Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41968074›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

A mosaic of microclimates: biodiversity outcomes and wildlife habitat potential in large-scale solar facilities.

Tom Armstrong, Caleb L Loughran, Joshua R Ennen, Kristoffer H Wild, Eric J Nordberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tom ArmstrongEcosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5666-9282
Caleb L LoughranDepartment of Natural Sciences, Western New Mexico University, 1000 W. College Ave, Silver City, NM, 88061, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6085-580X
Joshua R EnnenRenewable Energy Wildlife Institute, 700 12th Street, NW Suite 700, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3898-0115
Kristoffer H WildSchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6714-3311
Eric J NordbergEcosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-622X

Funding

Renewable Energy Wildlife Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid global expansion of photovoltaic (PV) solar facilities, now comprising nearly 80% of the recent and projected growth of renewable electricity, represents one of the most significant land-use changes of the 21st century. While PV facilities are critical for decarbonising energy systems, their large spatial footprint and infrastructure fundamentally alter local abiotic conditions, with potential cascading effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. This review synthesises findings from 33 peer-reviewed publications across diverse climates and ecosystems, examining how large-scale solar facilities modify microclimates. Key environmental variables affected include temperature, humidity, wind speed, soil moisture, albedo, and photosynthetically active radiation. Generally, PV arrays create spatially heterogeneous microclimates: air temperatures are often elevated above panels, while soils beneath tend to be cooler, more stable, and retain more moisture due to shading. However, these patterns are not universal. Generalisations are limited by small sample sizes, variation in sensor placement, and differences in study design, so results may not apply to all PV facilities or biomes. The effects of PV arrays on microclimate are likely context dependent, varying with local climate, facility design, and ground-cover management. This review highlights the need for standardised microclimate research and reporting within solar facilities to understand environmental variability better across sites and regions. Integrating microclimate studies with ecological modelling and habitat suitability assessments will help researchers and land managers determine how species interact with environments within and around PV facilities. Leveraging such insights can guide facility design, inform habitat restoration, and support the sustainable development of solar energy.

Indexed as

Animals, WildBiodiversityEcosystemMicroclimateSolar EnergyAnimalsbiodiversityenvironmental conditionshabitat suitabilitymoisturerenewable energytemperature

Identifiers

PMID41968074
PMCPMC13542372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.