Comparing yield, nutrient uptake and water use efficiency of Nasturtium officinale cultivated in aquaponic, hydroponic, and soil systems
Metadata
- Cite key: alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: Parviz Alizaeh, Hamid Sodaeizade, Asghar Mosleh Arani, Mohammad Ali Hakimzadeh
- Affiliation: Department of Arid Land Management and Desert Control, Faculty of Natural Resources, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
- Journal: Heliyon 11(3) (2025) e42339
- Date: 02/2025 (Received 12 Aug 2024; revised 20 Jan 2025; Accepted 28 Jan 2025; available online 28 Jan 2025)
- Date added: [unclear] — Zotero export contains three duplicate entries for this title with different “Date Added” timestamps (2026-07-13 15:53:06; 2026-07-15 19:01:50; a third duplicate also present). Not a data conflict, just an unresolved vault duplicate; earliest instance’s date given for reference only.
- DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42339
- Funding: None declared — “The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.”
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42339
- PDF:
Alizaeh et al. - 2025 - Comparing yield, nutrient uptake and water use efficiency of Nasturtium officinale cultivated in aqu.pdf
Opinion
A clean, well-powered single-site CRD (5 replicates, 3 systems, ANOVA + Duncan throughout) that is the first side-by-side aquaponic/hydroponic/soil comparison for a medicinal leafy crop, and the yield/WUE story (aquaponics beats both hydroponics and soil) is well supported and internally consistent down to the percentage level. The tissue-mineral results (Table 8) are less trustworthy on close reading: three of nine Hydroponics-column cells (N, P, Zn) have their mean and SD printed in reversed order, recoverable only by cross-multiplying the text’s stated percentage differences back against the table — a reader who trusts Table 8 at face value for the Hydroponics system would get N and P backwards by more than 5-fold. There is also an entirely orphaned “Mn” finding in section 3.3 that cites a table (Table 8) which does not contain any Mn data and a methods section that never describes measuring it — this reads like leftover text from a related manuscript (the same group has a companion lemongrass paper, ref. [71]) and should not be cited. No fish-performance data at all (no FCR, survival, stocking density) — fish are treated purely as a nutrient source, consistent with the paper’s focus on the plant side. Would cite for the yield/WUE comparison; would not cite Table 8’s Hydroponics mineral values without independently re-deriving them as done here, and would not cite the Mn claim at all.
Abstract
Soilless systems have become increasingly popular as effective solutions for regions with infertile soil, low water availability, limited space, and environmental pollution. There is limited information on the role of soilless culture in the production of medicinal plants. While some research has examined growth rates and yields, there is not enough data on how these systems affect nutrient uptake, physiological properties, and water use efficiency (WUE) in medicinal plants. This research investigated soilless systems as alternative techniques for cultivating watercress (Nasturtium officinale). The study was conducted using a completely randomized design with five replications and assessed the impact of different cultivation systems (hydroponic, aquaponic, and soil) on the growth of watercress. The results showed that cultivation systems had significant effects on morphological, physiological and nutrient content of watercress (P < 0.01). When grown using hydroponics and aquaponics, watercress exhibited a 58.2 and 54.3 % increase in height, a 104.7 and 59.2 % increase in root length, a 20.1 and 72.9 % increase in leaves, a 44.3 and 11.4 % increase in lateral branches, a 58.5 and 35.3 % increase in leaf area, and a 46.8 and 81 % increase in yield, respectively, than the soil-based system. The soil-based system promoted higher levels of chlorophyll a and b, while the soilless systems exhibited higher amounts of carotenoids, protein, proline, and relative water content (P < 0.01). The aquaponics demonstrated the highest N, P, Mg, S, and Na, while the soil system displayed the highest Ca, Fe, and Zn concentrations. The higher amount Fe and Zn in soil system can be attributed to soil organic matter, which plays a role in chelating micronutrients and enhancing their accessibility for plant absorption. Different cultivation systems significantly affected the daily water usage and WUE. Daily water decreased by 39 and 34.4 % in the hydroponic and aquaponic, respectively than soil-based system. WUE in the hydroponic and aquaponic was 2.45 and 2.78 higher than in the soil. Overall, soilless systems resulted in faster plant growth and higher yields. This efficiency can lead to reduced inputs and less environmental impact than traditional farming. Further investigation is needed to assess the economic feasibility of growing medicinal plants using soilless methods.
