Exploring the Grape Agrivoltaic System: Climate Modulation and Vine Benefits in the Puglia Region, Southeastern Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction section needs improvement:
a) Clearly stating the objectives of the study.
b) Highlighting the research gaps in comparison to the existing literature.
c) Clearly define the novelty of the study.
d) A dedicated literature review on this specific topic is required, covering regions beyond just the Mediterranean.
The theoretical aspects of the study are insufficient and ambiguous. The authors should clarify whether the technology under patent registration is included in the manuscript. If so, they must provide more details regarding the methodology, field installation, sketches, etc.
In Section 2.2, the authors should specify the types of weather sensors used.
For example, in Figure 2, while it is understood that shading levels affect soil moisture, the novelty of the findings is unclear.
Section 3.4 discusses electricity production, a critical aspect of AV systems. However, it only presents recorded values without establishing a strong connection between the examined parameters and the electricity profile.
The research does not include any relevant metrics.
The authors should enhance the quality of the paper by providing more details in the methodology section, clearly specifying the investigated aspects and presenting results based on the stated objectives and methodology.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #1
The introduction section needs improvement:
- a) Clearly stating the objectives of the study.
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the objectives and retain to consider this work as a work more focused on micro-environmental aspects. This work seeks to quantify changes in air and soil conditions, as well as spectral quality at vine level, through sensor data analysis on a perennial crop such as grapevine. Comprehensive indicators, including the LER and light interception efficiency, were calculated. However, yield parameters and bud fruitfulness have been inserted in the revised version in order to better show the results of the study on the vines.
- b) Highlighting the research gaps in comparison to the existing literature.
We have improved this aspect as requested by the reviewer in both the introduction and discussion section.
- c) Clearly define the novelty of the study.
We thank the reviewer for this comment, and we better defined the novelty of the study in the revised paper (i.e., including the role of microclimatic data in AV systems in semi-arid agricultural contexts, positive effects on bud fruitfulness, differences between high and low shaded portions of the vines, etc.).
- d) A dedicated literature review on this specific topic is required, covering regions beyond just the Mediterranean.
Based on the request of the reviewer we inserted, in the revised version, more studies on AV systems in different climatic regions of the world, including areas with cooler climate.
The theoretical aspects of the study are insufficient and ambiguous. The authors should clarify whether the technology under patent registration is included in the manuscript. If so, they must provide more details regarding the methodology, field installation, sketches, etc.
Details will be soon available as soon as the patent will be registered. However, we reported all the data collected in the AV system, adding more information in the revised manuscript on the system. The information present in the paper is adequate to verify all data and make comparisons with other AV systems.
In Section 2.2, the authors should specify the types of weather sensors used.
We have revised Section 2.2 including information on the types and models of weather sensors used in the study.
For example, in Figure 2, while it is understood that shading levels affect soil moisture, the novelty of the findings is unclear.
We reported, with figure 2, the difference of soil moisture in the 3 soil locations, full sun and high and low shade. The difference between high and low shade was noteworthy and such findings in AV systems have never reported before in the literature for an important crop such as grape. Vines have either different shading levels on the canopy or soil moisture for the root system which did not negatively affect the yield.
Section 3.4 discusses electricity production, a critical aspect of AV systems. However, it only presents recorded values without establishing a strong connection between the examined parameters and the electricity profile.
We duly improved this section according to the comments of the reviewer.
The research does not include any relevant metrics.
We have integrated two indicators like light interception efficiency related to plant and land equivalent ratio that include both aspects of energy and electrical production. We also inserted figures to show the effects of the panels on yield and bud fruitfulness, key factor for a crop cultivation.
The authors should enhance the quality of the paper by providing more details in the methodology section, clearly specifying the investigated aspects and presenting results based on the stated objectives and methodology.
As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised all the sections of the manuscript adding more details with an improved presentation of both results and discussion, not to mention the improvements in the introduction section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the author for submitting the research paper on photovoltaic agriculture. This study involves the impact of AV systems on microclimate and its potential application in Mediterranean gardening, which has certain research value. However, when reading this paper, I think there are still some aspects that need to be further clarified and strengthened. Here are my specific comments:
Lack of innovation:
The photovoltaic agriculture research involved in this paper is relatively general, lacking clear innovation points or breakthrough contributions. It is recommended that the authors further clarify the differences between their work and the existing literature in the article, highlighting the innovation of this study in the field of photovoltaic agriculture, especially in the combination of AV systems and microclimate regulation. Specifically, explain what new explorations or contributions this study has made compared with previous studies.
Insufficient analysis of experimental results:
There is a significant difference in the maximum humidity value between the LS group and the other two groups in Figure 3, but the article does not provide a sufficient explanation for this difference. It is recommended that the author provide more experimental data support, analyze the possible reasons for this difference in detail, and discuss the impact of this phenomenon on the overall experimental results. This will help improve the persuasiveness and scientificity of the paper.
