Pacific white shrimp and tomato production using water effluents and salinity-tolerant grafted plants in an integrated aquaponic production system
Metadata
- Cite key: armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: A.D. Armenta-Bojórquez, A.R. Valenzuela-Castañeda, K. Fitzsimmons, E.S. López-Alvarez, G. Rodríguez-Quiroz, W. Valenzuela-Quiñónez
- Affiliation: Instituto Politécnico Nacional-CIIDIR Unidad Sinaloa (Departamento Agropecuario; Departamento de Acuacultura; Maestría en Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente), Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico; Department of Soil Water and Environmental Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Journal: Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124064
- Date: 01/2021
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124064
- Funding: Instituto Politécnico Nacional (SIP-20181681, SIP-20196639, SIP-2180326, SIP-20196296); COFAA-IPN; EDI-IPN
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124064
- PDF:
Armenta-Bojórquez et al. - 2021 - Pacific white shrimp and tomato production using w.pdf
Opinion
A genuinely novel combination (shrimp + grafted salinity-tolerant tomato) with a real experimental design (two crossed 3-salinity x 3-replicate randomized trials) and a techno-economic layer most aquaponics papers skip. The core zootechnical and water-quality tables (Table 1, Table 3) are internally consistent and well cross-checked here. The weak point is the production/yield reporting: the paper states a clean SNS control yield (77.46 t/ha) but never gives clean absolute yields for the three aquaponic salinity arms — only percentage reductions in one place and the authors’ own “extrapolated, interpret with caution” kg/m2 figures in another, and the two do not reconcile. Worth citing for the shrimp-tomato pairing and the CBA framing, but the headline yield numbers need independent verification before use in a quantitative synthesis.
Abstract
A vital goal of cleaner production involves developing agricultural production systems capable of ensuring sufficient yields of highly necessary foods to meet the increasing needs of the global population while minimizing the associated economic and ecological costs. Integrated agri-aquaculture systems (IAAS) offer a number of advantages for sustainable agriculture, including water reutilization, discharge mitigation, and increased profitability by leveraging the symbiotic relationship between organic waste, bacterial mineralization, and plant filtration. The aim of this study was to assess the production of two food items of global socio-economic importance cultivated at different salinities: Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) and tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) grafted to salinity tolerant wild tomatoes. Pacific white shrimp were cultured at a density of 125 organisms/m3 and tomatoes at a density of 3 plants/m. The shrimp growth test consisted of three salinity levels: 2, 4, and 6 g/L. The corresponding tomato salinity treatments were conducted using shrimp water effluents; Steiner’s universal nutrient solution (SNS) was used for the control treatment. The experimental period lasted 175 days. The highest tomato production (77.46 t/ha) was attained with SNS, with no significant difference from the salinity of 2 g/L. Shrimp final mean weight, survival, and production were higher at the 6 g/L salinity; and all the other zootechnical parameters decreased with lower salinity. When compared with the hydroponic system using a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), the production costs associated with the IAAS were lower primarily because of the reduced (or null) costs of fertilizer, and irrigation water. When grafted plants were used, the salinity tolerance of the commercial hybrid increased and shrimp could be cultured at appropriate salinity to facilitate osmoregulation. Chemical fertilization requirements were reduced and acceptable yields were obtained for the tomato crop by grafting to salinity-tolerant rootstocks.
Summary
The authors built a recirculating aquaculture system (nine 1 m3 shrimp tanks, three sedimentation tanks, three biofilters) feeding a zeolite-substrate PVC-pipe hydroponic bed, and ran two crossed randomized designs: a shrimp salinity trial (Pacific white shrimp at 2, 4, and 6 g/L salinity, 3 replicate tanks each) and a paired tomato trial in which grafted tomato (commercial hybrid Canek F1 on a salinity-tolerant wild “Guasave” rootstock) was irrigated with the effluent from the matching salinity tank, against a hydroponic Steiner-solution (SNS) non-grafted control. Shrimp zootechnical performance (final weight, survival, weight gain, SGR, biomass) improved with increasing salinity (best at 6 g/L), while tomato production was best under the SNS control and next-best at 2 g/L, declining sharply at 4 and 6 g/L; grafting is credited with keeping the tomato crop productive despite the elevated nitrate load needed for plant nutrition conflicting with shrimp’s low-nitrate tolerance. A cost-benefit analysis found the integrated system cheaper to run than hydroponics (lower fertilizer and irrigation-water costs) but with a lower benefit/cost ratio overall (1.42 and 1.05 for 2 and 4 g/L vs 1.72 for hydroponics), attributed to only one shrimp crop/year and high greenhouse construction costs. The paper is useful for establishing that shrimp-tomato co-culture at low salinity (up to ~4 g/L) is technically feasible with grafted, salt-tolerant rootstock, but its own absolute yield reporting for the aquaponic arms is internally inconsistent (see Extraction notes).
Experiment data
- Location: IPN-CIIDIR Unidad Sinaloa, Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico (28°32’48” N, 108°28’53” W; elevation 15 m a.s.l.)
- Design: Two simple randomized designs run in parallel: (1) shrimp growth test, 3 salinity treatments (2, 4, 6 g/L) x 3 replicate tanks; (2) paired grafted-tomato salinity trial irrigated with the matching-salinity shrimp effluent, 3 treatments x 3 replicates, plus one hydroponic non-grafted SNS control (3 reps implied but not separately restated)
- Replicates / n: 3 per treatment (shrimp and tomato arms)
- Duration: Total experiment 25 weeks (175 days): plant production/grafting weeks 0-5, biofilter nitrification weeks 5-9, shrimp growth weeks 9-25 (16 weeks = 112 days), tomato production weeks 6-25 (~19 weeks per this breakdown vs “20 weeks” stated in the Introduction — WARN-MINOR, see Extraction notes)
- Organisms: Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) / Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) hybrid Canek F1 grafted onto wild salinity-tolerant “Guasave” rootstock
- Statistics: One-way repeated measures ANOVA (treatment x sampling date) for water quality/bacteria/shrimp; two-way ANOVA for wild-tomato salinity-tolerance selection; one-way ANOVA for foliar nutrients and tomato production; post-hoc Tukey (p<0.05); Anderson-Darling and Levene’s tests for normality/homoscedasticity; Statistica v6
- Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): 1.78 ± 0.19 (2 g/L), 1.88 ± 0.15 (4 g/L), 1.71 ± 0.23 (6 g/L)
- Specific growth rate: 1.47-1.53 %/day, increasing with salinity
- Tomato production: 77.46 t/ha (SNS control) — the aquaponic-arm absolute values are internally inconsistent, see Extraction notes
Shrimp growth, survival, and water quality
This paper: Shrimp final mean weight (16.8-18.3 g), survival (61.4-72.2%), specific growth rate (1.47-1.53%/day), and total weight gain (775.3-1116.7 g/m3) all increased with salinity, highest at 6 g/L, lowest at 2 g/L (Table 3, p.8). Water NO2 and NO3 concentrations were significantly different between salinities (p<0.05), decreasing as salinity rose (Table 1, p.5). Vibrio spp. and Bacillus spp. bacterial counts increased with salinity (Fig. 3).
Compared with:
- todo Kuhn et al. 2012 — P. vannamei at 2.0 g/L and 400 mg/L NO3- had 100% mortality and GR 0.73 g/week; at 11.0 g/L and 220 mg/L NO3-, mortality 35.8% and GR 0.84 g/week (p.9). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
- todo Mariscal-Lagarda et al. 2012 — the only other published integrated shrimp+tomato study (water EC=1.3 dS/m); shrimp GR 0.73±0.04 g/week, TWG 0.39±0.02 kg/m3, FCR 1.60±0.03, survival 56.3±1.1% (Table 4, p.9); tomato all large/extra-large (94 and 110 g mean fruit weight) (p.9).