Summary
Researchers at Yazd University, Iran grew watercress (Nasturtium officinale), a leafy medicinal plant, in three parallel systems — an NFT hydroponic loop, an NFT-based aquaponic loop stocked with Nile tilapia, and pot-grown loamy soil — using a completely randomized design with five replicates per system, for 180 days in a natural-light greenhouse. They measured morphology (height, root length, leaf/branch counts, leaf area, organ dry weights), physiology (chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, proline, protein, relative water content), tissue nutrient content (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Zn, Fe, Na), and water-use metrics (daily water use, yield per area, water-use efficiency). Both soilless systems outgrew soil on every morphological trait, with aquaponics producing the highest leaf count, branch count and organ dry weight while hydroponics gave the tallest plants, longest roots and largest leaf area; soil-grown plants had the highest chlorophyll a and b, while the soilless systems had higher carotenoids, protein, proline and relative water content. Aquaponics gave the highest tissue N, P, Mg, S and Na, while soil gave the highest Ca, Fe and Zn, an outcome the authors attribute to soil organic matter chelating micronutrients. Aquaponics also had the highest yield (kg m⁻²) and the highest water-use efficiency of the three systems, with both soilless systems needing markedly less daily water than soil. The paper does not report any fish growth, feed, or survival data — the aquaponic fish component is described only as a nutrient source for the hydroponic loop, not as an experimental subject in its own right.
Experiment data
- Location: Yazd University, Yazd, Iran (greenhouse trial); watercress rootstock originally sourced from a spring in Mianeh City, East Azerbaijan province, Iran. No coordinates given anywhere in the paper.
- Design: Completely randomized design (CRD), 3 cultivation systems (hydroponic NFT, aquaponic NFT + tilapia, soil pots) × 5 replicates, one-way ANOVA with cultivation system as fixed factor, Duncan’s multiple range test for mean separation (α = 0.05).
- Replicates / n: 5 per system (Abstract; Section 2.1).
- Duration: 180 days of growth (Section 2.1, Section 2.2.1), single harvest at “fully grown vegetative stage.”
- Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Watercress (Nasturtium officinale)
- Statistics: Shapiro-Wilk (normality) and Levene’s test (homoscedasticity) pre-checks; one-way ANOVA; Duncan’s multiple range test, p ≤ 0.05; SPSS v.25; Excel 2016 for graphs (Section 2.3).
- Yield: Aquaponics 1.43 kg m⁻² vs Hydroponics 1.16 kg m⁻² vs Soil 0.79 kg m⁻² (Fig. 7A) — aquaponics +81.3 % vs soil, +23.4 % vs hydroponics; basis (fresh vs dry weight) not stated anywhere in the paper (⚠️CHECK candidate, not formally raised as it does not conflict with itself, just undefined).
- Water use efficiency (WUE): Aquaponics 6.19 g L⁻¹ H₂O vs Hydroponics 5.43 g L⁻¹ H₂O vs Soil 2.23 g L⁻¹ H₂O (Section 3.4 text; Fig. 7C rounds to 6.2/5.4/2.2).
- Tissue nitrogen: Aquaponics 4.08 ± 0.14 %, Soil 2.4 ± 0.17 %, Hydroponics 3.92 ± 0.08 % (Table 8; Hydroponics value recovered from a mean/SD transposition in the printed table — see Extraction notes ⚠️MATERIAL).
Yield and water use efficiency
This paper: Aquaponics gave the highest watercress yield of the three systems (1.43 kg m⁻²), 81.3 % above soil and 23.4 % above hydroponics (1.16 kg m⁻²; soil 0.79 kg m⁻²), and the highest WUE (6.19 g L⁻¹ H₂O vs 5.43 hydroponic and 2.23 soil), driven by soilless systems’ lower daily water use (1.19–1.28 vs 1.95 L m⁻² d⁻¹ in soil). The paper does not state whether yield is on a fresh- or dry-weight basis.
Compared with:
- todo Majid et al. 2021 — hydroponic lettuce in temperate regions gave higher yield in shorter time with less water than soil-based cultivation, cited as the general soilless-vs-soil pattern this paper reproduces. (p.2)
- todo Zantanta et al. 2022 — Helichrysum odoratissimum (also a medicinal plant) compared across aquaponic, hydroponic and field systems for yield and secondary metabolites; closest direct precedent for this paper’s design. (p.14, ref. 15)
- todo Michelon et al. 2020 — hydroponic lettuce WUE 2.7-fold greater than conventional cultivation, cited as an external WUE benchmark. (p.12)
Physiological and morphological traits
This paper: Aquaponics produced the greatest leaf count (15.84 plant⁻¹), branch count, and root/stem/leaf dry weight (5.19/3.64/2.43 g plant⁻¹); hydroponics gave the tallest plants (127 cm), longest roots (68.3 cm) and largest leaf area (62.23 cm²); soil-grown plants had the highest chlorophyll a and b but the lowest carotenoids, proline, protein and relative water content of the three systems. The authors attribute the aquaponics growth advantage to plant-growth-promoting microorganisms enriching nutrient availability beyond what the hydroponic nutrient solution alone provides.
