Effect of pH on Cucumber Growth and Nutrient Availability in a Decoupled Aquaponic System with Minimal Solids Removal
Metadata
- Cite key: blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: C. Blanchard, D.E. Wells, J.M. Pickens, D.M. Blersch
- Affiliation: Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, 101 Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL 36849, USA (Blanchard, Wells, Pickens); Biosystems Engineering Department, Auburn University, 214 Colley Building, Auburn, AL 36849, USA (Blersch)
- Journal: Horticulturae 6 (2020) 10 (article number; pages 1–12)
- Date: 02/2020
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae6010010
- Funding: United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, grant number 2016-70007-25758
- URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6010010
- PDF:
Blanchard et al. - 2020 - Effect of pH on Cucumber Growth and Nutrient Avail.pdf
Opinion
A genuinely aquaponic (not simulated-hydroponic) pH study, which is rarer in this literature than it should be — real tilapia effluent, real decoupled design, two full growing seasons. The core weakness is methodological rather than conceptual: the acid-injection system never reached its own target pH levels in either season (explicitly admitted, p.3, p.10), so the “pH treatments” are really a compressed actual range (roughly 6.1–6.9) rather than the intended 5.0–7.0 spread. That compression plausibly explains why so few variables showed a treatment effect, and it should temper any claim that “pH doesn’t matter in decoupled aquaponics” — the study may simply not have tested a wide enough realized pH range to see an effect. Useful as a low-nutrient-effluent / high-solids-carryover data point (Table 12 is a nice quantification of how much of the nutrient budget rides on solids rather than solution). The Table 3 citation mix-up (Mills cited as ref [11]/Tyson instead of [15]) is a paper-level sloppiness flag, not a data problem, but it lowers confidence enough to mark this note
suspectpending a closer read.
Abstract
Decoupled aquaponic systems are gaining popularity as a way to manage water quality in aquaponic systems to suit plant and fish growth independently. Aquaponic systems are known to be deficient in several plant-essential elements, which can be affected by solution pH to either increase or decrease available nutrients. To determine the effect of pH in a decoupled aquaponic system, a study was conducted using aquaculture effluent from tilapia culture tanks at four pH treatments: 5.0, 5.8, 6.5, and 7.0, used to irrigate a cucumber crop. Growth and yield parameters, nutrient content of the irrigation water, and nutrients incorporated into the plant tissue were collected over two growing seasons. pH did not have a practical effect on growth rate, internode length or yield over the two growing seasons. Availability and uptake of several nutrients were affected by pH, but there was no overarching effect that would necessitate its use in commercial systems. Nutrient concentrations in the aquaculture effluent would be considered low compared to hydroponic solutions; however, elemental analysis of leaf tissues was within the recommended ranges. Research into other nutrient sources provided by the system (i.e., solid particles carried with the irrigation water) would provide further information into the nutrient dynamics of this system.
Summary
Auburn University researchers irrigated cucumber (‘Delta Star’) grown in perlite-filled Dutch buckets with clarified aquaculture effluent (AE) drawn from tilapia culture tanks, testing four target irrigation pH levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) across a randomized complete block design over two separate growing seasons (spring 2019, citric acid; summer 2019, sulfuric acid). The fish tanks themselves were held at pH 7.0 throughout using hydrated lime, and only ~50% of suspended solids were removed before irrigation (“minimal solids removal”), so plants had access to both the soluble and the particulate fraction of the effluent. Neither season’s acid injection actually reached its target pH — the system was highly buffered — so the realized pH range was much narrower (roughly 6.1–6.9 actual) than the nominal 5.0–7.0 treatments. Growth rate, internode length, and total marketable yield were essentially unaffected by pH treatment; a few individual nutrients (notably foliar P, and Mn and Ca at specific timepoints) showed statistically significant but inconsistent pH-related trends. Despite the irrigation water itself testing well below standard hydroponic nutrient concentrations for nearly every element (except Zn and Cu), leaf tissue analysis showed all measured nutrients within or above recommended sufficiency ranges in both seasons, which the authors attribute to nutrient contributions from accumulated solids in the growing media rather than the liquid alone. The paper concludes that pH adjustment is not necessary for commercial-scale management of this type of decoupled, minimal-solids-removal aquaponic system, and flags the solid nutrient fraction as an under-studied nutrient source deserving further work.
