Effect of Stocking Density Using Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus on Aquaponic System and Cultivation of Cherry Tomato Solanum lycopersicum under UAE Condition
Metadata
- Cite key: albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018
- Item type: Master’s Thesis (not Journal Article — see Extraction notes; zotero-export.csv mislabels this
journalArticle) - Authors: A. Al Bloushi — single author (see Extraction notes on the Zotero two-author split)
- Affiliation: Department of Biology, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Al Ain, UAE. Supervisor: Dr. Khaled A. El-Tarabily (p.iv)
- Journal: Biology Theses, ScholarWorks@UAEU (thesis collection no. 15) — Master of Science in Environmental Sciences
- Date: 11/2018
- Date added: 2026-07-13 (per zotero-export.csv)
- DOI: [not reported] (no DOI found — university thesis repository record, not a journal article)
- Funding: [not reported]
- URL: https://scholarworks.uaeu.ac.ae/bio_theses/15
- PDF:
Bloushi and Hussain - Effect of Stocking Density Using Tilapia Oreochromis Niloticuson Aquaponic System and Cultivation of.pdf
Opinion
A single-author UAEU Master’s thesis testing three tilapia stocking densities (100/120/140 fish/m³) each paired with cherry tomato in its own greenhouse aquaponics unit. Genuine primary data (fish growth, water chemistry, tomato yield/composition) with proper ANOVA+DMRT statistics, but the underlying design has only ONE physical system per density (no system-level replication — “three replicate analyses” in every table footnote appears to mean triplicate sample/lab analyses within a single unit, not triplicated units), which limits how strongly the reported between-treatment significance can be trusted. The feed’s own protein content is reported three irreconcilable ways (35% abstract / 32% methods / 38.13% measured), and the water electrical-conductivity data are internally impossible (negative µS/cm values in one table, implausible “mV” values in another) — flagged below rather than guessed at. Zotero’s metadata for this entry is unusually poor (no year/DOI/URL, and the author’s compound Arabic name was split into two fake authors), all corrected here from the PDF’s own declaration and title pages.
Abstract
The present study was conducted to cultivate tomato plants in aquaponics system in the UAE climatic condition. The cherry tomato Solanum lycopersicum plants were cultivated with the Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus fish effluent water. The tomatoes were cultivated with three different densities of fish, 100 fish/m3, 120 fish/m3 and 140 fish/m3. Each greenhouse was 120 m2 plant cultivation areas and 15.5 m3 of the fish culture area and the total water stocking volume was 58 m3. Tomato plants were planted with the ratio of 3 plants/m2. The introduced fish are fed with 35% protein based commercial floating feed at the ratio of 5% of the total body weight of fish. The fish were fed three times daily at 4 hours’ interval. The total duration of the experiment period was 8 months. The first three months were for plant growth and flowering. The tomato fruits harvest started from the fourth month onwards. Every month, fish and plant growth parameter, water quality parameters were examined using proper analytical method. Also, the experiment water, tomato fruits, cultivated fish body proximate composition and mineral nutrient contents were analysed. Finally, the results showed the fish production was significantly higher in 140 fish/m3, the tomato fruits yield significantly higher in 120 fish/m3 of fish treatment yield. The main aim is way to cultivate and improve the tomato under UAE climatic condition. So, as per the tomato yield basis the suggestion to UAE farmers, that 120 fish/m3 density of fish with tomato cultivation was suitable for the UAE climatic condition.
Keywords: Oreochromis niloticus, aquaponics system, stocking density, Solanum lycopersicum.
Summary
This UAEU Master’s thesis ran three parallel greenhouse aquaponic units at the Falaj Hazza research station (Al Ain, UAE), each stocked with Nile tilapia at a different density (100, 120, or 140 fish/m³) and each growing cherry tomato on floating Styrofoam rafts at 3 plants/m². Over roughly 7–8 months, the author tracked fish growth (weight gain, FCR, survival), recirculating-water chemistry (pH, DO, EC, TAN, nitrite, nitrate, alkalinity, minerals), and tomato yield, fruit physical quality, proximate composition and mineral content, plus system water/electricity/feed consumption. The highest-density treatment (140 fish/m³) produced the most fish biomass and the best FCR but the lowest fish survival rate, while the middle density (120 fish/m³) produced the highest total tomato yield; tomato fruit physical quality, proximate composition and mineral content did not differ significantly between densities. The thesis concludes that 120 fish/m³ is the most suitable density for combined tilapia–cherry-tomato aquaponics under UAE conditions, balancing fish and tomato output. Each density was run as a single (non-replicated) greenhouse unit, with “triplicate” in the results referring to repeated sample/lab analyses rather than independent parallel systems per density.
Experiment data
- Design: Three aquaponic greenhouse units (Falaj Hazza research station, UAE University), each stocked at a different tilapia density — 100, 120, 140 fish/m³ — and each growing cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) on floating Styrofoam raceways at 3 plants/m² (342 plants/120 m² per unit). One unit per density (no system-level replication); “three replicate analyses” in table footnotes = repeated sample/lab-analysis replicates.
- Duration: Stated as “8 months” in the Abstract/Objectives, but as “seven and half months” in the Chapter 3 Results narrative; Table 5’s own seedling-to-harvest-closed dates span ~217 days (~7.1 months) for Unit 1. See Extraction notes — WARN-MATERIAL, not resolved to a single day-count.
- Treatments/Trials: T1 = 100 fish/m³, T2 = 120 fish/m³, T3 = 140 fish/m³ (see
trials.csv).- Statistics: One-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) post hoc, P<0.05, SPSS v16.0 (Section 2.10).
Fish growth and production
Nile tilapia fingerlings (~5–8 cm, 10–20 g) were stocked at 100/120/140 fish/m³ (1540/1860–1864/2170–2176 fish per unit — small count discrepancy between Table 4 and Table 6, see Extraction notes), fed a commercial floating pellet (ARASCO Feed, Saudi Arabia) 3×/day at 4-hour intervals at 5% of body weight/day. Final weight gain, feed intake and FCR were all significantly better (higher weight gain, lower/better FCR) in the highest-density unit (140 fish/m³: weight gain 392.64±17.18 g/fish, FCR 1.33±0.01), while survival was significantly higher at the lowest and mid densities (97.86% and 99.52% vs. 91.13% at 140 fish/m³). Fish body and sludge proximate composition did not differ significantly between densities (Table 7 — routed to Experimental Remarks, no dedicated column).