Compared with:
- todo Kasozi et al. 2021 — beneficial bacteria/microorganism populations in aquaponics improve root N/P uptake versus hydroponics, cited as the mechanism behind the observed aquaponics growth advantage. (p.10)
- todo Bartelme et al. 2018 — plant-growth-promoting microorganisms let aquaponics match conventional yields via improved nutrient-use efficiency. (p.10)
- todo Ranawade and TidkeKate 2017 — spinach yielded more in aquaponics than hydroponics or conventional cultivation, cited as a parallel finding. (p.10)
Nutrient uptake
This paper: Aquaponics gave the highest tissue N, P, Mg, S and Na; soil gave the highest Ca, Fe and Zn (attributed to soil organic matter chelating and mobilising micronutrients). A “Mn” finding is quoted in the text (soil and aquaponics 69.4 % and 53.1 % higher than hydroponics) but no Mn data, method, or table exists anywhere else in the paper — see Extraction notes, ⚠️BLOCK.
Compared with:
- todo Albadwawi et al. 2022 — basil in aquaponic vs soil systems also showed higher soil Fe/Zn, cited as corroborating evidence for the chelation explanation. (p.11, ref. 32)
- todo Graber and Junge 2009 — aquaponic nutrient recycling from fish wastewater, cited as the mechanistic basis for aquaponics’ elevated P, S and Mg. (p.11)
Linked claims
- Aquaponics can outperform hydroponics and soil in yield and water-use efficiency for a leafy medicinal crop
- Soil-grown plants retain higher chlorophyll and micronutrient (Fe, Zn) content than soilless systems, attributed to organic-matter chelation
- Aquaponic microbial communities may enhance nutrient uptake beyond what a matched hydroponic nutrient solution alone provides
Citations to chase
- todo Majid et al. (2021) — hydroponic lettuce yield/water benchmark vs soil
- todo Zantanta et al. (2022) — Helichrysum in aquaponic/hydroponic/field systems, closest design precedent
- todo Michelon et al. (2020) — hydroponic lettuce WUE benchmark
- todo Kasozi et al. (2021) — Bacillus spp. and lettuce root nutrient uptake in aquaponics
- todo Bartelme et al. (2018) — PGPM opportunities in aquaponics
- todo Ranawade and TidkeKate (2017) — spinach in aquaponics vs hydroponics vs field
- todo Albadwawi et al. (2022) — basil aquaponic vs soil, Fe/Zn comparison
- todo Graber and Junge (2009) — aquaponic nutrient recycling mechanism
Extraction notes
Severity-tagged contradictions (1 ⚠️BLOCK, 4 ⚠️MATERIAL, 1 ⚠️MINOR, 1 ⚠️CHECK). Per SCHEMA.md scoring (CHECK and MINOR never count): 1 BLOCK alone → caution; 4 MATERIAL alone → caution (3-4 MATERIAL band); neither individual count reaches a suspect threshold (2+ BLOCK or 5+ MATERIAL), so quality: caution is set.
- ⚠️BLOCK — “Mn” finding has no supporting data anywhere in the paper. Section 3.3 (p.10) states: “Compared to the hydroponics, the soil and aquaponics systems increased the concentration of Mn by 69.4 and 53.1 %, respectively (Table 8).” Table 8 (p.9) lists only N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Zn, Fe, Na — no Mn row exists. Table 7’s ANOVA (p.9) also excludes Mn. Section 2.2.6 (Methods, p.6) describes measurement methods for N, P, K, Na (flame photometer), Zn and Fe (atomic absorption) only — no Mn method is described anywhere. Not reconcilable: the table the sentence itself cites does not contain the data, and no method exists to have produced it. Recorded UNCLEAR/NR in plant.csv (three rows, one per system, all NR with this note). Affects: this Mn claim should not be cited from this paper; does not affect any other cell.