- todo Pinheiro et al. 2017 — Sarcocornia ambigua + Pacific white shrimp biofloc IMTA at 36 g/L salinity; GR 1.00±0.03 g/week, TWG 2.10±0.10 kg/m3, FCR 1.7±0.10, survival 73.5±1.9% (Table 4, p.9).
- todo Poli et al. 2019 — shrimp biofloc IMTA at 20 g/L; GR 1.50±0.05 g/week, TWG 3.20±0.75 kg/m3, FCR 1.7±0.05, survival 88.0±2.0% (Table 4, p.9).
- todo Fierro-Sañudo et al. 2018 — shrimp + basil (Ocimum basilicum) co-culture at 1.7 g/L; GR 1.15±0.06 g/week, TWG 0.65±0.02 kg/m3, survival 86.0±2.0% (Table 4, p.9).
Tomato production, morphology, and foliar nutrients
This paper: Highest tomato production (77.46 t/ha) attained with the SNS hydroponic control, not significantly different from 2 g/L salinity; production reduced by 40% and 54% at 4 and 6 g/L respectively (Results 3.5, p.5) — see Extraction notes for the internal inconsistency between this percentage-reduction framing and the paper’s own separately “extrapolated” absolute yields. Fruit weight declined with salinity (small-to-medium, ~61 g, across 2-6 g/L vs large, ~91 g, for SNS; Discussion 4.3, p.9). Apical/blossom-end fruit rot increased up to 40% at 6 g/L. Stem diameter was significantly reduced by higher salinity (26% reduction, Discussion 4.3); plant height and bunch number were not significantly different between treatments. Foliar total N, P, and K concentrations differed significantly by phenological stage (flowering/fruiting/senescence) and, for total N, by a stage x salinity interaction (p=0.028, Table 2, p.7); P, K, and Cu varied mainly by plant age rather than salinity.
Compared with:
- todo Suhl et al. 2016 — decoupled aquaponic vs conventional hydroponic tomato, found no significant yield difference (293 vs 316 t/ha, no EC effect; 483 vs 480 t/ha at EC 4.3-6.9 dS/m) (p.9). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
- todo Delaide et al. 2019 — fruit weight not significantly different between decoupled aquaponic (6.0 dS/m) and hydroponic (5.1 dS/m) tomato (p.9). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
- todo Rahman et al. 2018 — strong salinity effect at 4 dS/m made no tomato plant suitable for cultivation (p.9). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
- todo Costan et al. 2020 — tomato stem diameter reduced 19% and plant height 13% at EC=7.5 dS/m under hydroponic salinity+silicon treatment (p.8). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
- todo Albornoz et al. 2020 — total fruits/bunch (22.25/4) unaffected by EC in grafted tomato (p.8). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
Techno-economic analysis
This paper: Cost-benefit analysis (CBA, benefit/cost ratio, values >1 indicate net benefit): hydroponic SNS control = 1.72; IAAS at 2 g/L = 1.42; IAAS at 4 g/L = 1.05; not stated for 6 g/L (Results 3.7, p.6). IAAS production costs were lower than hydroponics primarily due to reduced/null fertilizer and irrigation-water costs, but overall profitability was lower than hydroponics because only one shrimp crop/year was produced and greenhouse construction costs were high (Discussion 4.5, p.9). No schema column exists for these ratios (see Extraction notes, “NO COLUMN”).
Compared with:
- todo García-Ruboca et al. 2016 — greenhouse tomato system profitability CBA=1.89 under comparable climate conditions (p.9). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
- todo Ni et al. 2020 — shrimp-vegetable rotational farming, net profits 1.63-2.26x higher than shrimp monoculture (p.9). [secondary comparison in Discussion]
Linked claims
- Grafting can mitigate salinity stress in tomato
- Aquaponic nitrate demand of fruiting crops can conflict with shrimp low-salinity/low-nitrate tolerance
- Shrimp zootechnical performance improves with salinity toward the isosmotic point
Citations to chase
- todo Kuhn et al. (2012) — chronic nitrate toxicity thresholds for P. vannamei at different salinities, directly relevant to interpreting this paper’s shrimp performance
- todo Mariscal-Lagarda et al. (2012) — the only other published integrated shrimp+tomato study; needed for a direct comparison table
- todo Pinheiro et al. (2017) — shrimp + halophyte (Sarcocornia) IMTA biofloc performance benchmarks
- todo Poli et al. (2019) — shrimp IMTA biofloc performance benchmarks
- todo Fierro-Sañudo et al. (2018) — shrimp + basil co-culture at low salinity
- todo Suhl et al. (2016) — decoupled aquaponic vs hydroponic tomato yield comparison (already in vault as
suhlAdvancedAquaponicsEvaluation2016? — check before adding as new note) - todo Delaide et al. (2019) — aquaponic vs hydroponic tomato fruit weight/quality
- todo Rahman et al. (2018) — NaCl salinity effects on tomato
- todo García-Ruboca et al. (2016) — greenhouse tomato CBA benchmark (Spanish-language source)
- todo Ni et al. (2020) — shrimp-vegetable rotational farming economics
Extraction notes
Contradictions (severity-tagged):
- ⚠️WARN-MATERIAL Fish size initial: Methods (2.6, p.4) states juvenile shrimp were stocked at “weight 0.28 ± 0.08 g”, but Table 3 (p.8) “Initial mean weight (g)” gives 2.03-2.11 g per treatment — roughly 7-8x higher. Table 3’s own figures are internally self-consistent (initial stocking density ÷ 125 organisms/m3 ≈ initial mean weight; final biomass − initial stocking density = stated total weight gain, exact match for 2 and 6 g/L). Table 3’s per-treatment values were recorded as the defensible figures; the Methods 0.28 g statement is unresolved (possibly an earlier life stage or a drafting error). Full evidence and both candidate values are in each trial row’s
Experimental Remarks. - ⚠️WARN-BLOCK Tomato production, AP arm, 2 g/L: two irreconcilable paper-derived absolute yield figures — ~67.4 t/ha (from Discussion’s “13% difference” statement vs SNS) and 56.4 t/ha (from the Conclusion’s own explicitly-labeled “extrapolated … interpret with caution” 5.64 kg/m2 figure). No basis to prefer either; recorded UNCLEAR. Added to REVIEW.md.
- ⚠️WARN-BLOCK Tomato production, AP arm, 6 g/L: same pattern — ~35.6 t/ha (from “reduced by 54%”) vs 29.6 t/ha (Conclusion’s extrapolated 2.96 kg/m2). Recorded UNCLEAR. Added to REVIEW.md.
- ⚠️WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: first fruit harvest at 98 dat (Methods 2.5) vs morphological “harvest stage” explicitly labeled 140 dat (Methods 2.11) are two different measurement events, not a numeric conflict, but the paper does not say which anchors the schema’s single duration column. Recorded 140 dat (matches the schema’s own “harvest day” wording); 98 dat noted as the alternate. Added to REVIEW.md.
- ⚠️WARN-MINOR FCR at 6 g/L: Table 3 prints “1.71 0.23” with the ± sign clearly missing (typographical omission, all other cells use ±). Recorded as 1.71 ± 0.23, no ambiguity.
- ⚠️WARN-MINOR Tomato cultivation duration: Introduction states “20 weeks” in the net house; Materials’ own week-by-week breakdown (tomato production = weeks 6-25) sums to 19 weeks. No cell affected.
- ⚠️WARN-MINOR Water temperature at 2 g/L: measured trial mean 29.20±0.90°C slightly exceeds the stated target/setpoint range (27-28°C, via immersion heaters). Setpoint vs. measured mean, not a true conflict; measured mean recorded.