Water quality
Aquaponics-effluent pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate were reported as 8-month trial-mean averages per unit (Table 8). pH was significantly highest in the 140 fish/m³ unit (6.55±0.14); temperature and DO showed no significant differences between units (regulated by mechanical cooling/aeration); ammonia, nitrite and nitrate rose significantly from initial (pre-fish) levels but did not differ significantly between the three densities. Alkalinity was actively maintained with added CaCO₃/calcium hydroxide. Electrical conductivity data are internally contradictory between Table 3 (negative µS/cm values) and Table 8 (“EC mV” values) — see WARN-BLOCK below, recorded as UNCLEAR. Macro/micro mineral levels in the fish-effluent water (Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, P, S, Zn — Table 9) rose significantly from initial levels but likewise did not differ significantly between densities; no dedicated multi-element water-mineral column exists in this schema, so these are noted in Experimental Remarks only.
Tomato production and composition
Total tomato yield over the harvest period was significantly higher in the 120 fish/m³ unit (2627.05±183.05 kg, 7.68±0.54 kg/plant) than in the 100 fish/m³ (2371.72±204.76 kg) or 140 fish/m³ (2168.84±135.12 kg) units. Individual fruit physical quality (weight ~18.6–19.7 g, height/width ~27–33 mm — likely fruit dimensions, not whole-plant height, see WARN-CHECK) did not differ significantly between densities, nor did fruit proximate composition (moisture, ash, crude protein, fat, fibre, carbohydrate — Table 11) or fruit mineral content (Ca, Mo, Mg, Na, P, S, K, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn — Table 12; all recorded in plant.csv). Leaf tissue nutrient analysis was described as a method (Section 2.7) but no corresponding numeric results appear anywhere in the Results chapter — [not reported].
Resource consumption
Water and electricity consumption did not differ significantly between densities (Table 13); feed consumption was significantly higher in the two higher-density units. Per-unit-input efficiency ratios (kg fish/tomato per kWh, per m³ water, per kg feed — Table 14) favoured 140 fish/m³ for fish output and 120 fish/m³ for tomato output; no dedicated efficiency-ratio column exists in this schema (routed to Experimental Remarks).
Linked claims
- Stocking density affects tilapia growth and feed conversion in aquaponics
- Aquaponic stocking density does not affect harvested-plant proximate or mineral composition
- Aquaponics balances fish and plant output at an intermediate stocking density
Citations to chase
- todo Ahmed, M. A. (2018) “Effect of Feeding Frequency and Stocking Density on Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus and Lettuce Lactuca sativa production in aquaponics system under the UAE condition” — companion UAEU Master’s thesis, source of the “calculated parameters” formulas used here (Section 2.9); likely closely related/companion study, worth deduplicating against if it enters this vault
- todo Roosta & Hamidpour (2011) — mineral nutrient content of tomato in aquaponics vs. hydroponics, foliar application study, cited repeatedly for tomato-aquaponics context (p.17)
- todo El-Sayed et al. (2015) — utilization of fish-farm effluent in tomato cultivation, cited for nutrient-consumption-vs-flow-rate findings (p.14, p.47)
- todo Schmautz et al. (2016) — tomato productivity/quality across three hydroponic methods in aquaponics, cited for fish-effluent/cherry-tomato comparison (p.16, p.48)
- todo Salam et al. (2014) — tilapia/tomato aquaponics feasibility and optimal stocking density conclusions, cited multiple times in Discussion (p.44-48)
Extraction notes
Type classification: experiment. Three controlled stocking-density treatments, original fish/water/plant data collected by the author, replicate sample analyses, one-way ANOVA + DMRT statistics (Section 2.10). Gets trials.csv and plant.csv rows.
Contradictions (severity-tagged):
-
WARN-BLOCK — Feed protein content. Abstract: “35% protein based commercial floating feed” (p.vi). Methods 2.3: “fish fed (32% of Crude protein) was purchased from ARASCO Feed” (p.23). Table 7 (measured, AOAC method): feed Crude Protein = 38.13±0.71% (p.34). Three irreconcilable values for the identical feed batch used across all three units; not a plausible typo/transposition of one another. Recorded as UNCLEAR in the
Proteincell for all three trials. Downstream effect: does not change any growth/FCR comparison (same feed used everywhere), but any protein-efficiency claim citing this paper’s feed-protein % should not be trusted without checking the original feed spec. -
WARN-BLOCK — Electrical conductivity. Table 3 (initial, pre-fish water quality) reports “Electric conductivity (µS/cm)” as negative values (System1=-22.5, System2=-29.1, System3=-22.3 µS/cm) against a stated standard of 1500 (p.23) — physically impossible. Table 8 (trial-mean effluent quality) reports the same parameter under a different header, “EC mV” (Initial=22.20±1.76, 100fish/m³=35.51±5.21, 120=39.44±10.23, 140=36.21±8.54, p.36) — mV is not a standard EC unit and the magnitude is implausibly low for aquaponics effluent. The two tables cannot be reconciled (different units, one impossible). Recorded as UNCLEAR in the
ECcell for all three trials rather than guessing a sign/unit correction. -
WARN-MATERIAL — Fish/experiment trial duration. Abstract and Objectives: “total duration of the experiment period was 8 months” (p.vi, p.18). Chapter 3 Results: “The length of the experimental period was seven and half months” (p.37). Table 5’s own dates (seedling 06/12/2016 to harvest-closed 11/07/2017 for Unit 1) span ~217 days (~7.1 months) — closer to the 7.5-month figure. The more granular Table-5 dates and Results-section statement are treated as more reliable than the rounder Abstract figure, but no single day-count is stated anywhere, so
Fish trial duration (days)is left NR rather than computing one from the dates (would be a derivation). -
WARN-MATERIAL — Authorship (Zotero metadata error).
zotero-export.csv(duplicate rows QXTHCP56, 2Q8WJZ6N) lists two authors: “Bloushi, Al; Hussain, Adel Ibrahim”. The PDF itself (title page, Declaration of Original Work p.ii, Copyright p.iii, signature pages) unambiguously names a single author: “Adel Ibrahim Hussain Abdalla Al Bloushi”. This is a Zotero name-parsing artifact on a compound Arabic name (given name “Adel Ibrahim Hussain”, family name “Abdalla Al Bloushi”/“Al Bloushi”), not a genuine two-author work — resolved from the PDF’s own declaration/signature pages, which also carry higher reliability than the Zotero row (which additionally left year/DOI/URL blank for this entry). Recorded as single author[[A. Al Bloushi]]. -
WARN-MATERIAL — Item type.
