Floating solar panels on reservoirs impact phytoplankton populations: A modelling experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) deployments are increasing globally as the switch to renewable energy intensifies, representing a considerable water surface transformation. FPV installations can potentially impact aquatic ecosystem function, either positively or negatively. However, these impacts are poorly resolved given the challenges of collecting empirical data for field or modelling experiments. In particular, there is limited evidence on the response of phytoplankton to changes in water body thermal dynamics and light climate with FPV. Given the importance of understanding phytoplankton biomass and species composition for managing ecosystem services, we use an uncertainty estimation approach to simulate the effect of FPV coverage and array siting location on a UK reservoir. FPV coverage was modified in 10% increments from a baseline with 0% coverage to 100% coverage for three different FPV array siting locations based on reservoir circulation patterns. Results showed that FPV coverage significantly impacted thermal properties, resulting in highly variable impacts on phytoplankton biomass and species composition. The impacts on phytoplankton were often dependent on array siting location as well as surface coverage. Changes to phytoplankton species composition were offset by the decrease in phytoplankton biomass associated with increasing FPV coverage. We identified that similar phytoplankton biomass reductions could be achieved with less FPV coverage by deploying the FPV array on the water body's faster-flowing area than the central or slower flowing areas. The difference in response dependent on siting location could be used to tailor phytoplankton management in water bodies. Simulation of water body-FPV interactions efficiently using an uncertainty approach is an essential tool to rapidly develop understanding and ultimately inform FPV developers and water body managers looking to minimise negative impacts and maximise co-benefits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".