Severity tally: 2 BLOCK, 1 MATERIAL, 1 CHECK, 3 MINOR → quality: suspect (rule: 2+ BLOCK = suspect, regardless of MATERIAL count).
[not reported] / [unclear] grouped by field:
- Not reported: Fish Category; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (only m3/day + total volume given, dividing would be derivation); Total Feed (kg); Fish biomass created (kg, unit mismatch with the only reported per-m3 total weight gain); feed Protein/N/P/K composition; Average room Temperature; pHOptimal; FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE; Plant Category; Plants/m2 (only linear “3 plants/m” density given); Plant height (figure-only); Leaf count; Plant fresh weight (only per-fruit weight given, a distinct metric); Plant dry matter; SPAD; Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (paper measured total N, not nitrate, in tissue); Tomato production AP at 4 g/L (only a percentage reduction stated).
- Unclear (UNCLEAR cells): Tomato production AP at 2 g/L and 6 g/L (WARN-BLOCK above).
NEEDS_OCR: not applicable — PDF has a clean text layer throughout.
New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Shrimp, Meta/Plant/Tomato (checked against the vault’s existing Meta/Fish/ and Meta/Plant/ facets before use; both organisms are directly studied, not mentioned in passing).
New wikilink targets introduced: Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), Grafting can mitigate salinity stress in tomato, Aquaponic nitrate demand of fruiting crops can conflict with shrimp low-salinity/low-nitrate tolerance, Shrimp zootechnical performance improves with salinity toward the isosmotic point — none of these existed in the vault at extraction time (checked via search); candidate canonical forms only, left for review before use in future papers’ wikilinks.
Water panel excluded from plant.csv (worth flagging per instructions): Table 1’s Phosphate-P, TSS, alkalinity, and Vibrio/Bacillus bacterial counts (per salinity, weekly means) have no home in trials.csv (no matching columns) and do not belong in plant.csv (plant.csv is plant-tissue analytes only; these are shrimp-culture water/bacteria data). They are recorded in full, per trial, under NO COLUMN in each row’s Experimental Remarks rather than discarded.
NO COLUMN items (unhomed data, recorded in Experimental Remarks per trial): stem diameter (Fig. 4, mm); per-fruit weight (~61 g AP aggregate, ~91 g SNS, Discussion 4.3); blossom-end/apical fruit rot (%, up to 40% at 6 g/L, Results 3.5/Conclusion); Total weight gain in g/m3 (Table 3, distinct from the per-fish “Fish weight gain” column); techno-economic CBA ratios (1.42, 1.05, 1.72; Results 3.7); Table 1 water panel as above.
Source: Armenta-Bojórquez et al. - 2021 - Pacific white shrimp and tomato production using w.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
armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), juveniles |
| Initial Stock density | 0.244 +/- 0.0079 |
| FCR | 1.78 +/- 0.19 |
| SGR | 1.47 +/- 0.01 |
| % of body weight | 5-2% (gradually adjusted, declining) |
| Fish size initial | 2.03 +/- 0.17 |
| Fish size final | 16.8 +/- 1.3 |
| Feed routine | Three equivalent feed rations added daily at 0800, 1200, and 1600 h to each tank (p.4) |
| Feed regime | Feeding rate gradually adjusted 5-2% of body weight based on growth and demand monitored via feed trays (Cuadros and Beltrame, 1998) (p.4) |
| Fish survival rate | 61.4 +/- 8.4 |
| Fish weight gain | 14.7 +/- 0.2 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 112 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 1.5 |
| Water volume in the system | 800 |
| Aq pH | 8.30 +/- 0.07 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6.93 +/- 0.40 |
| EC | 3.9 +/- 0.28 |
| Water temperature | 29.20 +/- 0.90 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.08 +/- 0.01 |
| NO2-N | 0.45 +/- 0.7 (letter a) |
| NO3-N | 42.12 +/- 7.1 (letter a) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. hybrid Canek F1), grafted onto salinity-tolerant wild tomato (‘Guasave’ ecotype) rootstock |
| Details | Grafted seedlings; scion = commercial hybrid Canek F1, rootstock = wild Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme ‘Guasave’ ecotype selected for salinity tolerance; irrigated with shrimp effluent water at matched salinity, supplemented once at start with 100 mg/L NO3- (commercial KNO3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 140 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Hydroponic system (HS): PVC pipe trough with zeolite substrate (p.2) |
| Media Details | Zeolite (2-6 mm grain size, Zeomex, San Luis Potosi, Mexico) substrate; PVC pipes 3.5 m long, 20.3 cm diameter, 7.5 cm diameter holes every 29 cm, pipe separation 1.2 m (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (Regenerative air blower (4 hp, Sweetwater/Aquatic Ecosystem Inc.) continuously aerating shrimp tanks to maintain DO ~6 mg/L (p.4, section 2.6)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Sulfuric acid (H2SO4, 1 meq/L) added to the irrigation stock solution to adjust pH to 6 for each tomato treatment (p.3, Agronomic management)) |
| Climate control | Y (Shrimp reared in a greenhouse covered with plastic for temperature control (p.2); thermostatically-controlled immersion heaters (Finnex 800W Titanium) maintained water temperature 27-28C (p.4); tomato net house with 80% mesh cover, 3.5 m height (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (100 mg/L NO3- (commercial KNO3) added once at the start of each salinity treatment to the shrimp-effluent irrigation water (p.2, section 2.1)) |
| Equipment | Evans Aqua60w submersible pumps; 4 hp Sweetwater regenerative air blower; Finnex 800W Titanium immersion heaters; Hanna 213 pH meter; YSI 55 DO meter/thermometer; Atago refractometer; Ohaus digital balance (0.01 g precision); Whatman 0.45 um filters; Imhoff cone; UV spectrophotometer Genesys 20; Buck Scientific PFP-7 flamometer; Varian SpectrAA 50B atomic absorption spectrometer; TORREY digital scale |
| Control Parameters | Salinity (2, 4, 6 g/L via EC, target); shrimp water pH 8.0-8.5 (target); DO ~6 mg/L (target); water temp 27-28C (target); photoperiod ~14h light:10h dark; feeding rate 5-2% body weight/day (declining); irrigation solution pH adjusted to 6 (tomato) |
| Combination | Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) + grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum hybrid Canek F1 on wild ‘Guasave’ rootstock); shrimp effluent water at matched salinity irrigates the paired tomato treatment; SNS hydroponic non-grafted control shared identically across all three salinity trials |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
| Lat | 28.5467 |
| Long | -108.4814 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | t/ha (tomato production, six harvests); dS/m (EC); mg/L (water quality); g (shrimp weight); kg/m3 (stock density); %/day (SGR); mg/kg and % (foliar nutrients, Table 2) |
