## 3 Results
### Morphometric Features and Tomato Fruit Quality Assessment  
Tomato fruit fw and size were higher in the plants grown under the PV panels than in the control plots, regardless of the water supply. Specifically, the average fw of the tomato fruits from plants under the PV panels reached 10.9 \(\pm\) 2.5 g with high watering (HW-PV panel), while it was 8.3 \(\pm\) 1.9 g with reduced watering (LW-PV panel). In contrast, HW- and LW-Control tomato fruits had an average fw of 6.9 \(\pm\) 1.7 g and 6.0 \(\pm\) 1.4 g, respectively (Figure 3).  
The most visually apparent impact of treatments in the morphology of tomato fruits was linked to their diameter (Figure 4a). Indeed, statistically significant differences were observed in the short axis values, with the HW-PV panel group exhibiting the highest values, followed by the LW-PV panel group (Figure 4b). Conversely, no statistical differences were detected in the long axis among groups, except for the HW-PV panel group showing a significantly greater long axis dimension (Figure 4c).  
Figure 3: Average fresh weight (mean \(\pm\) SD) of tomato fruits collected from the control and the PV panel groups. In the table, colored boxes denote statistically significant differences (yellow, \(p<0.05\); dark orange, \(p<0.001\)). HW-Control: tomato fruits grown under control conditions with a high water supply; LW-Control: tomato fruits grown under control conditions with a low water supply; HW-PV panel: tomato fruits grown under PV panels with a high water supply; LW-PV panel: tomato fruits grown under PV panels with a low water supply.  
In terms of fruit quality, tomatoes grown in the control plots showed higher \({}^{\circ}\)Bx levels than those cultivated under the PV panels, irrespective of the water supply. Significant variations in the \({}^{\circ}\)Bx levels were observed among the four groups, with an average of 10.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 for LW-Control, 9.7 \(\pm\) 1.5 for HW-Control, 7.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 for LW-PV panel, and 6.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 for the HW-PV panel group (Figure 5a). Alongside that, the water content showed higher levels of tomato fruits grown under shadow conditions under the PV panels compared to the control ones (Figure 5b). The average water content was 93.1 \(\pm\) 1% for the HW-PV panel group, 91.4 \(\pm\) 1% for the LW-PV panel group, 88.2% \(\pm\) 2 for the HW-Control group, and 87.9 \(\pm\) 3% for LW-Control group. Consequently, the average dw of tomatoes was 0.77 g for HW-Control, 0.70 g for both HW panel and LW panel, and 0.64 for LW-Control, with no significant difference observed among them.  
Furthermore, we noticed that roughly 50% of the tomato fruits grown in the control plots, under both watering conditions, had underdeveloped or absent seeds, in contrast to the fruits grown under the PV panels, which showed consistent and regular seed development (Figure 6).  
Figure 4: Representative images of tomato fruits ripened under PV panel shadow with high (HW-PV panel) or reduced watering (LW-PV panel), and ripened in full sunlight with a high (HW-Control) or low (LW-Control) water supply (**a**). Graphical representation and statistical analysis of the average length (mean \(\pm\) SD) of the short axis (**b**) and the long axis (**c**) of tomato fruits. In the tables, colored boxes denote statistically significant differences (yellow, \(p\) < 0.05; light orange, \(p\) < 0.01; dark orange, \(p\) < 0.001). Colorless boxes indicate the absence of statistically significant differences. Scale bar = 1 cm.