zotero-export.csvlistsitemType=journalArticlefor both duplicate rows, but the PDF is unambiguously a UAEU Master’s Thesis (Biology Theses collection no.15, ScholarWorks@UAEU, supervised by Dr. Khaled A. El-Tarabily, approved Nov–Dec 2018). Recorded as “Master’s Thesis” in the note, overriding the Zotero field. -
WARN-CHECK — NO3 vs NO3-N. Methods 2.4.4–2.4.6 describe the HACH Cadmium-Reduction “Nitrate” method (NitraVer 5) without stating whether results are NO3⁻ or NO3⁻-N; this HACH method is commonly calibrated to report NO3⁻-N directly. Table 8’s “Nitrate” values recorded in the
NO3-Ncell on that basis — if the paper intended total NO3⁻, true NO3-N would be ~4.43× smaller. -
WARN-CHECK — Replicates / pseudoreplication. Every results table footnote states “mean ± SD of three replicate analyses,” but the system description (2.1, Tables 1/3/4) describes only ONE physical greenhouse aquaponics unit per density (Unit1=100, Unit2=120, Unit3=140 fish/m³) — no system-level replication across densities, only triplicate sample/lab-analysis (or, per Table 8’s “Eight-month replicate average” footnote, possibly triplicate monthly time-points — unclear which). This affects how strongly the reported P<0.05 differences between densities should be trusted, but changes no individual reported number, so
Replicates (n)is recorded as 3 per the paper’s own repeated statement with this caveat flagged. -
WARN-CHECK — Plant height/width (Table 10). “Average Height (mm)” and “Average width (mm)” (~27–33 mm) appear in a table titled “Total tomato production and physical quality” alongside fruit count and average fruit weight (~18.6–19.7 g) — these values almost certainly describe individual cherry-tomato fruit dimensions, not whole-plant height (27mm plant height would be nonsensical for a fruiting tomato plant after months of growth).
Plant heightschema cell left NR to avoid misrepresenting a fruit measurement; fruit dimensions noted in Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) instead. -
WARN-MINOR — Fish count mismatch. Table 4 lists initial fish counts 1540/1860/2170 for 100/120/140 fish/m³; Table 6 lists 1540/1864/2176 for the same treatments — 4–6 fish difference for the two higher densities, no cell impact.
-
WARN-MINOR — FCR header. Table 6 column header reads “FCR (%)” but tabulated values (1.87, 1.76, 1.33) are dimensionless feed-conversion ratios, not percentages. Recorded as a plain ratio; header’s ”%” treated as a labelling error.
[not reported] / [unclear] fields, grouped:
- SGR (specific growth rate) — measured per Methods 2.5 but never tabulated numerically anywhere in Results.
- N, P, K of feed — not analysed (only Crude Protein/Fat/Fibre/Ash/CHO/Energy given, Table 7).
- FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE — no such named efficiency ratios computed by the author (Table 14 gives differently-defined per-input-unit ratios, routed to NO COLUMN).
- Fish Category, Plant Category, Water classification, Days Plant after transplant, SPAD, Leaf count, Average room Temperature, Lat/Long, Measured Unit, Iron supplemented, Artificial Lighting, Nutrient supplemented, Biological system already in use — not explicitly stated by the author (background-literature characterisations of tilapia/aquaponics in the Introduction are not this paper’s own primary claims and were not used to fill these cells).
- pHOptimal — no explicit “optimal” target stated by the author; the standard-chart range (6–8.5, Table 3, sourced to “FAO aquaponics manual, 2014”) recorded instead.
- Leaf tissue nutrient analysis — described as a method (2.7) but no corresponding results appear anywhere in Results; [not reported], not fabricated.
Scanned PDF check: text layer present and clean throughout (searchable, well-OCR’d/native PDF); no NEEDS_OCR.md entry needed.
Quality tally: 2 BLOCK (feed protein, EC) + 3 MATERIAL (trial duration, authorship, item type) + 2 CHECK (NO3 definition, plant-height/fruit-dimension ambiguity) + 2 MINOR (fish-count mismatch, FCR header). Per SCHEMA.md scoring, 2+ BLOCK → quality: suspect.
New tags introduced: none — Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/Middle-East, Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Tomato all reused exactly as already spelled in existing vault notes (e.g. abusinSustainableFoodProduction2020 for Middle-East; lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021/others for Tilapia and Tomato).
Source: Bloushi and Hussain - Effect of Stocking Density Using Tilapia Oreochromis Niloticuson Aquaponic System and Cultivation of.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| FCR | 1.87 +/- 0.01 |
| % of body weight | 5 |
| Fish size initial | 12.70 +/- 1.40 g |
| Fish size final | 269.42 +/- 1.25 g |
| Feed routine | Y |
| Feed regime | Commercial floating feed (ARASCO Feed, Saudi Arabia), fed 3x/day at 4-hour intervals, 5% of body weight/day |
| Total Feed (kg) | 867.33 +/- 24.11 |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | 421.83 +/- 15.00 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.86 +/- 0.45 |
| Fish weight gain | 256.72 +/- 2.65 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | Y |
| Water volume in the system | 57950 |
| Water type | Tap water |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 1 |
| Aq pH | 6.37 +/- 0.08 |
| pHOptimal | 6-8.5 (FAO aquaponics manual 2014 standard, Table 3) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 4.77 +/- 0.36 |
| Water temperature | 25.00 +/- 3.51 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.60 +/- 0.37 |
| NO2-N | 0.23 +/- 0.07 |
| NO3-N | 17.37 +/- 5.07 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) |
| Details | Continuous harvest of ripe fruit, 2-3x/week, from month 4 through trial end (Table 5) |
| Plants/m2 | 3 |
| Plant fresh weight | 6930 +/- 600 |
| Plant dry matter | 7.75 +/- 0.38 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft / DWC (Styrofoam sheets) |
| Media Details | Rock wool cups (germination) transferred into 2-inch perforated Styrofoam floating raft sheets |
| Air supplement | Y (Air blower (S53-AQ Sweetwater Regenerative Blower 2.5 HP) + silicon air stones in tanks/raceways (p.19,22)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Calcium hydroxide used to adjust initial alkalinity; CaCO3 added to maintain alkalinity during trial (p.22,46)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Same CaCO3/calcium hydroxide addition as remineralization (p.22,46)) |
| Climate control | Y (Evaporative cooling pad + exhaust fan with thermo-regulator sensor + cooling radiators (p.19-20,45)) |