| Statistic Details | Anderson-Darling and Levene’s tests (normality/homoscedasticity, p.5); one-way repeated measures ANOVA (treatment x sampling date) for water quality/bacteria/shrimp parameters; two-way ANOVA for wild-tomato salinity-tolerance selection; one-way ANOVA for foliar nutrients and tomato production; post-hoc Tukey tests (p<0.05); Statistica v6 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| HYD | 77.46 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = aquaponic treatment at 2 g/L salinity (shrimp effluent water, EC=3.9 dS/m, irrigating grafted tomato). Paired control = SNS hydroponic non-grafted treatment (EC=2 dS/m, Steiner 1961), recorded in the HYD columns and shared identically across T1/T2/T3 (same continuous control run in parallel with all three salinity arms). | WARN-MATERIAL Fish size initial: Methods 2.6 (p.4) states ‘juvenile shrimp (weight 0.28 +/- 0.08 g) were stocked at 125 organism/m3’. Table 3 (p.8) ‘Initial mean weight (g)’ gives 2.03+/-0.17 (2 g/L), 2.11+/-0.14 (4 g/L), 2.03+/-0.29 (6 g/L) — roughly 7-8x higher than the Methods figure. Table 3’s own numbers are internally self-consistent: ‘Initial stocking density (g/m3)’ 244+/-7.9 / 125 organisms/m3 = ~1.95 g/shrimp (close to 2.03g); and Total weight gain (g/m3): 775.3 = Final biomass 1019 minus Initial stocking density 244 (exact match); 1116.7 = 1360-244 (exact match, 6 g/L); 902.1 is close to 1156-247=909 (4 g/L, minor rounding). No internal check supports the 0.28g figure. Table 3’s per-treatment value recorded as the defensible initial weight for this trial; the 0.28g Methods figure is UNRESOLVED and may describe an earlier/different life stage or be a drafting error. Affects: interpretation of shrimp growth magnitude only, no other cell. | WARN-BLOCK Tomato production (AP, 2 g/L): Abstract/Results 3.5 (p.1, 5) state SNS control = 77.46 t/ha with ‘no significant difference’ at 2 g/L, giving no explicit absolute value for 2 g/L there. Discussion 4.1 (p.6) states ‘a 13% difference in production between the SNS control treatment (744 mg/L NO3-) and 2 g/L salinity’ -> implies ~67.4 t/ha (77.46 x 0.87) if 2 g/L is 13% below SNS. Conclusion (p.10) separately states ‘at 2 … g/L salinity the shrimp yield … and tomato production (5.64 … kg/m2) were extrapolated to t/ha; results based on extrapolated productivity must be interpreted with caution’ -> 5.64 kg/m2 = 56.4 t/ha (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: kg/m2 x 10 = t/ha, exact). These two paper-derived figures (~67.4 vs 56.4 t/ha) differ by ~16% with no stated basis to prefer either, and the authors themselves flag the extrapolated figure as needing caution. Recorded UNCLEAR in the AP cell. Affects: CBA interpretation, tomato yield comparison. | NO COLUMN: water quality parameters with no schema column, Table 1 (p.5), 2 g/L: Phosphate-P 0.12+/-0.03 mg/L; TSS 129.9+/-35.4 mg/L; Alkalinity 288.5+/-22.3 mg/L; Vibrio spp. 8.0+/-7.0x10^3 CFU/mL (letter a); Bacillus spp. 17.8+/-4.2x10^3 CFU/mL (letter a). These are shrimp-culture WATER bacterial counts, not plant tissue microbiology, so excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md. | NO COLUMN: Total weight gain (TWG) 775.3+/-126.6 g/m3 (letter a) (Table 3, p.8) — distinct per-volume metric from the schema’s per-fish ‘Fish weight gain’ (recorded) and from ‘Fish biomass created (kg)’ (left NR, unit mismatch prevents conversion without derivation). | NO COLUMN: techno-economic cost-benefit analysis (CBA) ratio for IAAS at 2 g/L = 1.42; hydroponic SNS control CBA = 1.72 (Results 3.7, p.6). No schema column exists for economic ratios (FUE/WUE columns require fertilizer/water-use-efficiency data, not given). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg, only daily feeding rate/percentage given, not a cycle total); Fish biomass created (kg, only per-m3 total weight gain given — see NO COLUMN — converting to total kg would require multiplying by tank volume, which is derivation); Daily Water exchange rate (%; only m3/day [2.1] and total volume [2.4 m3] given, dividing would be derivation); Protein/N/P/K of feed (not stated); Average room Temperature (only water temperature given); pHOptimal (no explicit optimum stated distinct from the sustained 8.0-8.5 range already captured in Aq pH); FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE (not stated; see NO COLUMN for CBA ratios instead). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Initial Stock density g/m3 -> kg/m3; Fish trial duration ‘16 weeks’ (Table 1/3 captions, Fig.3, Fig.6 — consistent throughout, no conflict) -> 112 days; Water volume 0.8 m3 (working volume per tank, Methods 2.2) -> 800 L (note: Methods 2.2’s ‘2.4 m3 total volume’ for ‘the shrimp tanks’ = the three replicate tanks of one salinity treatment combined, 0.8x3=2.4, arithmetically consistent, not a conflict); coordinates 28 deg 32’ 48” N, 108 deg 28’ 53” W (Methods 2.1, IPN-CIIDIR Sinaloa) -> decimal 28.5467, -108.4814 (valid DMS, no impossible values). | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: Methods 2.5 (p.3) states ‘The first harvest was performed at 98 days after transplanting (dat), and subsequent harvests were made each week’ (six total harvests -> spans ~98-133 dat). Methods 2.11 (p.4) separately states ‘Morphological plant variables were recorded at harvest stage (140 dat)’. These describe two different measurement events (fruit-harvest cycle vs. final destructive morphological sampling), not a true numeric conflict, but the paper never says which day the single schema column should represent. Recorded 140 dat (explicitly labeled ‘harvest stage’, matching the schema’s own definition ‘harvest day, counted from transplant’); 98 dat (first fruit harvest) noted as the alternate candidate for a yield-cycle-anchored duration. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Tomato cultivation duration: Introduction (p.2) states tomato ‘was cultivated during 20 weeks in a net house’; Methods 2.1 (p.2) states tomato production spanned ‘Weeks 6-25’ of the 25-week total experiment = 19 weeks. No cell affected (Days Plant after transplant taken from Methods 2.11/2.5 above). | Fish Category, Water type, and Water classification left NR — paper does not categorise the shrimp beyond species/life-stage, nor name the water source/type beyond ‘shrimp water effluents’. | Plant Category left NR — paper never applies a categorical descriptor to the tomato crop beyond species/hybrid name (Solanaceae is mentioned only in a general Discussion sentence, not as a category label for this crop). | Plants/m2 left NR — paper states linear density ‘3 plants/m’ (row-length basis, Abstract and Methods 2.1), not an areal (m2) density; converting would require the inter-row spacing and constitutes derivation, not performed. | Plant height left NR — reported only in Fig. 4 bar chart (no exact numeric values in text or table, except the qualitative statement ‘Plant height and number of bunches were not different between the control and different salinity’, Results 3.4, p.5); left NR per the figure-only rule. NO COLUMN: stem diameter itself has no schema column (Fig. 4, mm; Discussion 4.3, p.8 states ‘grafted tomato stem diameter (26%) was negatively affected by increased salinity’ as a relative comparison only, no absolute values in text/table). | Plant fresh weight left NR — the paper gives per-FRUIT weight, not per-plant fresh weight: Discussion 4.3 (p.9) states ‘fruit size was small to medium (61 g) at salinities of 2-6 g/L, and large (91 g) for the SNS control treatment’ (an aggregate across all AP salinities, not broken out per treatment in text; Fig. 5 shows a per-treatment bar chart with no exact numbers given in text/table). NO COLUMN: fruit weight (g/fruit): ~61 g aggregate for AP salinities 2-6 g/L, ~91 g for SNS (Discussion 4.3, p.9) — distinct metric from ‘Plant fresh weight’ (per-plant), no schema column exists for per-fruit weight. | Plant dry matter, Leaf count, SPAD left NR — not measured/reported anywhere in the paper. | NO COLUMN: blossom-end/apical fruit rot — Results 3.5 and Conclusion (p.5, 10) state textually ‘apical fruit rot increased by up to 40% at 6 g/L salinity’; Fig. 5 shows this per treatment graphically but no other exact numbers are given in text/table for 2 or 4 g/L; no schema column exists for this metric. | Foliar mineral nutrient concentrations (Total N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn) by phenological stage recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv (Table 2, p.7), not here. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD left NR — paper measured foliar Total N (micro-Kjeldahl) and other elements, never nitrate specifically in plant tissue. | Replicates (n)=3 explicitly stated for the salinity treatments (‘three replicates each’/‘three replicates per treatment’, Methods 2.1, p.2); the SNS control’s own replicate count is not separately restated in that sentence — UNCLEAR whether it also used n=3, though the shared design (Fig. 1, S1) suggests parity.
armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), juveniles |
| Initial Stock density | 0.247 +/- 0.0049 |
| FCR | 1.88 +/- 0.15 |
| SGR | 1.49 +/- 0.07 |
| % of body weight | 5-2% (gradually adjusted, declining) |
| Fish size initial | 2.11 +/- 0.14 |
| Fish size final | 17.9 +/- 1.3 |
| Feed routine | Three equivalent feed rations added daily at 0800, 1200, and 1600 h to each tank (p.4) |
| Feed regime | Feeding rate gradually adjusted 5-2% of body weight based on growth and demand monitored via feed trays (Cuadros and Beltrame, 1998) (p.4) |
| Fish survival rate | 66.7 +/- 10.2 |
| Fish weight gain | 15.3 +/- 1.8 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 112 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 1.5 |
| Water volume in the system | 800 |
| Aq pH | 8.3 +/- 0.01 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6.89 +/- 0.6 |
| EC | 7.7 +/- 0.12 |
| Water temperature | 28.50 +/- 1.30 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.09 +/- 0.02 |
| NO2-N | 1.38 +/- 2.9 (letter b) |
| NO3-N | 23.62 +/- 11.0 (letter b) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. hybrid Canek F1), grafted onto salinity-tolerant wild tomato (‘Guasave’ ecotype) rootstock |
| Details | Grafted seedlings; scion = commercial hybrid Canek F1, rootstock = wild Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme ‘Guasave’ ecotype selected for salinity tolerance; irrigated with shrimp effluent water at matched salinity, supplemented once at start with 100 mg/L NO3- (commercial KNO3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 140 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Hydroponic system (HS): PVC pipe trough with zeolite substrate (p.2) |
| Media Details | Zeolite (2-6 mm grain size, Zeomex, San Luis Potosi, Mexico) substrate; PVC pipes 3.5 m long, 20.3 cm diameter, 7.5 cm diameter holes every 29 cm, pipe separation 1.2 m (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (Regenerative air blower (4 hp, Sweetwater/Aquatic Ecosystem Inc.) continuously aerating shrimp tanks to maintain DO ~6 mg/L (p.4, section 2.6)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Sulfuric acid (H2SO4, 1 meq/L) added to the irrigation stock solution to adjust pH to 6 for each tomato treatment (p.3, Agronomic management)) |
| Climate control | Y (Shrimp reared in a greenhouse covered with plastic for temperature control (p.2); thermostatically-controlled immersion heaters (Finnex 800W Titanium) maintained water temperature 27-28C (p.4); tomato net house with 80% mesh cover, 3.5 m height (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (100 mg/L NO3- (commercial KNO3) added once at the start of each salinity treatment to the shrimp-effluent irrigation water (p.2, section 2.1)) |
| Equipment | Evans Aqua60w submersible pumps; 4 hp Sweetwater regenerative air blower; Finnex 800W Titanium immersion heaters; Hanna 213 pH meter; YSI 55 DO meter/thermometer; Atago refractometer; Ohaus digital balance (0.01 g precision); Whatman 0.45 um filters; Imhoff cone; UV spectrophotometer Genesys 20; Buck Scientific PFP-7 flamometer; Varian SpectrAA 50B atomic absorption spectrometer; TORREY digital scale |
| Control Parameters | Salinity (2, 4, 6 g/L via EC, target); shrimp water pH 8.0-8.5 (target); DO ~6 mg/L (target); water temp 27-28C (target); photoperiod ~14h light:10h dark; feeding rate 5-2% body weight/day (declining); irrigation solution pH adjusted to 6 (tomato) |
| Combination | Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) + grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum hybrid Canek F1 on wild ‘Guasave’ rootstock); shrimp effluent water at matched salinity irrigates the paired tomato treatment; SNS hydroponic non-grafted control shared identically across all three salinity trials |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
| Lat | 28.5467 |
| Long | -108.4814 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | t/ha (tomato production, six harvests); dS/m (EC); mg/L (water quality); g (shrimp weight); kg/m3 (stock density); %/day (SGR); mg/kg and % (foliar nutrients, Table 2) |
| Statistic Details | Anderson-Darling and Levene’s tests (normality/homoscedasticity, p.5); one-way repeated measures ANOVA (treatment x sampling date) for water quality/bacteria/shrimp parameters; two-way ANOVA for wild-tomato salinity-tolerance selection; one-way ANOVA for foliar nutrients and tomato production; post-hoc Tukey tests (p<0.05); Statistica v6 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| HYD | 77.46 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = aquaponic treatment at 4 g/L salinity (shrimp effluent water, EC=7.7 dS/m, irrigating grafted tomato). Paired control = SNS hydroponic non-grafted treatment (EC=2 dS/m, Steiner 1961), recorded in the HYD columns and shared identically across T1/T2/T3 (same continuous control run in parallel with all three salinity arms). | WARN-MATERIAL Fish size initial: Methods 2.6 (p.4) states ‘juvenile shrimp (weight 0.28 +/- 0.08 g) were stocked at 125 organism/m3’. Table 3 (p.8) ‘Initial mean weight (g)’ gives 2.03+/-0.17 (2 g/L), 2.11+/-0.14 (4 g/L), 2.03+/-0.29 (6 g/L) — roughly 7-8x higher than the Methods figure. Table 3’s own numbers are internally self-consistent: ‘Initial stocking density (g/m3)’ 244+/-7.9 / 125 organisms/m3 = ~1.95 g/shrimp (close to 2.03g); and Total weight gain (g/m3): 775.3 = Final biomass 1019 minus Initial stocking density 244 (exact match); 1116.7 = 1360-244 (exact match, 6 g/L); 902.1 is close to 1156-247=909 (4 g/L, minor rounding). No internal check supports the 0.28g figure. Table 3’s per-treatment value recorded as the defensible initial weight for this trial; the 0.28g Methods figure is UNRESOLVED and may describe an earlier/different life stage or be a drafting error. Affects: interpretation of shrimp growth magnitude only, no other cell. | Tomato production (AP, 4 g/L) left NR: Results 3.5 (p.5) states production ‘reduced by 40 … % [relative to SNS], without significant differences’ — only a percentage reduction is stated, no absolute t/ha value is given anywhere for 4 g/L (the Conclusion’s extrapolated kg/m2 figures cover only 2 and 6 g/L). Computing 77.46 x 0.6 = 46.5 t/ha would be derivation and is not performed. | NO COLUMN: water quality parameters with no schema column, Table 1 (p.5), 4 g/L: Phosphate-P 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L; TSS 116.7+/-37.8 mg/L; Alkalinity 277.9+/-10.9 mg/L; Vibrio spp. 13.0+/-8.0x10^3 CFU/mL (letter b); Bacillus spp. 53.3+/-7.3x10^3 CFU/mL (letter b). Excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (water, not plant tissue). | NO COLUMN: Total weight gain (TWG) 902.1+/-119.7 g/m3 (letter ab) (Table 3, p.8) — see T1 remarks for column-mapping rationale. | NO COLUMN: techno-economic CBA ratio for IAAS at 4 g/L = 1.05; hydroponic SNS control CBA = 1.72 (Results 3.7, p.6). No schema column exists for economic ratios. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg, only daily feeding rate/percentage given, not a cycle total); Fish biomass created (kg, only per-m3 total weight gain given — see NO COLUMN — converting to total kg would require multiplying by tank volume, which is derivation); Daily Water exchange rate (%; only m3/day [2.1] and total volume [2.4 m3] given, dividing would be derivation); Protein/N/P/K of feed (not stated); Average room Temperature (only water temperature given); pHOptimal (no explicit optimum stated distinct from the sustained 8.0-8.5 range already captured in Aq pH); FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE (not stated; see NO COLUMN for CBA ratios instead). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Initial Stock density g/m3 -> kg/m3; Fish trial duration ‘16 weeks’ (Table 1/3 captions, Fig.3, Fig.6 — consistent throughout, no conflict) -> 112 days; Water volume 0.8 m3 (working volume per tank, Methods 2.2) -> 800 L (note: Methods 2.2’s ‘2.4 m3 total volume’ for ‘the shrimp tanks’ = the three replicate tanks of one salinity treatment combined, 0.8x3=2.4, arithmetically consistent, not a conflict); coordinates 28 deg 32’ 48” N, 108 deg 28’ 53” W (Methods 2.1, IPN-CIIDIR Sinaloa) -> decimal 28.5467, -108.4814 (valid DMS, no impossible values). | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: Methods 2.5 (p.3) states ‘The first harvest was performed at 98 days after transplanting (dat), and subsequent harvests were made each week’ (six total harvests -> spans ~98-133 dat). Methods 2.11 (p.4) separately states ‘Morphological plant variables were recorded at harvest stage (140 dat)’. These describe two different measurement events (fruit-harvest cycle vs. final destructive morphological sampling), not a true numeric conflict, but the paper never says which day the single schema column should represent. Recorded 140 dat (explicitly labeled ‘harvest stage’, matching the schema’s own definition ‘harvest day, counted from transplant’); 98 dat (first fruit harvest) noted as the alternate candidate for a yield-cycle-anchored duration. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Tomato cultivation duration: Introduction (p.2) states tomato ‘was cultivated during 20 weeks in a net house’; Methods 2.1 (p.2) states tomato production spanned ‘Weeks 6-25’ of the 25-week total experiment = 19 weeks. No cell affected (Days Plant after transplant taken from Methods 2.11/2.5 above). | Fish Category, Water type, and Water classification left NR — paper does not categorise the shrimp beyond species/life-stage, nor name the water source/type beyond ‘shrimp water effluents’. | Plant Category left NR — paper never applies a categorical descriptor to the tomato crop beyond species/hybrid name (Solanaceae is mentioned only in a general Discussion sentence, not as a category label for this crop). | Plants/m2 left NR — paper states linear density ‘3 plants/m’ (row-length basis, Abstract and Methods 2.1), not an areal (m2) density; converting would require the inter-row spacing and constitutes derivation, not performed. | Plant height left NR — reported only in Fig. 4 bar chart (no exact numeric values in text or table, except the qualitative statement ‘Plant height and number of bunches were not different between the control and different salinity’, Results 3.4, p.5); left NR per the figure-only rule. NO COLUMN: stem diameter itself has no schema column (Fig. 4, mm; Discussion 4.3, p.8 states ‘grafted tomato stem diameter (26%) was negatively affected by increased salinity’ as a relative comparison only, no absolute values in text/table). | Plant fresh weight left NR — the paper gives per-FRUIT weight, not per-plant fresh weight: Discussion 4.3 (p.9) states ‘fruit size was small to medium (61 g) at salinities of 2-6 g/L, and large (91 g) for the SNS control treatment’ (an aggregate across all AP salinities, not broken out per treatment in text; Fig. 5 shows a per-treatment bar chart with no exact numbers given in text/table). NO COLUMN: fruit weight (g/fruit): ~61 g aggregate for AP salinities 2-6 g/L, ~91 g for SNS (Discussion 4.3, p.9) — distinct metric from ‘Plant fresh weight’ (per-plant), no schema column exists for per-fruit weight. | Plant dry matter, Leaf count, SPAD left NR — not measured/reported anywhere in the paper. | NO COLUMN: blossom-end/apical fruit rot — Results 3.5 and Conclusion (p.5, 10) state textually ‘apical fruit rot increased by up to 40% at 6 g/L salinity’; Fig. 5 shows this per treatment graphically but no other exact numbers are given in text/table for 2 or 4 g/L; no schema column exists for this metric. | Foliar mineral nutrient concentrations (Total N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn) by phenological stage recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv (Table 2, p.7), not here. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD left NR — paper measured foliar Total N (micro-Kjeldahl) and other elements, never nitrate specifically in plant tissue. | Replicates (n)=3 explicitly stated for the salinity treatments (‘three replicates each’/‘three replicates per treatment’, Methods 2.1, p.2); the SNS control’s own replicate count is not separately restated in that sentence — UNCLEAR whether it also used n=3, though the shared design (Fig. 1, S1) suggests parity.
armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), juveniles |
| Initial Stock density | 0.244 +/- 0.0101 |
| FCR | 1.71 +/- 0.23 |
| SGR | 1.53 +/- 0.02 |
| % of body weight | 5-2% (gradually adjusted, declining) |
| Fish size initial | 2.03 +/- 0.29 |
| Fish size final | 18.3 +/- 1.4 |
| Feed routine | Three equivalent feed rations added daily at 0800, 1200, and 1600 h to each tank (p.4) |
| Feed regime | Feeding rate gradually adjusted 5-2% of body weight based on growth and demand monitored via feed trays (Cuadros and Beltrame, 1998) (p.4) |
| Fish survival rate | 72.2 +/- 14.5 |
| Fish weight gain | 16.2 +/- 0.4 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 112 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 1.5 |
| Water volume in the system | 800 |
| Aq pH | 8.20 +/- 0.07 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.03 +/- 0.5 |
| EC | 11.5 +/- 0.22 |
| Water temperature | 28.6 +/- 1.4 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.08 +/- 0.01 |
| NO2-N | 1.48 +/- 1.9 (letter b) |
| NO3-N | 17.37 +/- 7.2 (letter c) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. hybrid Canek F1), grafted onto salinity-tolerant wild tomato (‘Guasave’ ecotype) rootstock |
| Details | Grafted seedlings; scion = commercial hybrid Canek F1, rootstock = wild Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme ‘Guasave’ ecotype selected for salinity tolerance; irrigated with shrimp effluent water at matched salinity, supplemented once at start with 100 mg/L NO3- (commercial KNO3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 140 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Hydroponic system (HS): PVC pipe trough with zeolite substrate (p.2) |
| Media Details | Zeolite (2-6 mm grain size, Zeomex, San Luis Potosi, Mexico) substrate; PVC pipes 3.5 m long, 20.3 cm diameter, 7.5 cm diameter holes every 29 cm, pipe separation 1.2 m (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (Regenerative air blower (4 hp, Sweetwater/Aquatic Ecosystem Inc.) continuously aerating shrimp tanks to maintain DO ~6 mg/L (p.4, section 2.6)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Sulfuric acid (H2SO4, 1 meq/L) added to the irrigation stock solution to adjust pH to 6 for each tomato treatment (p.3, Agronomic management)) |
| Climate control | Y (Shrimp reared in a greenhouse covered with plastic for temperature control (p.2); thermostatically-controlled immersion heaters (Finnex 800W Titanium) maintained water temperature 27-28C (p.4); tomato net house with 80% mesh cover, 3.5 m height (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (100 mg/L NO3- (commercial KNO3) added once at the start of each salinity treatment to the shrimp-effluent irrigation water (p.2, section 2.1)) |
| Equipment | Evans Aqua60w submersible pumps; 4 hp Sweetwater regenerative air blower; Finnex 800W Titanium immersion heaters; Hanna 213 pH meter; YSI 55 DO meter/thermometer; Atago refractometer; Ohaus digital balance (0.01 g precision); Whatman 0.45 um filters; Imhoff cone; UV spectrophotometer Genesys 20; Buck Scientific PFP-7 flamometer; Varian SpectrAA 50B atomic absorption spectrometer; TORREY digital scale |
| Control Parameters | Salinity (2, 4, 6 g/L via EC, target); shrimp water pH 8.0-8.5 (target); DO ~6 mg/L (target); water temp 27-28C (target); photoperiod ~14h light:10h dark; feeding rate 5-2% body weight/day (declining); irrigation solution pH adjusted to 6 (tomato) |
| Combination | Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) + grafted tomato (Solanum lycopersicum hybrid Canek F1 on wild ‘Guasave’ rootstock); shrimp effluent water at matched salinity irrigates the paired tomato treatment; SNS hydroponic non-grafted control shared identically across all three salinity trials |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
| Lat | 28.5467 |
| Long | -108.4814 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | t/ha (tomato production, six harvests); dS/m (EC); mg/L (water quality); g (shrimp weight); kg/m3 (stock density); %/day (SGR); mg/kg and % (foliar nutrients, Table 2) |
| Statistic Details | Anderson-Darling and Levene’s tests (normality/homoscedasticity, p.5); one-way repeated measures ANOVA (treatment x sampling date) for water quality/bacteria/shrimp parameters; two-way ANOVA for wild-tomato salinity-tolerance selection; one-way ANOVA for foliar nutrients and tomato production; post-hoc Tukey tests (p<0.05); Statistica v6 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| HYD | 77.46 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = aquaponic treatment at 6 g/L salinity (shrimp effluent water, EC=11.5 dS/m, irrigating grafted tomato). Paired control = SNS hydroponic non-grafted treatment (EC=2 dS/m, Steiner 1961), recorded in the HYD columns and shared identically across T1/T2/T3 (same continuous control run in parallel with all three salinity arms). | WARN-MATERIAL Fish size initial: Methods 2.6 (p.4) states ‘juvenile shrimp (weight 0.28 +/- 0.08 g) were stocked at 125 organism/m3’. Table 3 (p.8) ‘Initial mean weight (g)’ gives 2.03+/-0.17 (2 g/L), 2.11+/-0.14 (4 g/L), 2.03+/-0.29 (6 g/L) — roughly 7-8x higher than the Methods figure. Table 3’s own numbers are internally self-consistent: ‘Initial stocking density (g/m3)’ 244+/-7.9 / 125 organisms/m3 = ~1.95 g/shrimp (close to 2.03g); and Total weight gain (g/m3): 775.3 = Final biomass 1019 minus Initial stocking density 244 (exact match); 1116.7 = 1360-244 (exact match, 6 g/L); 902.1 is close to 1156-247=909 (4 g/L, minor rounding). No internal check supports the 0.28g figure. Table 3’s per-treatment value recorded as the defensible initial weight for this trial; the 0.28g Methods figure is UNRESOLVED and may describe an earlier/different life stage or be a drafting error. Affects: interpretation of shrimp growth magnitude only, no other cell. | WARN-BLOCK Tomato production (AP, 6 g/L): Results 3.5 (p.5) states production at 6 g/L ‘was reduced by … 54%, … without significant differences [vs SNS]’ -> implies ~35.6 t/ha (77.46 x 0.46). Conclusion (p.10) states ‘at … 6 g/L salinity the shrimp yield … and tomato production (… 2.96 kg/m2) were extrapolated to t/ha; results based on extrapolated productivity must be interpreted with caution’ -> 2.96 kg/m2 = 29.6 t/ha (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: kg/m2 x 10 = t/ha, exact). These two paper-derived figures (~35.6 vs 29.6 t/ha) differ by ~17% with no stated basis to prefer either, and the authors themselves flag the extrapolated figure as needing caution. Recorded UNCLEAR in the AP cell. Affects: CBA interpretation, tomato yield comparison. | WARN-MINOR FCR: Table 3 (p.8) prints this cell as ‘1.71 0.23’ with the +/- sign missing (clear typographical omission, all other cells in the row/table use +/-). Recorded as 1.71 +/- 0.23; no ambiguity in the intended value. | NO COLUMN: water quality parameters with no schema column, Table 1 (p.5), 6 g/L: Phosphate-P 0.05+/-0.01 mg/L; TSS 116.7+/-37.8 mg/L; Alkalinity 274.9+/-16.9 mg/L; Vibrio spp. 17.5+/-1.6x10^3 CFU/mL (letter b); Bacillus spp. 80.4+/-15.4x10^3 CFU/mL (letter c). Excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (water, not plant tissue). | NO COLUMN: Total weight gain (TWG) 1116.7+/-175.9 g/m3 (letter b) (Table 3, p.8) — see T1 remarks for column-mapping rationale. | NO COLUMN: techno-economic CBA ratio not stated for 6 g/L (Results 3.7, p.6 gives only 2 and 4 g/L); hydroponic SNS control CBA = 1.72. No schema column exists for economic ratios. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg, only daily feeding rate/percentage given, not a cycle total); Fish biomass created (kg, only per-m3 total weight gain given — see NO COLUMN — converting to total kg would require multiplying by tank volume, which is derivation); Daily Water exchange rate (%; only m3/day [2.1] and total volume [2.4 m3] given, dividing would be derivation); Protein/N/P/K of feed (not stated); Average room Temperature (only water temperature given); pHOptimal (no explicit optimum stated distinct from the sustained 8.0-8.5 range already captured in Aq pH); FUE AP/FUE HYD/WUE (not stated; see NO COLUMN for CBA ratios instead). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Initial Stock density g/m3 -> kg/m3; Fish trial duration ‘16 weeks’ (Table 1/3 captions, Fig.3, Fig.6 — consistent throughout, no conflict) -> 112 days; Water volume 0.8 m3 (working volume per tank, Methods 2.2) -> 800 L (note: Methods 2.2’s ‘2.4 m3 total volume’ for ‘the shrimp tanks’ = the three replicate tanks of one salinity treatment combined, 0.8x3=2.4, arithmetically consistent, not a conflict); coordinates 28 deg 32’ 48” N, 108 deg 28’ 53” W (Methods 2.1, IPN-CIIDIR Sinaloa) -> decimal 28.5467, -108.4814 (valid DMS, no impossible values). | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: Methods 2.5 (p.3) states ‘The first harvest was performed at 98 days after transplanting (dat), and subsequent harvests were made each week’ (six total harvests -> spans ~98-133 dat). Methods 2.11 (p.4) separately states ‘Morphological plant variables were recorded at harvest stage (140 dat)’. These describe two different measurement events (fruit-harvest cycle vs. final destructive morphological sampling), not a true numeric conflict, but the paper never says which day the single schema column should represent. Recorded 140 dat (explicitly labeled ‘harvest stage’, matching the schema’s own definition ‘harvest day, counted from transplant’); 98 dat (first fruit harvest) noted as the alternate candidate for a yield-cycle-anchored duration. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Tomato cultivation duration: Introduction (p.2) states tomato ‘was cultivated during 20 weeks in a net house’; Methods 2.1 (p.2) states tomato production spanned ‘Weeks 6-25’ of the 25-week total experiment = 19 weeks. No cell affected (Days Plant after transplant taken from Methods 2.11/2.5 above). | Fish Category, Water type, and Water classification left NR — paper does not categorise the shrimp beyond species/life-stage, nor name the water source/type beyond ‘shrimp water effluents’. | Plant Category left NR — paper never applies a categorical descriptor to the tomato crop beyond species/hybrid name (Solanaceae is mentioned only in a general Discussion sentence, not as a category label for this crop). | Plants/m2 left NR — paper states linear density ‘3 plants/m’ (row-length basis, Abstract and Methods 2.1), not an areal (m2) density; converting would require the inter-row spacing and constitutes derivation, not performed. | Plant height left NR — reported only in Fig. 4 bar chart (no exact numeric values in text or table, except the qualitative statement ‘Plant height and number of bunches were not different between the control and different salinity’, Results 3.4, p.5); left NR per the figure-only rule. NO COLUMN: stem diameter itself has no schema column (Fig. 4, mm; Discussion 4.3, p.8 states ‘grafted tomato stem diameter (26%) was negatively affected by increased salinity’ as a relative comparison only, no absolute values in text/table). | Plant fresh weight left NR — the paper gives per-FRUIT weight, not per-plant fresh weight: Discussion 4.3 (p.9) states ‘fruit size was small to medium (61 g) at salinities of 2-6 g/L, and large (91 g) for the SNS control treatment’ (an aggregate across all AP salinities, not broken out per treatment in text; Fig. 5 shows a per-treatment bar chart with no exact numbers given in text/table). NO COLUMN: fruit weight (g/fruit): ~61 g aggregate for AP salinities 2-6 g/L, ~91 g for SNS (Discussion 4.3, p.9) — distinct metric from ‘Plant fresh weight’ (per-plant), no schema column exists for per-fruit weight. | Plant dry matter, Leaf count, SPAD left NR — not measured/reported anywhere in the paper. | NO COLUMN: blossom-end/apical fruit rot — Results 3.5 and Conclusion (p.5, 10) state textually ‘apical fruit rot increased by up to 40% at 6 g/L salinity’; Fig. 5 shows this per treatment graphically but no other exact numbers are given in text/table for 2 or 4 g/L; no schema column exists for this metric. | Foliar mineral nutrient concentrations (Total N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn) by phenological stage recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv (Table 2, p.7), not here. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD left NR — paper measured foliar Total N (micro-Kjeldahl) and other elements, never nitrate specifically in plant tissue. | Replicates (n)=3 explicitly stated for the salinity treatments (‘three replicates each’/‘three replicates per treatment’, Methods 2.1, p.2); the SNS control’s own replicate count is not separately restated in that sentence — UNCLEAR whether it also used n=3, though the shared design (Fig. 1, S1) suggests parity.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 3.8 ± 0.37 | % | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 3.8 ± 0.37 | % | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 3.8 ± 0.37 | % | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.6 ± 0.14 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.6 ± 0.14 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.6 ± 0.14 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | K | 1.7 ± 0.20 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | K | 1.7 ± 0.20 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | K | 1.7 ± 0.20 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.2 ± 0.06 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.2 ± 0.06 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.2 ± 0.06 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.53 ± 0.04 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.53 ± 0.04 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.53 ± 0.04 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 99.2 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 99.2 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 99.2 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 50.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 50.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 50.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 70.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 70.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 70.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 63.1 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 63.1 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 63.1 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Total N | 3.9 ± 0.37 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | P | 1.8 ± 0.14 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | K | 1.5 ± 0.20 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.1 ± 0.06 | % | letter f (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.53 ± 0.04 | % | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe | 98.1 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu | 50.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn | 70.1 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter e (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Mn | 63.7 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Total N | 3.7 ± 0.37 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | P | 1.6 ± 0.14 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | K | 1.8 ± 0.20 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.2 ± 0.06 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.51 ± 0.04 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe | 95.3 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu | 51.1 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn | 84.