- ⚠️MATERIAL — Table 8 mean/SD transposition, Hydroponics column, N/P/Zn rows. Table 8 (p.9) prints Hydroponics N as “0.08 ±3.92 a”, P as “0.07 ± 0.62 c”, and Zn as “0.07 b ± 0.8” — in all three the small number precedes the large one, unlike every other cell in the table (e.g. Aquaponics N “4.08 ± 0.14 a”, Soil P “0.75 ± 0.03 b”, where mean and SD are the same order of magnitude apart as expected). Cross-checked against body text: Section 3.3 (p.7-8) states N “increased by 63.3 and 70 %, respectively, compared to the soil system” for hydroponics/aquaponics — soil N (2.4, Table 8) × 1.633 = 3.92, matching the second number in the garbled Hydroponics-N cell, not the first (0.08). The same section states P “increasing by 72.6 and 42.7 % compared to the hydroponics and soil” for aquaponics — aquaponics P (1.07) ÷ 1.726 = 0.62, matching the second number in the garbled Hydroponics-P cell (0.62 ÷ 1.427 also reproduces soil’s stated 0.75). For Zn, text states soil has the highest Zn “with no statistical difference (P > 0.05) observed between the other two substrates” (hydro/aqua) — aquaponics Zn is 0.85, and the garbled cell’s second number (0.8) is of the same order and shares the same “b” letter, while its first number (0.07) is not. Reconcilable via text cross-check: recorded Hydroponics N = 3.92 ± 0.08 a, P = 0.62 ± 0.07 c, Zn = 0.8 ± 0.07 b (mean/SD restored to match text and Duncan letter logic); original printed order kept in plant.csv
Notes. Affects: plant.csv mineral rows for the Hydroponic system, N/P/Zn analytes only — K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Na rows in the same table are printed in normal order and used as printed. - ⚠️MATERIAL — Tissue Na (Aquaponics): text vs Table 8. Section 3.3 (p.10): “The highest amount of Na (20.92 mg g⁻¹) was measured in the aquaponics.” Table 8 (p.9) gives Aquaponics Na as “2.92 ± 0.1 a” mg g⁻¹ DW — a ~7-fold discrepancy, most likely a digit-insertion typo (2.92 → 20.92). 20.92 would also be 7-20× larger than every other mineral value in Table 8 (all under 4.1 mg g⁻¹ DW), implausible for the same tissue-digestion method used throughout. Table 8’s value is corroborated by its own internally consistent letter grouping (Hydro 1.88 b, Soil 1.69 b — “no statistical difference between the other two mediums,” as stated in the same sentence). Recorded 2.92 ± 0.1 mg g⁻¹ DW (Table 8); text’s “20.92” noted as an apparent typo in plant.csv
Notes. Affects: plant.csv Aquaponics Na row only. - ⚠️MINOR — Lateral branches percentage, Abstract vs body text (NO COLUMN item, no cell affected). Abstract (p.1): “a 44.3 and 11.4 % increase in lateral branches” [hydroponics, aquaponics] vs soil. Body text, Section 3.2 (p.7): aquaponics “increased the number of branches by 46.5 and 111.4 % compared to hydroponics and soil systems.” Fig. 5D values (Hydro 5.1, Aqua 7.4, Soil 3.5) compute to (7.4-3.5)/3.5 = 111.4 %, matching the body text and figure, not the abstract’s “11.4 %” (almost certainly missing a leading digit). Lateral branches has no trials.csv/plant.csv column, so this does not affect any extracted cell; recorded in
Experimental Remarks(NO COLUMN) using the figure/body-consistent value. - ⚠️CHECK — Protein unit: mg g⁻¹ FW (Methods) vs % (Results figure/table). Section 2.2.4 (Methods, p.6): “The protein concentration was expressed as mg g⁻¹ leaves fresh weight.” Table 6’s column header (p.8) is simply “Protein” (no unit), and Fig. 6E’s y-axis (p.9) is labelled “Protein (%).” Two different units are used for what appears to be the same measured variable, and the paper never states a conversion between them. Not a value conflict — this is an unstated-definition case per SCHEMA.md’s CHECK criteria. Recorded using the unit shown alongside the plotted numbers (%, since that is what the reported figures 2.7/3.9/2.3 accompany), with the Methods-stated unit noted in plant.csv
Notes. This is a candidate for REVIEW.md (CHECK entries are added there at merge time — not edited directly per this task’s instructions; flagged here and in the batch report instead).
[not reported] fields (grouped by field name): Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine (frequency), Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (only the plant growth period, 180 days, is explicitly stated; whether the fish were present/measured for the identical window is not separately confirmed), Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, FUE AP, FUE HYD, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N (Table 3 gives only literature-cited tolerance ranges for fish/plants/bacteria from Albadwawi et al. 2022, not this paper’s own measured trial means — hence NR, not a value), Plants/m² (channel dimensions and plant-per-channel count are given but converting to a density would be derivation), SPAD, Plant fresh weight and Plant dry matter (paper reports dry weights of root/stem/leaf separately, never summed to a single per-plant total — summing would be derivation), Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (paper measured total N, never nitrate specifically), Lat/Long (no coordinates anywhere in the paper for Yazd University or the trial site), Biological system already in use, Iron supplemented, Remineralization, Nutrient supplemented, pH Buffers (explicit HCl/KOH pH management is described only for the pure hydroponic treatment, Section 2.1; not stated for the aquaponic loop specifically).