| Equipment | HACH DR900 colorimeter; HACH HQ40d meter; Orion 4 Star DO meter; Varian ICP-OES 710-ES; CEM Mars 5 microwave digestion; KENT water meters; Elster A1100 electric meter; Tekemura DM-28 LUX meter |
| Control Parameters | pH, temperature, DO, EC, TDS, TAN, NO3, NO2, alkalinity, light intensity |
| Combination | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) + cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), single-species aquaponic pairing, no hydroponic control arm |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Middle East |
| Country | United Arab Emirates |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA + DMRT post hoc (P<0.05), SPSS v16.0 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | Y |
| HYD | N |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = 100 fish/m3 stocking density of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fingerlings in its own greenhouse aquaponics unit (Table 4: 1540 fish stocked at trial start, 15.5 m3 fish-tank volume within a ~58 m3 total-system unit; Table 6 lists 1540 for the same treatment — see WARN-MINOR below). Paired with cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) at 3 plants/m2 (342 plants/120 m2 raceway) in the same unit. Three stocking-density treatments (100/120/140 fish/m3) were run as three separate, non-replicated greenhouse units (Table 3: ‘System 1/2/3’); ‘mean +/- SD of three replicate analyses’ in every table footnote reflects triplicate sample/lab analyses, not triplicated aquaponics systems per density (WARN-CHECK, see note below). | WARN-BLOCK Protein (feed): Abstract states ‘35% protein based commercial floating feed’ (p.vi). Methods 2.3 states ‘fish fed (32% of Crude protein) was purchased from ARASCO Feed’ (p.23). Table 7 (measured, AOAC method) gives feed Crude Protein = 38.13+/-0.71% (p.34) — identical feed used in all three units. Three irreconcilable values, not a plausible typo of one another. Recorded as UNCLEAR. No downstream effect on growth/FCR comparisons (same feed batch across all units), but do not cite this paper’s feed-protein % without checking the original ARASCO spec sheet. | WARN-BLOCK EC: Table 3 (initial, pre-fish water quality) reports ‘Electric conductivity (uS/cm)’ as NEGATIVE values (System1=-22.5, System2=-29.1, System3=-22.3 uS/cm) against a stated standard of 1500 (p.23) — physically impossible. Table 8 (trial-mean effluent quality) reports the same parameter under a different header, ‘EC mV’ (Initial=22.20+/-1.76, 100fish/m3=35.51+/-5.21, 120=39.44+/-10.23, 140=36.21+/-8.54, p.36) — mV is not a standard EC unit and the magnitude is implausibly low for aquaponics effluent. Cannot be reconciled (different units, one impossible on its face). Recorded as UNCLEAR rather than guessing a sign/unit correction; schema unit dS/m not populated. | WARN-MATERIAL Fish trial duration: Abstract/Objectives state ‘total duration of the experiment period was 8 months’ (p.vi, p.18); Chapter 3 Results states ‘The length of the experimental period was seven and half months’ (p.37); Table 5’s own dates (seedling 06/12/2016 to harvest-closed 11/07/2017 for Unit 1) span ~217 days (~7.1 months), closer to the 7.5-month figure. Neither figure is itself a precise day-count and converting either would require an unstated day-per-month assumption (derivation prohibited); left NR rather than computed. | WARN-MATERIAL Authorship: zotero-export.csv (duplicate rows QXTHCP56, 2Q8WJZ6N) lists ‘Bloushi, Al; Hussain, Adel Ibrahim’ as two separate authors — a Zotero name-parsing artifact on the single author’s compound Arabic name. The PDF’s own title page, Declaration of Original Work (p.ii), Copyright page (p.iii) and signature pages unambiguously name ONE author, ‘Adel Ibrahim Hussain Abdalla Al Bloushi’. Resolved using the PDF’s primary declaration (higher reliability than the Zotero row, which also left year/DOI/URL blank for this entry); recorded as single author. | WARN-MATERIAL Item type: zotero-export.csv lists itemType=‘journalArticle’ for both duplicate rows, but the PDF is a UAEU Master’s Thesis (Biology Theses collection no.15, ScholarWorks@UAEU, approved Nov-Dec 2018) — recorded as thesis, overriding Zotero. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N vs NO3: Methods 2.4.4-2.4.6 describe the HACH Cadmium-Reduction ‘Nitrate’ method (NitraVer 5) without stating whether results are NO3- or NO3—N; this method is commonly calibrated to report NO3—N directly. Table 8’s ‘Nitrate’ value recorded in the NO3-N cell on that basis; if the paper intended total NO3-, true NO3-N would be ~4.43x smaller. | WARN-CHECK Replicates (n)=3: every table footnote states ‘mean +/- SD of three replicate analyses’, but the system description (2.1, Tables 1/3/4) describes only ONE physical greenhouse unit per density — no system-level replication across densities, only triplicate sample/lab-analysis (or, per Table 8’s ‘Eight-month replicate average’ footnote, possibly triplicate monthly time-points — unclear which). Affects how strongly the reported P<0.05 between-density differences should be trusted; does not change any individual reported number. | WARN-CHECK Plant height/width (Table 10): ‘Average Height (mm)’ / ‘Average width (mm)’ (28.40+/-0.98mm / 32.82+/-1.01mm) appear alongside fruit count and average fruit weight (19.69+/-1.43g) in a table titled ‘Total tomato production and physical quality’ — these almost certainly describe individual FRUIT dimensions (consistent with cherry-tomato fruit diameter), not whole-plant height (27-33mm would be nonsensical as a whole-plant height after months of growth). ‘Plant height’ cell left NR to avoid misrepresenting a fruit measurement; fruit dimensions given here as NO COLUMN instead. | WARN-MINOR No. of fish initial: Table 4 lists 1540; Table 6 lists 1540 for the same treatment — small unexplained difference, no cell impact (Table 6’s paired growth values used consistently). | WARN-MINOR FCR header: Table 6 column header reads ‘FCR (%)’ but the tabulated value (1.87) is a dimensionless feed-conversion ratio, not a percentage — recorded as a plain ratio, header’s ’%’ treated as a labelling error. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Water volume in the system 57.95 m3 (Table 1) x1000 = 57950 L, applied identically to all three trials (Table 1 describes the generic per-unit design, no stated per-treatment variation in tank/raceway sizing). Plant fresh weight: Table 10 ‘Yield/plant (Kg)’ = 6.93+/-0.60 kg/plant x1000 = value in g/plant recorded in that cell (cumulative yield across the ~5-month harvest window, not a single-fruit weight — see alternative individual average fruit weight 19.69+/-1.43g noted above). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density in kg/m3 (paper states density only as fish-count/m3 — 100 fish/m3 — with total introduced fish weight and tank volume given separately in Table 4; computing kg/m3 would be a derivation — actual reported count-based density given in Fish/remarks instead); SGR (measured per Methods 2.5 but never tabulated numerically in Results); N/P/K of feed (only Crude Protein/Fat/Fibre/Ash/CHO/Energy given, Table 7); FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE (no such named ratios computed; Table 14 gives differently-defined per-input ratios, routed to NO COLUMN); Days Plant after transplant (seeds sown directly into rock-wool/raft, no distinct transplant date given); SPAD, Leaf count (not measured); Lat/Long (Falaj Hazza research station, Al Ain, UAE — no coordinates given); Average room Temperature (only water temperature tabulated). | NO COLUMN: Table 7 fish-body and fish-sludge proximate composition (Moisture/Ash/CrudeProtein/Fat/Fibre/CHO/Energy, all ns P>0.05 across densities) — no dedicated fish/sludge-tissue-proximate column exists. Table 13 monthly water consumption (~150-180 US gallons/month), evaporation, cooling-system water use, and electricity usage (~11,868-11,887 kWh, ns across treatments), plus fixed water flow rate (10 m3/hour, written as ‘m3L/hour’ in the original text, likely a typo) — no dedicated flow-rate/electricity column exists. Table 9 fish-effluent-water macro/micro minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, P, S, Zn, mg/L, all rising significantly from initial but ns between densities) — no dedicated multi-element water-mineral column beyond TAN/NO2/NO3 exists. Table 14 per-unit-input efficiency ratios (kg fish or tomato per kWh electricity, per m3 water, per kg feed) — no dedicated efficiency-ratio column exists. Pruned tomato leaf tissue nutrient analysis is described as a method (2.7) but no corresponding results table or value appears anywhere in Results — [not reported], not fabricated. Daily Water exchange rate (‘about 1%’, Discussion p.49) is a general system-wide statement, not broken out per treatment in any table; applied identically to all three trials on that basis.
albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| FCR | 1.76 +/- 0.09 |
| % of body weight | 5 |
| Fish size initial | 13.20 +/- 2.90 g |
| Fish size final | 323.37 +/- 31.48 g |
| Feed routine | Y |
| Feed regime | Commercial floating feed (ARASCO Feed, Saudi Arabia), fed 3x/day at 4-hour intervals, 5% of body weight/day |
| Total Feed (kg) | 1050.33 +/- 24.50 |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | 626.67 +/- 27.54 |
| Fish survival rate | 99.52 +/- 0.27 |
| Fish weight gain | 310.17 +/- 28.58 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | Y |
| Water volume in the system | 57950 |
| Water type | Tap water |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 1 |
| Aq pH | 6.42 +/- 0.12 |
| pHOptimal | 6-8.5 (FAO aquaponics manual 2014 standard, Table 3) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 4.88 +/- 0.29 |
| Water temperature | 25.18 +/- 3.47 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.95 +/- 0.69 |
| NO2-N | 0.26 +/- 0.17 |
| NO3-N | 21.81 +/- 6.98 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) |
| Details | Continuous harvest of ripe fruit, 2-3x/week, from month 4 through trial end (Table 5) |
| Plants/m2 | 3 |
| Plant fresh weight | 7680 +/- 540 |
| Plant dry matter | 6.79 +/- 0.43 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft / DWC (Styrofoam sheets) |
| Media Details | Rock wool cups (germination) transferred into 2-inch perforated Styrofoam floating raft sheets |
| Air supplement | Y (Air blower (S53-AQ Sweetwater Regenerative Blower 2.5 HP) + silicon air stones in tanks/raceways (p.19,22)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Calcium hydroxide used to adjust initial alkalinity; CaCO3 added to maintain alkalinity during trial (p.22,46)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Same CaCO3/calcium hydroxide addition as remineralization (p.22,46)) |
| Climate control | Y (Evaporative cooling pad + exhaust fan with thermo-regulator sensor + cooling radiators (p.19-20,45)) |
| Equipment | HACH DR900 colorimeter; HACH HQ40d meter; Orion 4 Star DO meter; Varian ICP-OES 710-ES; CEM Mars 5 microwave digestion; KENT water meters; Elster A1100 electric meter; Tekemura DM-28 LUX meter |
| Control Parameters | pH, temperature, DO, EC, TDS, TAN, NO3, NO2, alkalinity, light intensity |
| Combination | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) + cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), single-species aquaponic pairing, no hydroponic control arm |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Middle East |
| Country | United Arab Emirates |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA + DMRT post hoc (P<0.05), SPSS v16.0 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | Y |
| HYD | N |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = 120 fish/m3 stocking density of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fingerlings in its own greenhouse aquaponics unit (Table 4: 1860 fish stocked at trial start, 15.5 m3 fish-tank volume within a ~58 m3 total-system unit; Table 6 lists 1864 for the same treatment — see WARN-MINOR below). Paired with cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) at 3 plants/m2 (342 plants/120 m2 raceway) in the same unit. Three stocking-density treatments (100/120/140 fish/m3) were run as three separate, non-replicated greenhouse units (Table 3: ‘System 1/2/3’); ‘mean +/- SD of three replicate analyses’ in every table footnote reflects triplicate sample/lab analyses, not triplicated aquaponics systems per density (WARN-CHECK, see note below). | WARN-BLOCK Protein (feed): Abstract states ‘35% protein based commercial floating feed’ (p.vi). Methods 2.3 states ‘fish fed (32% of Crude protein) was purchased from ARASCO Feed’ (p.23). Table 7 (measured, AOAC method) gives feed Crude Protein = 38.13+/-0.71% (p.34) — identical feed used in all three units. Three irreconcilable values, not a plausible typo of one another. Recorded as UNCLEAR. No downstream effect on growth/FCR comparisons (same feed batch across all units), but do not cite this paper’s feed-protein % without checking the original ARASCO spec sheet. | WARN-BLOCK EC: Table 3 (initial, pre-fish water quality) reports ‘Electric conductivity (uS/cm)’ as NEGATIVE values (System1=-22.5, System2=-29.1, System3=-22.3 