the fact
that this land became cooler than
the control areas in the winter.
The scientists measured temperature, wind speeds, humidity, soil
carbon, species diversity and other
points of difference under the panels, between panels, and in control
areas a distance from a solar farm.
The extra cooling of the land in between the solar arrays, compared
with controls in open fields, was
1.7°C, which was a surprise to researchers. Their theory as to why
this happens is that the area between the solar arrays was more
shaded in the winter because of the
low angle of the sun − something
that did not happen in the control
They found that the temperature
under the panels averaged 5.2°C
lower in summer because of the
plots.
The report concludes that since
land for producing food and crops
is in short supply, the costs and
benefits to agriculture of solar
farms must be researched further.
This needs to be done in many places, because radiation and temperature are substantially different than
in England.
The wider environmental costs and
benefits of large-scale solar farms
need to be evaluated everywhere
because in some cases there could
be considerable “co-benefits”. For
example, in hot climates there
could be a potential for new crops
grown under the protective shade
of the panels.
Acknowledgement: http://
climatenewsnetwork.net/