Unclear description of experimental methods:
The description of the experimental methods is not detailed enough, especially in the selection of measurement points in Figure 4. The article does not clearly explain how these points were selected and whether factors such as the uniformity or specificity of the experimental environment were considered. In addition, the analysis of spectral differences is relatively brief. It is recommended that the authors conduct a more detailed analysis of the spectral data to help readers better understand the experimental results.
Impact of AV system on microclimate:
The impact of the AV system on microclimate lacks a detailed explanation. The article should further discuss how the AV system specifically regulates microclimate parameters such as temperature, humidity, and lighting, and provide relevant data support. The lack of sufficient discussion may cause readers to question the actual use of the AV system.
Lack of key data on plant growth:
Current research results mainly focus on microclimate improvement, but lack key data on plant growth processes, such as carbon growth and yield changes. It is recommended that the authors include more data related to plant growth to enhance the comprehensiveness of the experimental results and evaluate the practical application value of Mediterranean horticulture.
Insufficient background information:
In the background section, there is a lack of detailed information on research on plant species (such as grapes), their growth habits, economic benefits, and the advantages of combining with AV systems. It is recommended that the authors supplement the article with this background information so that readers can better understand the reasons for the selection of this plant species and appreciate its potential advantages in combination with the AV system.
Author Response
Thanks to the author for submitting the research paper on photovoltaic agriculture. This study involves the impact of AV systems on microclimate and its potential application in Mediterranean gardening, which has certain research value. However, when reading this paper, I think there are still some aspects that need to be further clarified and strengthened.
We thank the reviewer for the general positive comment on the paper. We have improved the paper considering all the suggested revisions.
Lack of innovation:
The photovoltaic agriculture research involved in this paper is relatively general, lacking clear innovation points or breakthrough contributions. It is recommended that the authors further clarify the differences between their work and the existing literature in the article, highlighting the innovation of this study in the field of photovoltaic agriculture, especially in the combination of AV systems and microclimate regulation. Specifically, explain what new explorations or contributions this study has made compared with previous studies.
We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We duly improved the paper better highlighting the difference between our work and the existing literature, on innovative aspects such as the study of microclimatic parameters on the different shaded sides of the vines or the bud fruitfulness. Our results suggest the positive results of an AV system in hot and semi-arid climatic conditions.
Insufficient analysis of experimental results:
There is a significant difference in the maximum humidity value between the LS group and the other two groups in Figure 3, but the article does not provide a sufficient explanation for this difference. It is recommended that the author provide more experimental data support, analyze the possible reasons for this difference in detail, and discuss the impact of this phenomenon on the overall experimental results. This will help improve the persuasiveness and scientificity of the paper.
We thank the reviewer for this sharp observation, and we improved the article as suggested with a better analysis and discussion of this aspect.
Unclear description of experimental methods:
The description of the experimental methods is not detailed enough, especially in the selection of measurement points in Figure 4. The article does not clearly explain how these points were selected and whether factors such as the uniformity or specificity of the experimental environment were considered.
We better detailed the missing information in the revised paper indicating more details on the measurement points.
In addition, the analysis of spectral differences is relatively brief. It is recommended that the authors conduct a more detailed analysis of the spectral data to help readers better understand the experimental results.
We appreciate this comment and we added more details about that in the revised paper.
Impact of AV system on microclimate:
The impact of the AV system on microclimate lacks a detailed explanation. The article should further discuss how the AV system specifically regulates microclimate parameters such as temperature, humidity, and lighting, and provide relevant data support. The lack of sufficient discussion may cause readers to question the actual use of the AV system.
We agree with the comment of the reviewer. We improved the discussion of the microclimate section with new considerations on practical effects of AV systems on the plants.
Lack of key data on plant growth:
Current research results mainly focus on microclimate improvement, but lack key data on plant growth processes, such as carbon growth and yield changes. It is recommended that the authors include more data related to plant growth to enhance the comprehensiveness of the experimental results and evaluate the practical application value of Mediterranean horticulture.
We agree with the reviewer on this aspect. Although this work mainly focused on microclimate, we also added some data on vines such as yield and fruitfulness creating a new section in the manuscript. A discussion has been added on how AV-induced microclimate changes may influence crop development and productivity.
Insufficient background information:
In the background section, there is a lack of detailed information on research on plant species (such as grapes), their growth habits, economic benefits, and the advantages of combining with AV systems. It is recommended that the authors supplement the article with this background information so that readers can better understand the reasons for the selection of this plant species and appreciate its potential advantages in combination with the AV system.
We agree with the reviewer, and we inserted some information on grape in the Introduction section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The language is somewhat obscure, it can be polished appropriately.
2. The review of previous related research is not comprehensive enough and lacks strong relevance.
3.The number 17 in line 242 should be changed to 17% (0.17), otherwise the meaning expressed by the number is incorrect.