uS/cm) against a stated standard of 1500 (p.23) — physically impossible. Table 8 (trial-mean effluent quality) reports the same parameter under a different header, ‘EC mV’ (Initial=22.20+/-1.76, 100fish/m3=35.51+/-5.21, 120=39.44+/-10.23, 140=36.21+/-8.54, p.36) — mV is not a standard EC unit and the magnitude is implausibly low for aquaponics effluent. Cannot be reconciled (different units, one impossible on its face). Recorded as UNCLEAR rather than guessing a sign/unit correction; schema unit dS/m not populated. | WARN-MATERIAL Fish trial duration: Abstract/Objectives state ‘total duration of the experiment period was 8 months’ (p.vi, p.18); Chapter 3 Results states ‘The length of the experimental period was seven and half months’ (p.37); Table 5’s own dates (seedling 06/12/2016 to harvest-closed 11/07/2017 for Unit 1) span ~217 days (~7.1 months), closer to the 7.5-month figure. Neither figure is itself a precise day-count and converting either would require an unstated day-per-month assumption (derivation prohibited); left NR rather than computed. | WARN-MATERIAL Authorship: zotero-export.csv (duplicate rows QXTHCP56, 2Q8WJZ6N) lists ‘Bloushi, Al; Hussain, Adel Ibrahim’ as two separate authors — a Zotero name-parsing artifact on the single author’s compound Arabic name. The PDF’s own title page, Declaration of Original Work (p.ii), Copyright page (p.iii) and signature pages unambiguously name ONE author, ‘Adel Ibrahim Hussain Abdalla Al Bloushi’. Resolved using the PDF’s primary declaration (higher reliability than the Zotero row, which also left year/DOI/URL blank for this entry); recorded as single author. | WARN-MATERIAL Item type: zotero-export.csv lists itemType=‘journalArticle’ for both duplicate rows, but the PDF is a UAEU Master’s Thesis (Biology Theses collection no.15, ScholarWorks@UAEU, approved Nov-Dec 2018) — recorded as thesis, overriding Zotero. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N vs NO3: Methods 2.4.4-2.4.6 describe the HACH Cadmium-Reduction ‘Nitrate’ method (NitraVer 5) without stating whether results are NO3- or NO3—N; this method is commonly calibrated to report NO3—N directly. Table 8’s ‘Nitrate’ value recorded in the NO3-N cell on that basis; if the paper intended total NO3-, true NO3-N would be ~4.43x smaller. | WARN-CHECK Replicates (n)=3: every table footnote states ‘mean +/- SD of three replicate analyses’, but the system description (2.1, Tables 1/3/4) describes only ONE physical greenhouse unit per density — no system-level replication across densities, only triplicate sample/lab-analysis (or, per Table 8’s ‘Eight-month replicate average’ footnote, possibly triplicate monthly time-points — unclear which). Affects how strongly the reported P<0.05 between-density differences should be trusted; does not change any individual reported number. | WARN-CHECK Plant height/width (Table 10): ‘Average Height (mm)’ / ‘Average width (mm)’ (28.27+/-0.32mm / 32.05+/-0.67mm) appear alongside fruit count and average fruit weight (18.56+/-0.69g) in a table titled ‘Total tomato production and physical quality’ — these almost certainly describe individual FRUIT dimensions (consistent with cherry-tomato fruit diameter), not whole-plant height (27-33mm would be nonsensical as a whole-plant height after months of growth). ‘Plant height’ cell left NR to avoid misrepresenting a fruit measurement; fruit dimensions given here as NO COLUMN instead. | WARN-MINOR No. of fish initial: Table 4 lists 1860; Table 6 lists 1864 for the same treatment — small unexplained difference, no cell impact (Table 6’s paired growth values used consistently). | WARN-MINOR FCR header: Table 6 column header reads ‘FCR (%)’ but the tabulated value (1.76) is a dimensionless feed-conversion ratio, not a percentage — recorded as a plain ratio, header’s ’%’ treated as a labelling error. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Water volume in the system 57.95 m3 (Table 1) x1000 = 57950 L, applied identically to all three trials (Table 1 describes the generic per-unit design, no stated per-treatment variation in tank/raceway sizing). Plant fresh weight: Table 10 ‘Yield/plant (Kg)’ = 7.68+/-0.54 kg/plant x1000 = value in g/plant recorded in that cell (cumulative yield across the ~5-month harvest window, not a single-fruit weight — see alternative individual average fruit weight 18.56+/-0.69g noted above). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density in kg/m3 (paper states density only as fish-count/m3 — 120 fish/m3 — with total introduced fish weight and tank volume given separately in Table 4; computing kg/m3 would be a derivation — actual reported count-based density given in Fish/remarks instead); SGR (measured per Methods 2.5 but never tabulated numerically in Results); N/P/K of feed (only Crude Protein/Fat/Fibre/Ash/CHO/Energy given, Table 7); FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE (no such named ratios computed; Table 14 gives differently-defined per-input ratios, routed to NO COLUMN); Days Plant after transplant (seeds sown directly into rock-wool/raft, no distinct transplant date given); SPAD, Leaf count (not measured); Lat/Long (Falaj Hazza research station, Al Ain, UAE — no coordinates given); Average room Temperature (only water temperature tabulated). | NO COLUMN: Table 7 fish-body and fish-sludge proximate composition (Moisture/Ash/CrudeProtein/Fat/Fibre/CHO/Energy, all ns P>0.05 across densities) — no dedicated fish/sludge-tissue-proximate column exists. Table 13 monthly water consumption (~150-180 US gallons/month), evaporation, cooling-system water use, and electricity usage (~11,868-11,887 kWh, ns across treatments), plus fixed water flow rate (10 m3/hour, written as ‘m3L/hour’ in the original text, likely a typo) — no dedicated flow-rate/electricity column exists. Table 9 fish-effluent-water macro/micro minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, P, S, Zn, mg/L, all rising significantly from initial but ns between densities) — no dedicated multi-element water-mineral column beyond TAN/NO2/NO3 exists. Table 14 per-unit-input efficiency ratios (kg fish or tomato per kWh electricity, per m3 water, per kg feed) — no dedicated efficiency-ratio column exists. Pruned tomato leaf tissue nutrient analysis is described as a method (2.7) but no corresponding results table or value appears anywhere in Results — [not reported], not fabricated. Daily Water exchange rate (‘about 1%’, Discussion p.49) is a general system-wide statement, not broken out per treatment in any table; applied identically to all three trials on that basis.
albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| FCR | 1.33 +/- 0.01 |
| % of body weight | 5 |
| Fish size initial | 18.27 +/- 1.63 g |
| Fish size final | 410.91 +/- 18.81 g |
| Feed routine | Y |
| Feed regime | Commercial floating feed (ARASCO Feed, Saudi Arabia), fed 3x/day at 4-hour intervals, 5% of body weight/day |
| Total Feed (kg) | 1110.00 +/- 27.84 |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | 783.33 +/- 32.53 |
| Fish survival rate | 91.13 +/- 0.41 |
| Fish weight gain | 392.64 +/- 17.18 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | Y |
| Water volume in the system | 57950 |
| Water type | Tap water |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 1 |
| Aq pH | 6.55 +/- 0.14 |
| pHOptimal | 6-8.5 (FAO aquaponics manual 2014 standard, Table 3) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 4.82 +/- 0.29 |
| Water temperature | 25.13 +/- 3.53 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.63 +/- 0.55 |
| NO2-N | 0.17 +/- 0.09 |
| NO3-N | 16.20 +/- 5.83 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) |
| Details | Continuous harvest of ripe fruit, 2-3x/week, from month 4 through trial end (Table 5) |
| Plants/m2 | 3 |
| Plant fresh weight | 6340 +/- 400 |
| Plant dry matter | 7.37 +/- 0.66 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft / DWC (Styrofoam sheets) |
| Media Details | Rock wool cups (germination) transferred into 2-inch perforated Styrofoam floating raft sheets |
| Air supplement | Y (Air blower (S53-AQ Sweetwater Regenerative Blower 2.5 HP) + silicon air stones in tanks/raceways (p.19,22)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Calcium hydroxide used to adjust initial alkalinity; CaCO3 added to maintain alkalinity during trial (p.22,46)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Same CaCO3/calcium hydroxide addition as remineralization (p.22,46)) |
| Climate control | Y (Evaporative cooling pad + exhaust fan with thermo-regulator sensor + cooling radiators (p.19-20,45)) |
| Equipment | HACH DR900 colorimeter; HACH HQ40d meter; Orion 4 Star DO meter; Varian ICP-OES 710-ES; CEM Mars 5 microwave digestion; KENT water meters; Elster A1100 electric meter; Tekemura DM-28 LUX meter |
| Control Parameters | pH, temperature, DO, EC, TDS, TAN, NO3, NO2, alkalinity, light intensity |
| Combination | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) + cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), single-species aquaponic pairing, no hydroponic control arm |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Middle East |
| Country | United Arab Emirates |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA + DMRT post hoc (P<0.05), SPSS v16.0 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | Y |
| HYD | N |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = 140 fish/m3 stocking density of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fingerlings in its own greenhouse aquaponics unit (Table 4: 2170 fish stocked at trial start, 15.5 m3 fish-tank volume within a ~58 m3 total-system unit; Table 6 lists 2176 for the same treatment — see WARN-MINOR below). Paired with cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) at 3 plants/m2 (342 plants/120 m2 raceway) in the same unit. Three stocking-density treatments (100/120/140 fish/m3) were run as three separate, non-replicated greenhouse units (Table 3: ‘System 1/2/3’); ‘mean +/- SD of three replicate analyses’ in every table footnote reflects triplicate sample/lab analyses, not triplicated aquaponics systems per density (WARN-CHECK, see note below). | WARN-BLOCK Protein (feed): Abstract states ‘35% protein based commercial floating feed’ (p.vi). Methods 2.3 states ‘fish fed (32% of Crude protein) was purchased from ARASCO Feed’ (p.23). Table 7 (measured, AOAC method) gives feed Crude Protein = 38.13+/-0.71% (p.34) — identical feed used in all three units. Three irreconcilable values, not a plausible typo of one another. Recorded as UNCLEAR. No downstream effect on growth/FCR comparisons (same feed batch across all units), but do not cite this paper’s feed-protein % without checking the original ARASCO spec sheet. | WARN-BLOCK EC: Table 3 (initial, pre-fish water quality) reports ‘Electric conductivity (uS/cm)’ as NEGATIVE values (System1=-22.5, System2=-29.1, System3=-22.3 uS/cm) against a stated standard of 1500 (p.23) — physically impossible. Table 8 (trial-mean effluent quality) reports the same parameter under a different header, ‘EC mV’ (Initial=22.20+/-1.76, 100fish/m3=35.51+/-5.21, 120=39.44+/-10.23, 140=36.21+/-8.54, p.36) — mV is not a standard EC unit and the magnitude is implausibly low for aquaponics effluent. Cannot be reconciled (different units, one impossible on its face). Recorded as UNCLEAR rather than guessing a sign/unit correction; schema unit dS/m not populated. | WARN-MATERIAL Fish trial duration: Abstract/Objectives state ‘total duration of the experiment period was 8 months’ (p.vi, p.18); Chapter 3 Results states ‘The length of the experimental period was seven and half months’ (p.37); Table 5’s own dates (seedling 06/12/2016 to harvest-closed 11/07/2017 for Unit 1) span ~217 days (~7.1 months), closer to the 7.5-month figure. Neither figure is itself a precise day-count and converting either would require an unstated day-per-month assumption (derivation prohibited); left NR rather than computed. | WARN-MATERIAL Authorship: zotero-export.csv (duplicate rows QXTHCP56, 2Q8WJZ6N) lists ‘Bloushi, Al; Hussain, Adel Ibrahim’ as two separate authors — a Zotero name-parsing artifact on the single author’s compound Arabic name. The PDF’s own title page, Declaration of Original Work (p.ii), Copyright page (p.iii) and signature pages unambiguously name ONE author, ‘Adel Ibrahim Hussain Abdalla Al Bloushi’. Resolved using the PDF’s primary declaration (higher reliability than the Zotero row, which also left year/DOI/URL blank for this entry); recorded as single author. | WARN-MATERIAL Item type: zotero-export.csv lists itemType=‘journalArticle’ for both duplicate rows, but the PDF is a UAEU Master’s Thesis (Biology Theses collection no.15, ScholarWorks@UAEU, approved Nov-Dec 2018) — recorded as thesis, overriding Zotero. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N vs NO3: Methods 2.4.4-2.4.6 describe the HACH Cadmium-Reduction ‘Nitrate’ method (NitraVer 5) without stating whether results are NO3- or NO3—N; this method is commonly calibrated to report NO3—N directly. Table 8’s ‘Nitrate’ value recorded in the NO3-N cell on that basis; if the paper intended total NO3-, true NO3-N would be ~4.43x smaller. | WARN-CHECK Replicates (n)=3: every table footnote states ‘mean +/- SD of three replicate analyses’, but the system description (2.1, Tables 1/3/4) describes only ONE physical greenhouse unit per density — no system-level replication across densities, only triplicate sample/lab-analysis (or, per Table 8’s ‘Eight-month replicate average’ footnote, possibly triplicate monthly time-points — unclear which). Affects how strongly the reported P<0.05 between-density differences should be trusted; does not change any individual reported number. | WARN-CHECK Plant height/width (Table 10): ‘Average Height (mm)’ / ‘Average width (mm)’ (27.35+/-0.96mm / 31.69+/-1.84mm) appear alongside fruit count and average fruit weight (19.37+/-1.76g) in a table titled ‘Total tomato production and physical quality’ — these almost certainly describe individual FRUIT dimensions (consistent with cherry-tomato fruit diameter), not whole-plant height (27-33mm would be nonsensical as a whole-plant height after months of growth). ‘Plant height’ cell left NR to avoid misrepresenting a fruit measurement; fruit dimensions given here as NO COLUMN instead. | WARN-MINOR No. of fish initial: Table 4 lists 2170; Table 6 lists 2176 for the same treatment — small unexplained difference, no cell impact (Table 6’s paired growth values used consistently). | WARN-MINOR FCR header: Table 6 column header reads ‘FCR (%)’ but the tabulated value (1.33) is a dimensionless feed-conversion ratio, not a percentage — recorded as a plain ratio, header’s ’%’ treated as a labelling error. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Water volume in the system 57.95 m3 (Table 1) x1000 = 57950 L, applied identically to all three trials (Table 1 describes the generic per-unit design, no stated per-treatment variation in tank/raceway sizing). Plant fresh weight: Table 10 ‘Yield/plant (Kg)’ = 6.34+/-0.40 kg/plant x1000 = value in g/plant recorded in that cell (cumulative yield across the ~5-month harvest window, not a single-fruit weight — see alternative individual average fruit weight 19.37+/-1.76g noted above). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density in kg/m3 (paper states density only as fish-count/m3 — 140 fish/m3 — with total introduced fish weight and tank volume given separately in Table 4; computing kg/m3 would be a derivation — actual reported count-based density given in Fish/remarks instead); SGR (measured per Methods 2.5 but never tabulated numerically in Results); N/P/K of feed (only Crude Protein/Fat/Fibre/Ash/CHO/Energy given, Table 7); FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE (no such named ratios computed; Table 14 gives differently-defined per-input ratios, routed to NO COLUMN); Days Plant after transplant (seeds sown directly into rock-wool/raft, no distinct transplant date given); SPAD, Leaf count (not measured); Lat/Long (Falaj Hazza research station, Al Ain, UAE — no coordinates given); Average room Temperature (only water temperature tabulated). | NO COLUMN: Table 7 fish-body and fish-sludge proximate composition (Moisture/Ash/CrudeProtein/Fat/Fibre/CHO/Energy, all ns P>0.05 across densities) — no dedicated fish/sludge-tissue-proximate column exists. Table 13 monthly water consumption (~150-180 US gallons/month), evaporation, cooling-system water use, and electricity usage (~11,868-11,887 kWh, ns across treatments), plus fixed water flow rate (10 m3/hour, written as ‘m3L/hour’ in the original text, likely a typo) — no dedicated flow-rate/electricity column exists. Table 9 fish-effluent-water macro/micro minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, P, S, Zn, mg/L, all rising significantly from initial but ns between densities) — no dedicated multi-element water-mineral column beyond TAN/NO2/NO3 exists. Table 14 per-unit-input efficiency ratios (kg fish or tomato per kWh electricity, per m3 water, per kg feed) — no dedicated efficiency-ratio column exists. Pruned tomato leaf tissue nutrient analysis is described as a method (2.7) but no corresponding results table or value appears anywhere in Results — [not reported], not fabricated. Daily Water exchange rate (‘about 1%’, Discussion p.49) is a general system-wide statement, not broken out per treatment in any table; applied identically to all three trials on that basis.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Moisture | 92.25 ± 0.38 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Moisture | 92.92 ± 0.19 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Moisture | 92.3 ± 0.31 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Dry matter | 7.75 ± 0.38 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Dry matter | 6.79 ± 0.43 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Dry matter | 7.37 ± 0.66 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Ash | 8.05 ± 0.36 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Ash | 8.36 ± 0.76 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Ash | 8.65 ± 0.58 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Crude protein | 20.11 ± 0.87 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Crude protein | 19.85 ± 1.41 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Crude protein | 19.05 ± 1.16 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Crude fibre | 15.1 ± 0.39 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Crude fibre | 13.65 ± 0.99 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Crude fibre | 13.67 ± 1.77 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Fat | 3.52 ± 0.18 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Fat | 3.53 ± 0.38 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Fat | 3.52 ± 0.39 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | proximate | Carbohydrate | 53.23 ± 0.62 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | proximate | Carbohydrate | 54.62 ± 2.58 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | proximate | Carbohydrate | 55.11 ± 3.71 | % | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 11, p.38 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1962.28 ± 180.38 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1850.21 ± 60.53 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1991.5 ± 165.09 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Mo | 1.95 ± 0.87 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Mo | 1.37 ± 0.26 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Mo | 1.27 ± 0.1 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg | 965.41 ± 69.88 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg | 991.6 ± 36.96 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Mg | 1085.89 ± 84.63 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Na | 788.82 ± 165.46 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Na | 874.88 ± 49.94 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Na | 1054.52 ± 160.01 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | P | 5034.29 ± 158.05 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | P | 5125.68 ± 338.45 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | P | 5211.05 ± 270.16 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | S | 1739.74 ± 159.17 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | S | 1470.8 ± 98.39 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | S | 1442.6 ± 81.2 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | K | 15623.18 ± 278.44 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | K | 15677.54 ± 345.75 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | K | 16282.02 ± 854.8 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu | 8.57 ± 0.44 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu | 8.94 ± 0.68 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Cu | 9.8 ± 0.79 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe | 67.34 ± 5.25 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe | 70.57 ± 4.19 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Fe | 71.84 ± 9.36 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Mn | 11.44 ± 0.87 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Mn | 11.96 ± 1.1 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Mn | 12.74 ± 0.39 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn | 28.54 ± 2.35 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn | 28.21 ± 1.76 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |
| albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Zn | 30.78 ± 0.96 | mg/g | ns (P>0.05 across densities) | Table 12, p.39 |