Excluded water/soil panels (too valuable to discard silently — flagged per SCHEMA.md, not routed into plant.csv): Table 2 (“Characteristics and amount of soluble elements of hydroponics and aquaponics systems”) gives full N/P/K/Ca/Mg/S/Zn/Cu/Fe/Mn concentrations (mEq L⁻¹) of the nutrient solution/aquaponic water for both systems — this is water chemistry, explicitly excluded from plant.csv, but trials.csv has no columns for this elemental panel (only NH4-N/NO2-N/NO3-N, not a full-element water panel), so it has no home and is not entered anywhere except this note. Table 4 (soil physicochemical properties: texture, EC, pH, OC, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Zn, Fe) similarly has no columns in a schema built around AP vs HYD comparison, and describes the non-aquaponic soil arm specifically.
NO COLUMN items (Experimental Remarks in trials.csv): root length (Hydro 68.3 / Aqua 55.7 / Soil 33.4 cm, Fig. 5B), leaf area (Hydro 62.23 / Aqua 53 / Soil 39 cm², Fig. 5E + text), number of lateral branches (Hydro 5.1 / Aqua 7.4 / Soil 3.5, Fig. 5D), individual root/stem/leaf dry weight (Aquaponics 5.19/3.64/2.43 g plant⁻¹, Hydroponics 4.4/2.7/1.96, Soil 2.6/2.4/1.2; Fig. 5F-H + text), relative water content (Hydro 91.03 / Aqua 85.2 / Soil 80.2 %, Fig. 6F + text), daily water use (Hydro 1.19 / Aqua 1.28 / Soil 1.95 L m⁻² d⁻¹, Fig. 7B + text), soil-arm yield (0.79 kg m⁻², Fig. 7A) and soil-arm WUE (2.23 g L⁻¹ H₂O, Section 3.4) — soil is a third arm with no dedicated AP/HYD-style column pair, Table 2 and Table 4 water/soil elemental panels (see above).
Scanned PDF check: this PDF has a clean, extractable text layer; no OCR issue, not added to NEEDS_OCR.md.
New tags introduced: Meta/Plant/Watercress (new — no existing Watercress/Nasturtium facet in the vault; checked against Meta/Plant/Chicory, Meta/Plant/Lettuce, Meta/Plant/Basil, Meta/Plant/Rocket, Meta/Plant/Indian-Spinach, Meta/Plant/Coriander, Meta/Plant/Cucumber, Meta/Plant/Parsley, Meta/Plant/Tomato, Meta/Plant/Barley). Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/Middle-East, and Meta/Fish/Tilapia all reused from existing vault entries (e.g. lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021 for Tilapia; region convention from other Middle-East notes in the vault).
New wikilink targets introduced (checked against notes/ — none pre-existed): Parviz Alizaeh, Hamid Sodaeizade, Asghar Mosleh Arani, Mohammad Ali Hakimzadeh, Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) (already used by lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021 — reused, not new), Watercress (Nasturtium officinale), Yield, Water use efficiency (WUE), Tissue nitrogen, Aquaponics can outperform hydroponics and soil in yield and water-use efficiency for a leafy medicinal crop, Soil-grown plants retain higher chlorophyll and micronutrient (Fe, Zn) content than soilless systems, attributed to organic-matter chelation, Aquaponic microbial communities may enhance nutrient uptake beyond what a matched hydroponic nutrient solution alone provides.
Note on author name spelling (not a data contradiction, no severity tag): the paper’s own byline and DOI metadata consistently spell the first author “Alizaeh,” but the paper’s own self-citation, ref. [71] (a companion lemongrass study by the same four authors), spells the surname “Alizadeh.” Citekey and wikilink use the paper’s own byline spelling (“Alizaeh”) per SCHEMA.md’s rule to take metadata from the paper/Crossref, not to normalize across a self-citation.