4.The experiment conducted in the country of Laterza (rural areas) was carried out, but the conclusion states as follows: "These systems can provide shape, improve microclimates, and support sustainable food production in urban parks, rooftop gardens, and green corridors. Practical implementation of these strategies promises not only ecological advantages but also social and economic benefits, making them a valuable addition to urban sustainability initiatives." Isn't this contradictory?
5. The overall content of the article is somewhat thin, only studying the impact of experimental treatments(AV) on microclimate factors, without extending or delving into the effects of experimental treatments on grape photosynthesis, yield, quality, efficiency, and scientific evaluation of overall benefits.Relevant results should be appropriately supplemented.
Author Response
The language is somewhat obscure, it can be polished appropriately.
Thank you for pointing this out. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and improved the clarity and precision of the language throughout the text. Specific sections have been rewritten to ensure better readability and comprehension.
The review of previous related research is not comprehensive enough and lacks strong relevance.
Taking into account this comment, in the revised paper we added more information on researches related to this topic in different areas of the world.
The number 17 in line 242 should be changed to 17% (0.17), otherwise the meaning expressed by the number is incorrect.
Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We have corrected the text.
The experiment conducted in the country of Laterza (rural areas) was carried out, but the conclusion states as follows: "These systems can provide shape, improve microclimates, and support sustainable food production in urban parks, rooftop gardens, and green corridors. Practical implementation of these strategies promises not only ecological advantages but also social and economic benefits, making them a valuable addition to urban sustainability initiatives." Isn't this contradictory?
Thanks for annotating this contradiction. We have revised the conclusion section to explicitly state that the study was conducted in a vineyard located in a rural environment. We also duly revised the Conclusion section.
The overall content of the article is somewhat thin, only studying the impact of experimental treatments (AV) on microclimate factors, without extending or delving into the effects of experimental treatments on grape photosynthesis, yield, quality, efficiency, and scientific evaluation of overall benefits. Relevant results should be appropriately supplemented.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised version we added more information on yield and long-term efficiency of the vines (bud fruitfulness). However, the main scope of the present study was to focus on microclimatic factors. We also duly improved the discussion section taking into account the modifications of the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for their improvement. Only few minor comments should be addressed to improve the paper's quality before publication.
Please add the numerical results of the LER and the yield improvement in % between the reference and AV system to the abstract.
Reference style in line 49 page 2 should be improved, (https://www.oiv.int/what-we-do/global-report?oiv).
Please use the abbreviation AV in lines 57 and 85 page 2. Please revise all abbreviations in the manuscript like PV...etc.
Define the NPK in line 92.
Line 202 page 5, instead of ''LER >1 suggests that the AV is more effective and economical than planting crops or photovoltaic power alone on the same land'', you can use ''LER >1 in AV systems indicates a higher land use efficiency than planting crops or PV power alone on the same land''
The LER is not an economic metric, if LER is >1, it does not mean the AV is economically viable.
For the LER, the area loss due to the PV structure can be added, however, it should be fine for this case study, but for other kinds of crops like tomato, potato...etc. It should be considered.
Please improve the quality of Figures 5 and 7.
line 360.-361: B. chinense, and M. sativa, can use the Bupleurum chinense and Medicago sativa.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #1
I thank the authors for their improvement. Only few minor comments should be addressed to improve the paper's quality before publication.
We appreciate the reviewer’s response to our work to improve the manuscript.
Please add the numerical results of the LER and the yield improvement in % between the reference and AV system to the abstract.
We have inserted the numerical results of LER and % increase of yield in the abstract.
Reference style in line 49 page 2 should be improved, (https://www.oiv.int/what-we-do/global-report?oiv).
We improved the reference according to the reference style.
Please use the abbreviation AV in lines 57 and 85 page 2. Please revise all abbreviations in the manuscript like PV...etc.
We revised all the abbreviations in the manuscript as requested by the reviewer.
Define the NPK in line 92.
We better defined in t hems the meaning of NPK.
Line 202 page 5, instead of ''LER >1 suggests that the AV is more effective and economical than planting crops or photovoltaic power alone on the same land'', you can use ''LER >1 in AV systems indicates a higher land use efficiency than planting crops or PV power alone on the same land''
We revised the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion since LER is a land use efficiency index more than an economical measure.
The LER is not an economic metric, if LER is >1, it does not mean the AV is economically viable.
We agree with the reviewer and we revised it in the text.
For the LER, the area loss due to the PV structure can be added, however, it should be fine for this case study, but for other kinds of crops like tomato, potato...etc. It should be considered.
In this case study there is no loss of land since the vines are trellised using the poles of the structure with the panels. It is like a standard vineyard.
Please improve the quality of Figures 5 and 7.
We inserted figures of better quality in the revised manuscript.
line 360.-361: B. chinense, and M. sativa, can use the Bupleurum chinense and Medicago sativa.
The introduction section needs improvement:
We revised the names of the species and improved the introduction and some minor changes in other sections of the ms.