Experiment data
- Location: Auburn University research/production greenhouses, Auburn, AL, USA (fish: 9.1 × 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse; cucumbers: separate research greenhouse)
- Design: Randomized complete block design (RCBD), 4 target pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) × 4 blocks (blocking on greenhouse temperature gradient); spring and summer 2019 trials analyzed separately (different acidifying agent — citric acid vs. sulfuric acid)
- Replicates / n: 4 experimental units per treatment per season (n = 16 plots per season across all 4 treatments); each experimental unit = 4 Dutch buckets/plants, plus 2 border plants per plot for destructive sampling (96 plants total)
- Duration: 60-day production cycle per season (two seasons: spring 2019, summer 2019); tissue/water sampling at 30 and 60 days after transplant (DAT)
- Organisms: Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) ‘Delta Star’ / Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) (effluent source only, not itself experimentally manipulated)
- Statistics: ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block random, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test (PROC TTEST) vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. tissue sufficiency standards (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend tests in PROC GLIMMIX
- Growth rate: 4.67–4.95 cm·day⁻¹ (spring, sig. differences 7.0 vs 5.0), 9.65–9.98 cm·day⁻¹ (summer, ns) — pH treatment vs. treatment
- Yield: 6.01–7.01 kg·plant⁻¹ (spring, ns), 8.24–8.99 kg·plant⁻¹ (summer, ns) — no practical pH effect either season
Irrigation water nutrient chemistry
This paper: Midseason and end-of-season NO3–N in the AE ranged 85–187 mg/L across treatments/timepoints, consistently below the 216 mg/L (total-N basis) hydroponic recommendation (Jones 2005). P, K, Ca, and Mg were likewise statistically lower than hydroponic solution standards in nearly all cases (exceptions: Zn, Cu). K showed only a trivial (1.68%) pH-related change in summer; NO3–N declined 19% (spring) and 6% (summer) from mid- to end-of-season across all treatments. Full per-treatment, per-timepoint values (P, K, Ca, Mg, and micronutrients B/Zn/Mn/Fe/Cu) are logged as NO COLUMN remarks in trials.csv since the schema only has a dedicated water-chemistry slot for NO3–N/TAN/NO2-N.
Compared with:
- todo Zou 2016 — reported an increasing-NO3-with-increasing-pH trend in media-based aquaponics that this paper’s summer data corroborates (p.8)
- todo Da Cerozi & Fitzsimmons 2016 — pH effects on P availability/speciation in aquaponics; this study did not observe the expected pH–P availability relationship in solution, attributed to acid injection not reaching target pH (p.8)
Foliar tissue nutrient status
This paper: Despite chronically low nutrient concentrations in the irrigation water, leaf tissue N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, B, Zn, Mn, Fe, and Cu were all statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels at both 30 and 60 DAT in both seasons — the paper’s headline finding. Foliar P was the most consistently pH-responsive nutrient (quadratic decline of ~16% in spring, linear decline of ~18% in summer, both at midseason). Foliar Mn showed a quadratic response to pH in summer midseason only. All 176 individual tissue-analyte values (macro + micro, both timepoints, both seasons, all 4 pH levels) are recorded in plant.csv under mineral category.
Compared with:
- todo Monsees et al. 2017 — aerobic sludge treatment increases P and K availability; cited by the authors as the likely mechanism explaining why tissue nutrition was adequate despite poor solution chemistry (p.9–10)
Suspended solids as a nutrient reservoir
This paper: Solids captured from plot emitters (one block only, no season specified — see Extraction notes) contained P and Ca as the dominant macronutrients (up to 2628 and 5100 mg/kg dried solids respectively) and Mn and Fe as the dominant micronutrients (up to 2238 and 1125 mg/kg respectively), with B and Cu comparatively scarce. Table 12 quantifies daily nutrient supply at pH 5.8: solids contributed a small but non-trivial share of P (2.06 of 100 mg total daily P supply) and Ca (5.55 of 811 mg), with N entirely from the liquid fraction (solids N not reported/N/A).