Source: Alizaeh et al. - 2025 - Comparing yield, nutrient uptake and water use efficiency of Nasturtium officinale cultivated in aqu.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
alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 47 |
| % of body weight | 6-10 |
| Feed regime | Fed 6-10% of body weight daily; fish food containing 47% protein (p.5) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| WUE | 6.19 g L-1 H2O |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) |
| Details | Harvested at fully grown vegetative stage after 180 days of growth (p.5); rootstock sourced from a spring in Mianeh City, East Azerbaijan province, Iran; cuttings rooted in water for 25 days before transfer to cultivation units (p.3) |
| Plant Category | Medicinal plant (Keywords; p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 180 |
| Plant height | 124 |
| Leaf count | 15.84 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) channel fed by aquaponic loop (Nile tilapia tank -> clarifier -> biofilter -> degassing tank -> NFT channel) (p.3-5) |
| Media Details | Leca (lightweight expanded clay aggregate) substrate in NFT channels; each channel 1 m long x 0.25 m wide x 0.3 m high with 3 planting holes (p.3) |
| Air supplement | Y (Air pump and airstone in reservoir (hydroponic scheme, Fig.2); air pump to biofilter (aquaponic scheme, Fig.3); no flow rate given) |
| Climate control | Y (Greenhouse maintained at 28C, 45% humidity, natural 12:12h light-dark cycle (Section 2.1, p.3); no equipment specifics given) |
| Artificial Lighting | N (Paper states greenhouse had ‘natural (12:12 h light-dark cycle)’ (p.3), implying no supplemental artificial lighting) |
| Equipment | Cylindrical fish rearing tanks; conical clarification tanks; circular biofilter tanks with porous plastic media (Nitrosomonas/Nitrobacter substrate); degassing tank; NFT channels with Leca substrate; water pump, air pump, airstone; Windias 3 leaf surface meter (Delta-T Devices); UV-1900 UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Shimadzu); Jenway flame photometer; atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Labtron); pressure plate (FC/WP determination) |
| Control Parameters | Cultivation system as fixed factor (CRD, 3 systems x 5 replicates); hydroponic solution pH maintained 6.5-7.5 via HCl/KOH; greenhouse 28C, 45% humidity, 12:12h natural light-dark; soil irrigation computed via water-balance equation (Eq.1: FC, WP, bulk density, MAD) |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and watercress; aquaponic vs hydroponic vs soil-based cultivation system comparison, single harvest after 180 days |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Middle-East |
| Country | Iran |
| Average room Temperature | 28 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (height, root length); count (leaves, branches); cm2 (leaf area); g plant-1 DW (root/stem/leaf dry weight); mg g-1 FW (chlorophyll a/b, carotenoid, proline); % (protein, RWC, tissue N); mg g-1 DW (tissue P,K,Ca,Mg,S,Zn,Fe,Na); kg m-2 (yield, in AP/HYD columns); L m-2 d-1 (daily water use); g L-1 H2O (WUE) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA, cultivation system as fixed factor; Shapiro-Wilk (normality) and Levene’s test (homoscedasticity) pre-checks; Duncan’s multiple range test, p<=0.05; SPSS v.25; Microsoft Excel 2016 for graphs (Section 2.3, p.7) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 5 |
| AP | 1.43 kg m-2 (yield) |
| HYD | 1.16 kg m-2 (yield) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = the aquaponic treatment (watercress on NFT channels fed by the tilapia/biofilter loop). Paired control = the hydroponic (NFT, Hoagland-based nutrient solution) treatment, recorded in the HYD columns. The paper also runs a third, soil-based arm which has no AP/HYD-style column pair anywhere in this schema; its values (yield 0.79 kg/m2, WUE 2.23 g/L H2O, daily water use 1.95 L/m2/d, and all morphological/physiological/mineral traits) are recorded only in this remarks field and in plant.csv (System=Soil), never in a dedicated AP/HYD cell. Only one aquaponic treatment exists in this paper, so one row. | WARN-BLOCK Mn: Section 3.3 (p.10) states ‘the soil and aquaponics systems increased the concentration of Mn by 69.4 and 53.1%, respectively (Table 8)’ but Table 8 (p.9) contains no Mn row, Table 7’s ANOVA (p.9) excludes Mn, and Methods 2.2.6 (p.6) never describes an Mn measurement method (only N, P, K, Na, Zn, Fe methods given). Not reconcilable — the table cited by the sentence does not contain the data and no method exists to have produced it. UNCLEAR/NR, recorded as three NR rows in plant.csv with this note. Affects: this Mn claim is uncitable from this paper; no other cell affected. | WARN-MATERIAL Table 8 Hydroponics N/P/Zn: printed as ‘0.08 +/-3.92 a’ (N), ‘0.07 +/- 0.62 c’ (P), ‘0.07 b +/- 0.8’ (Zn) — mean and SD reversed relative to every other cell in the table. Recovered via text cross-check: N — soil N (2.4) x 1.633 (stated 63.3% increase, p.7-8) = 3.92, matching the cell’s second number; P — aquaponics P (1.07) / 1.726 (stated 72.6% increase, p.8) = 0.62, matching the cell’s second number, and 0.62/1.427 (stated 42.7%) reproduces soil’s 0.75; Zn — aquaponics/hydroponics share Duncan letter ‘b’ (text: ‘no statistical difference… between the other two substrates’, p.10), consistent with 0.8 (matches Aqua’s 0.85) not 0.07. Recorded Hydro N=3.92+/-0.08 a, P=0.62+/-0.07 c, Zn=0.8+/-0.07 b in plant.csv (mineral, System=Hydroponics), original printed order kept in plant.csv Notes. Affects: plant.csv mineral rows for Hydroponics N/P/Zn only; K/Ca/Mg/S/Fe/Na in the same table are printed normally and used as-is. | WARN-MATERIAL Tissue Na (Aquaponics): text (p.10) states ‘the highest amount of Na (20.92 mg g-1) was measured in the aquaponics’ vs Table 8’s Aquaponics Na = 2.92+/-0.1 a mg g-1 DW (~7x apart, likely a digit-insertion typo). 