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter cd (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Mn | 65.7 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Total N | 2.5 ± 0.37 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | P | 1.7 ± 0.14 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | K | 1.6 ± 0.20 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.2 ± 0.06 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.48 ± 0.04 | % | letter bcd (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Fe | 88.3 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Cu | 53.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Zn | 78.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter d (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Mn | 64.1 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 2.8 ± 0.37 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 2.8 ± 0.37 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 2.8 ± 0.37 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.2 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.2 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.2 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | K | 2.1 ± 0.20 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | K | 2.1 ± 0.20 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | K | 2.1 ± 0.20 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.5 ± 0.06 | % | letter cd (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.5 ± 0.06 | % | letter cd (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.5 ± 0.06 | % | letter cd (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.39 ± 0.04 | % | letter def (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.39 ± 0.04 | % | letter def (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.39 ± 0.04 | % | letter def (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 92.2 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 92.2 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 92.2 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 62.1 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 62.1 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 62.1 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 95.8 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 95.8 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 95.8 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 49.5 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 49.5 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 49.5 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Total N | 2.9 ± 0.37 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | P | 1.4 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | K | 2.1 ± 0.20 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.3 ± 0.06 | % | letter de (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.42 ± 0.04 | % | letter cdef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe | 93.3 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu | 51.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn | 96.6 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Mn | 68.3 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Total N | 2.4 ± 0.37 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | P | 1.3 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | K | 2.3 ± 0.20 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.2 ± 0.06 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.44 ± 0.04 | % | letter bcde (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe | 98.1 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu | 50.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn | 98.1 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Mn | 68.3 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Total N | 2.4 ± 0.37 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | P | 1.2 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | K | 1.7 ± 0.20 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.4 ± 0.06 | % | letter cd (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.36 ± 0.04 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Fe | 87.3 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Cu | 59.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Zn | 96.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Mn | 63.1 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 3.1 ± 0.37 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 3.1 ± 0.37 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Total N | 3.1 ± 0.37 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.1 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.1 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | P | 1.1 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | K | 1.2 ± 0.20 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | K | 1.2 ± 0.20 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | K | 1.2 ± 0.20 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.6 ± 0.06 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.6 ± 0.06 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Ca | 1.6 ± 0.06 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.34 ± 0.04 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.34 ± 0.04 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Mg | 0.34 ± 0.04 | % | letter a (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 89.1 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 89.1 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Fe | 89.1 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 66.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 66.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Cu | 66.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 89.1 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 89.1 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Zn | 89.1 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 53.5 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 53.5 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | HYD | mineral | Mn | 53.5 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Total N | 3.3 ± 0.37 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | P | 1.4 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | K | 1.1 ± 0.20 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.5 ± 0.06 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.32 ± 0.04 | % | letter f (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe | 84.7 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu | 67.3 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn | 93.3 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T1 | AP | mineral | Mn | 60.1 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Total N | 2.9 ± 0.37 | % | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | P | 1.3 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | K | 1.3 ± 0.20 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.5 ± 0.06 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.33 ± 0.04 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe | 90.3 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu | 70.3 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn | 93.6 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T2 | AP | mineral | Mn | 53.7 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Total N | 2.5 ± 0.37 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.028 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | P | 1.4 ± 0.14 | % | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.338 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | K | 1.1 ± 0.20 | % | letter c (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.146 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Ca | 1.5 ± 0.06 | % | letter bc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Mg | 0.36 ± 0.04 | % | letter ef (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Fe | 90.1 ± 3.47 | mg/kg | letter abc (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.003 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Cu | 69.7 ± 4.93 | mg/kg | letter b (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.106 (Table 2); age-significant p<0.05 (table footnote **, applies to this whole column per Results 3.3 text: ‘Foliar determinations of P and Cu were only significantly different in plants of different age’; K per text ‘increased during the fruit development stage without apparent effect from salinity’) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Zn | 95.1 ± 2.76 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.001 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |
| armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021-T3 | AP | mineral | Mn | 56.4 ± 9.01 | mg/kg | letter ab (Tukey, compared across all stages/salinities within this column, p<0.05); salinity x age interaction p=0.050 (Table 2) | Table 2, p.7 |