Linked claims
- Decoupled aquaponics allows independent optimization of fish and plant pH
- Aquaponic nutrient solutions are typically deficient in K, Ca, Mg, and Fe relative to hydroponic solutions
- Suspended solids in aquaculture effluent are an under-characterized plant nutrient source
- Cucumber tissue nutrient sufficiency can be maintained despite low soluble nutrient concentrations in aquaponic irrigation water
Citations to chase
- todo Tyson et al. 2008 (J. Plant Nutr. 31:2018–2030) — hydroponic-simulated pH study on greenhouse cucumber; concluded pH 7.0 as a compromising pH for aquaponic cucumber production, cited repeatedly as the comparison baseline for this paper
- todo Zou et al. 2016 (Bioresour. Technol. 210:81–87) — pH effects on nitrogen transformations in media-based aquaponics
- todo Da Cerozi & Fitzsimmons 2016 (Bioresour. Technol. 219:778–781) — pH effect on phosphorus availability/speciation in aquaponics nutrient solution
- todo Monsees et al. 2017 (Aquac. Environ. Interact. 9:9–18) — aquacultural sludge treatment/nutrient mobilization under aerobic vs. anaerobic conditions, directly informs this paper’s solids discussion
Extraction notes
Aquaponic component confirmed. This is a genuine aquaponic study, not a simulated-hydroponic pH study: cucumbers were irrigated with real aquaculture effluent from tilapia culture tanks (average 6000 fish/tank, 2 × 102,000 L tanks), passed through passive clarifiers before use, in a decoupled configuration where the fish-tank pH (held at 7.0) and the horticulture-unit pH (the 4 treatments) were managed independently. The fish block in trials.csv is therefore populated where the paper gives data (species, feed composition, tank volume, exchange rate) and NR (not NA) where fish performance data is simply absent — this paper never reports FCR, SGR, survival, or fish weight gain because fish were not themselves an experimental variable.
Contradictions raised (see trials.csv Experimental Remarks for full evidence per trial):
- ⚠️ WARN-BLOCK (misattribution): Table 3’s footnote (p.5) attributes sufficiency levels to “Mills [11]”, but reference [11] in this paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008, not Mills & Jones (1996) — which is correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8, and 9. The numeric values in Table 3 match Tables 5/8/9 exactly, confirming this is a citation-numbering typo internal to the source paper rather than an extraction ambiguity, but per the extraction rules any misattribution forces
quality: suspectfor the whole note. - ⚠️ WARN-MATERIAL: The Results narrative (p.5) describes summer end-of-season foliar Ca decline as “correlat[ing]… to the observed decrease in soluble Ca in AE,” but Table 4’s own summer end-of-season water-Ca values increase (110→118 mg/L, L*** trend) as pH decreases — the opposite direction — and this increase is independently confirmed by the Discussion’s separate, correct statement on p.9 (“Soluble calcium… increased… as target pH decreased”). Table 4’s actual (increasing) values were used; the p.5 “decrease” phrasing is flagged as the erroneous outlier.
- ⚠️ WARN-CHECK (recorded in every trial row): Target pH vs. actual measured pH diverge in both seasons because the acid-injection system never reached its target levels (explicitly stated, p.3, p.10). Both values are recorded together in the
Aq pHcell. - ⚠️ WARN-CHECK: Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10–11) is reported only by pH level, with no season specified in the Methods (“captured from emitters for each treatment in one block”) — unlike every other data table in the paper, which splits Spring/Summer. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials with this caveat.
[not reported] / [unclear] fields, grouped:
- Fish performance: Initial stock density (kg/m³), FCR, SGR, fish size initial/final, fish biomass created, fish survival rate, fish weight gain, fish trial duration — none reported (paper is not a fish-performance study)
- Water quality instrumentation: dissolved oxygen, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N — all stated as “monitored” in Methods but never given a numeric value anywhere in Results
- Plant structural metrics: plant height (only growth rate cm/day given, not absolute height), leaf count (node count collected per Methods but never tabulated), plants/m², plant dry matter (% biomass, distinct from tissue-nutrient %DM), SPAD
- Geographic: Lat/Long not stated anywhere in the paper (Auburn, AL institutional affiliation given, but no coordinates)
[unclear]: whether the “air lift” used to pump effluent to the clarifier constitutes intentional system aeration or is purely a pumping mechanism
NO COLUMN items (see trials.csv remarks for exact values per trial): irrigation water P, K, Ca, Mg (midseason + end-of-season, mg/L); irrigation water micronutrients B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu (midseason + end-of-season, mg/L); suspended-solids nutrient composition (macro + micro, pre-plant/post-plant, mg/kg dried solids); growth rate (cm/day); internode length (cm); Table 12 daily-nutrient-supply comparison (AE vs. hydroponic solution, pH 5.8 only).
Scanned/OCR: Not applicable — PDF has a clean text layer throughout.
New tags introduced: Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/NorthAmerica, Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Cucumber (all pre-existing facets per TAGS.md convention, no new facets invented).
New wikilink targets introduced: Cucumber (Cucumis sativus), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Growth rate, Yield, Decoupled aquaponics allows independent optimization of fish and plant pH, Aquaponic nutrient solutions are typically deficient in K, Ca, Mg, and Fe relative to hydroponic solutions, Suspended solids in aquaculture effluent are an under-characterized plant nutrient source, Cucumber tissue nutrient sufficiency can be maintained despite low soluble nutrient concentrations in aquaponic irrigation water — check vault for existing near-duplicates before treating as new.