20.92 would be 7-20x every other mineral value in the same table (implausible for one digestion/analysis method); Table 8’s 2.92 is corroborated by its own letter grouping (Hydro 1.88b, Soil 1.69b — ‘no statistical difference between the other two mediums’, same sentence). Recorded 2.92+/-0.1 (Table 8) in plant.csv; text’s 20.92 noted as apparent typo. | WARN-MINOR lateral branches (NO COLUMN item, no cell affected): Abstract (p.1) ‘44.3 and 11.4% increase’ [hydro,aqua] vs soil; body text Section 3.2 (p.7) ‘increased … by 46.5 and 111.4% compared to hydroponics and soil’; Fig.5D values (Hydro 5.1, Aqua 7.4, Soil 3.5) compute to 111.4% vs soil, matching body text/figure not abstract’s ‘11.4%’ (missing leading digit). No trials.csv/plant.csv column exists for branches; recorded here only, using the figure/body-consistent 111.4%. | WARN-CHECK Protein unit: Methods 2.2.4 (p.6) states protein ‘expressed as mg g-1 leaves fresh weight’; Table 6 header (p.8) is unit-less ‘Protein’; Fig.6E y-axis (p.9) reads ‘Protein (%)’. Two different units for the same variable, no stated conversion — unstated-definition case, not a value conflict. Recorded in plant.csv using ’%’ (the unit shown with the plotted numbers 2.7/3.9/2.3), Methods’ mg g-1 FW noted in plant.csv Notes. Candidate for REVIEW.md (not edited here per task scope — flagged in agent report instead). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required — all values used as directly stated (kg/m2 yield, g/L H2O WUE, %, cm, count, g/plant, mg/g DW as printed). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine (frequency), Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (no fish growth/feed-mass data given anywhere, only ‘6-10% of body weight daily’ ration and ‘47% protein’ feed composition); Fish trial duration (only the plant growth period, 180 days, is explicitly stated — fish presence for an identical window is plausible but not separately confirmed in text, so left NR rather than assumed); Water recycle, Water volume, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate (none stated — tanks/pumps are named in Fig.3 but no flow rate, volume, or exchange rate given); Plants/m2 (channel dimensions 1m x 0.25m and 3 plants/channel are given, but converting to a density would be derivation); Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter (paper gives root/stem/leaf dry weight SEPARATELY — summing to one per-plant total would be derivation; see NO COLUMN below for the individual values). | Aq pH, pHOptimal, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N: Table 3 (p.4) gives only literature-cited TOLERANCE RANGES for fish/plants/bacteria (from Albadwawi et al. 2022), not this paper’s own measured trial means; text states these parameters were merely ‘acceptable’ without giving numbers. All NR, not UNCLEAR — the paper is silent on its own measured values, not ambiguous about them. | Fish Category left NR: paper names only the species (Nile tilapia), no life-stage/category term used. Plant Category recorded as ‘Medicinal plant (Keywords; throughout text, e.g. p.1-2)’ — the paper’s own repeated framing, not an external taxonomy substitution. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD = NR: paper measured total leaf N (%, Micro-Kjeldahl) and P/K/Ca/Mg/S/Zn/Fe/Na, never nitrate specifically in tissue. | Lat/Long = NR: no coordinates given anywhere for Yazd University or the trial site (only the city/university name and the separate rootstock-origin city, Mianeh, are named). | Biological system already in use, Iron supplemented, Remineralization, Nutrient supplemented = NR: paper silent on all four; Table 2’s nutrient-solution Fe/mineral content is the designed baseline recipe (Hoagland-based), not described as a distinct supplementation event. pH Buffers = NR for THIS (aquaponic) trial specifically: explicit pH management via HCl/KOH (Section 2.1, p.3) is stated only for the pure hydroponic treatment, not for the aquaponic loop. Air supplement = Y: Fig.2 and Fig.3 system-diagram labels show ‘Air pump’/‘Airstone’ components for both hydroponic and aquaponic loops (no flow rate given). Climate control = Y: greenhouse held at 28C, 45% humidity, natural 12:12h light-dark cycle (Section 2.1, p.3; no equipment specifics). Artificial Lighting = N: paper explicitly states the light-dark cycle was ‘natural’ (p.3), implying no supplemental lighting. | NO COLUMN (no dedicated field in this schema): root length (Hydro 68.3 / Aqua 55.7 / Soil 33.4 cm, Fig.5B); leaf area (Hydro 62.23 / Aqua 53 / Soil 39 cm2, Fig.5E + text); number of lateral branches (Hydro 5.1 / Aqua 7.4 / Soil 3.5, Fig.5D); individual root/stem/leaf dry weight per plant (Aqua 5.19/3.64/2.43 g, Hydro 4.4/2.7/1.96 g, Soil 2.6/2.4/1.2 g; Fig.5F-H + text); relative water content (Hydro 91.03 / Aqua 85.2 / Soil 80.2%, Fig.6F + text); daily water use (Hydro 1.19 / Aqua 1.28 / Soil 1.95 L/m2/d, Fig.7B + text); soil-arm yield (0.79 kg/m2) and soil-arm WUE (2.23 g/L H2O), since soil has no dedicated column pair; Table 2’s full nutrient-solution elemental panel (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,Zn,Cu,Fe,Mn in mEq/L, both hydroponic and aquaponic water) — water chemistry with no matching trials.csv column beyond NH4-N/NO2-N/NO3-N, flagged in note rather than discarded; Table 4’s soil physicochemical panel (texture, EC 2.83 dS/m, pH 7.7, OC 0.41%, N 0.41%, P 9.72 mg/kg, K 122.6 mg/kg, Ca 18.55 mg/kg, Mg 5.73 mg/kg, S 3.49 mg/kg, Zn 1.8 mg/kg, Fe 2.25 mg/kg) — soil-arm characterisation with no schema home.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | biochemistry | Chlorophyll a | 0.59 | mg g-1 FW | b | Fig. 6A |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | biochemistry | Chlorophyll a | 0.64 | mg g-1 FW | b | Fig. 6A |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | biochemistry | Chlorophyll a | 0.74 | mg g-1 FW | a | Fig. 6A |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | biochemistry | Chlorophyll b | 0.19 | mg g-1 FW | b | Fig. 6B |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | biochemistry | Chlorophyll b | 0.2 | mg g-1 FW | ab | Fig. 6B |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | biochemistry | Chlorophyll b | 0.22 | mg g-1 FW | a | Fig. 6B |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | biochemistry | Carotenoid | 0.17 | mg g-1 FW | b | Fig. 6C |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | biochemistry | Carotenoid | 0.204 | mg g-1 FW | a | Fig. 6C / text p.11 |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | biochemistry | Carotenoid | 0.19 | mg g-1 FW | ab | Fig. 6C / text p.11 |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | biochemistry | Proline | 4.8 | mg g-1 FW | b | Fig. 6D |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | biochemistry | Proline | 5.14 | mg g-1 FW | a | Fig. 6D / text p.11 |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | biochemistry | Proline | 3.7 | mg g-1 FW | c | Fig. 6D |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | proximate | Protein | 2.7 | % | b | Fig. 6E / Table 6 |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | proximate | Protein | 3.9 | % | a | Fig. 6E / Table 6 |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | proximate | Protein | 2.3 | % | c | Fig. 6E / Table 6 |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | N | 3.92 ± 0.08 | % | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | N | 4.08 ± 0.14 | % | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | N | 2.4 ± 0.17 | % | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | P | 0.62 ± 0.07 | mg g-1 DW | c | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | P | 1.07 ± 0.07 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | P | 0.75 ± 0.03 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | K | 3.28 ± 0.17 | mg g-1 DW | ab | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | K | 2.88 ± 0.1 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | K | 3.59 ± 0.12 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | Ca | 0.85 ± 0.02 | mg g-1 DW | c | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | Ca | 1.24 ± 0.06 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | Ca | 1.73 ± 0.12 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | Mg | 0.85 ± 0.07 | mg g-1 DW | c | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | Mg | 1.69 ± 0.1 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | Mg | 1.19 ± 0.01 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | S | 1.12 ± 0.04 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | S | 2.02 ± 0.16 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | S | 0.81 ± 0.16 | mg g-1 DW | c | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | Zn | 0.8 ± 0.07 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | Zn | 0.85 ± 0.01 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | Zn | 1.04 ± 0.09 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | Fe | 0.08 ± 0.001 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | Fe | 0.09 ± 0.01 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | Fe | 0.11 ± 0.01 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | Na | 1.88 ± 0.17 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | Na | 2.92 ± 0.1 | mg g-1 DW | a | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | Na | 1.69 ± 0.05 | mg g-1 DW | b | Table 8 (p.9) |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Hydroponic | mineral | Mn | NR | mg g-1 DW | NR | Section 3.3 (p.10) text only |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Aquaponic | mineral | Mn | NR | mg g-1 DW | NR | Section 3.3 (p.10) text only |
| alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025-T1 | Soil | mineral | Mn | NR | mg g-1 DW | NR | Section 3.3 (p.10) text only |