Source: Blanchard et al. - 2020 - Effect of pH on Cucumber Growth and Nutrient Avail.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
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 7.0 (actual measured 6.9 ± 0.16, pH units; Spring 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 187 ns -> end-of-season 110 a (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 6590 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 6.59 kg/plant -> 6590 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = Spring 2019, target irrigation pH 7.0 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.9 ± 0.16; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (7.0, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.9 ± 0.16). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 8 ns / end-of-season 20 ns; K midseason 104 ns / end-of-season 171 ns; Ca midseason 187 ns / end-of-season 139 ns; Mg midseason 20 ns / end-of-season 23 ns (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason 0.08 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason 0.08 / end <0.10; Mn midseason 0.03 / end <0.10; Fe midseason 0.03 / end <0.10; Cu midseason 0.03 / end 0.11 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 7.0, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 2075/1672, K 757/519, S 1050/850, Ca 1713/2825, Mg 300/300 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 5/13, Zn 175/150, Mn 625/1250, Fe 850/938, Cu 25/25 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 4.95 a cm/day; Internode length 8.66 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 6.59 kg/plant (ns) -> 6590 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 6.5 (actual measured 6.7 ± 0.22, pH units; Spring 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 183 -> end-of-season 103 ab (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 6010 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 6.01 kg/plant -> 6010 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = Spring 2019, target irrigation pH 6.5 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.7 ± 0.22; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (6.5, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.7 ± 0.22). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 8 / end-of-season 15; K midseason 104 / end-of-season 167; Ca midseason 186 / end-of-season 137; Mg midseason 20 / end-of-season 23 (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason 0.09 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason 0.13 / end <0.10; Mn midseason 0.04 / end <0.10; Fe midseason 0.09 / end <0.10; Cu midseason 0.03 / end 0.15 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 6.5, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 2628/2392, K 591/498, S 1100/875, Ca 2625/4188, Mg 325/300 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 5/1, Zn 188/38, Mn 338/600, Fe 963/488, Cu 25/13 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 4.70 ab cm/day; Internode length 8.63 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 6.01 kg/plant (ns) -> 6010 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 5.8 (actual measured 6.4 ± 0.30, pH units; Spring 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 184 -> end-of-season 98 bc (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 6630 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 6.63 kg/plant -> 6630 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = Spring 2019, target irrigation pH 5.8 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.4 ± 0.30; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (5.8, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.4 ± 0.30). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 8 / end-of-season 19; K midseason 104 / end-of-season 154; Ca midseason 188 / end-of-season 126; Mg midseason 20 / end-of-season 22 (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason 0.09 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason 0.10 / end <0.10; Mn midseason 0.04 / end <0.10; Fe midseason 0.03 / end <0.10; Cu midseason 0.02 / end 0.10 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 5.8, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 1892/1580, K 716/540, S 1150/925, Ca 5100/5013, Mg 350/400 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 5/1, Zn 125/150, Mn 450/2238, Fe 1038/813, Cu 25/13 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 4.67 ab cm/day; Internode length 8.58 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 6.63 kg/plant (ns) -> 6630 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 5.0 (actual measured 6.3 ± 0.46, pH units; Spring 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 171 -> end-of-season 89 c (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 7010 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 7.01 kg/plant -> 7010 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = Spring 2019, target irrigation pH 5.0 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.3 ± 0.46; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (5.0, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.3 ± 0.46). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 8 / end-of-season 13; K midseason 104 / end-of-season 168; Ca midseason 187 / end-of-season 131; Mg midseason 20 / end-of-season 23 (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason 0.08 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason 0.08 / end <0.10; Mn midseason 0.05 / end <0.10; Fe midseason 0.05 / end <0.10; Cu midseason 0.02 / end 0.17 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 5.0, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 1693/2037, K 747/581, S 1213/963, Ca 3550/3238, Mg 350/325 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 1/1, Zn 13/150, Mn 13/1963, Fe 1113/1125, Cu 25/13 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 4.75 b cm/day; Internode length 8.43 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 7.01 kg/plant (ns) -> 7010 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 7.0 (actual measured 6.7 ± 0.22, pH units; Summer 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 93 a -> end-of-season 96 a (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 8390 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 8.39 kg/plant -> 8390 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T5 = Summer 2019, target irrigation pH 7.0 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.7 ± 0.22; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (7.0, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.7 ± 0.22). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Soluble Ca (summer, water) direction of change: Results text (p.5) states ‘This decrease in Ca uptake correlated seemingly well to the observed decrease in soluble Ca in AE at the same timeframe’, describing the summer end-of-season foliar-Ca decline (Table 5: 8.85ab->8.99a->8.54bc->8.24c %DM as target pH 7.0->5.0, a linear ~6.9% decrease, L*). But Table 4 (p.6) end-of-season summer soluble Ca in the irrigation water is 110b->111b->115a->118a mg/L over the SAME pH range (L*** trend), i.e. soluble Ca INCREASES, not decreases, as pH falls — matching the Discussion’s separate, correct statement (p.9): ‘Soluble calcium (Ca)… in AE increased… as target pH decreased from 7.0 to 5.0’. Reconcilable: yes — Table 4’s own numbers and significance letters are internally consistent and corroborated elsewhere in the same paper, so the p.5 ‘decrease’ wording is treated as the erroneous outlier. Table 4’s actual (increasing) values are what is recorded in this row’s NO3-N/NO-COLUMN water remarks and in plant.csv; no cell was changed by this flag, but the authors’ own narrative contradicts itself and should not be quoted as ‘Ca decreased in solution’. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 11 ns / end-of-season 12 ns; K midseason 175 a / end-of-season 98 ns; Ca midseason 108 ns / end-of-season 110 b; Mg midseason 20 ns / end-of-season 28 c (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason <0.10 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason <0.10 / end <0.10; Mn midseason 0.21 / end 0.22; Fe midseason <0.10 / end <0.10; Cu midseason <0.10 / end <0.10 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 7.0, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 2075/1672, K 757/519, S 1050/850, Ca 1713/2825, Mg 300/300 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 5/13, Zn 175/150, Mn 625/1250, Fe 850/938, Cu 25/25 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 9.80 ns cm/day; Internode length 9.50 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 8.39 kg/plant (ns) -> 8390 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 6.5 (actual measured 6.6 ± 0.22, pH units; Summer 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 86 bc -> end-of-season 93 ab (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 8240 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 8.24 kg/plant -> 8240 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T6 = Summer 2019, target irrigation pH 6.5 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.6 ± 0.22; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (6.5, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.6 ± 0.22). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Soluble Ca (summer, water) direction of change: Results text (p.5) states ‘This decrease in Ca uptake correlated seemingly well to the observed decrease in soluble Ca in AE at the same timeframe’, describing the summer end-of-season foliar-Ca decline (Table 5: 8.85ab->8.99a->8.54bc->8.24c %DM as target pH 7.0->5.0, a linear ~6.9% decrease, L*). But Table 4 (p.6) end-of-season summer soluble Ca in the irrigation water is 110b->111b->115a->118a mg/L over the SAME pH range (L*** trend), i.e. soluble Ca INCREASES, not decreases, as pH falls — matching the Discussion’s separate, correct statement (p.9): ‘Soluble calcium (Ca)… in AE increased… as target pH decreased from 7.0 to 5.0’. Reconcilable: yes — Table 4’s own numbers and significance letters are internally consistent and corroborated elsewhere in the same paper, so the p.5 ‘decrease’ wording is treated as the erroneous outlier. Table 4’s actual (increasing) values are what is recorded in this row’s NO3-N/NO-COLUMN water remarks and in plant.csv; no cell was changed by this flag, but the authors’ own narrative contradicts itself and should not be quoted as ‘Ca decreased in solution’. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 11 / end-of-season 13; K midseason 173 b / end-of-season 98; Ca midseason 106 / end-of-season 111 b; Mg midseason 19 / end-of-season 29 bc (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason <0.10 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason <0.10 / end <0.10; Mn midseason 0.21 / end 0.22; Fe midseason <0.10 / end 0.45; Cu midseason <0.10 / end <0.10 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 6.5, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 2628/2392, K 591/498, S 1100/875, Ca 2625/4188, Mg 325/300 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 5/1, Zn 188/38, Mn 338/600, Fe 963/488, Cu 25/13 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 9.73 ns cm/day; Internode length 9.70 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 8.24 kg/plant (ns) -> 8240 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 5.8 (actual measured 6.3 ± 0.45, pH units; Summer 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 88 b -> end-of-season 93 ab (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 8840 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 8.84 kg/plant -> 8840 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T7 = Summer 2019, target irrigation pH 5.8 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.3 ± 0.45; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (5.8, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.3 ± 0.45). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Soluble Ca (summer, water) direction of change: Results text (p.5) states ‘This decrease in Ca uptake correlated seemingly well to the observed decrease in soluble Ca in AE at the same timeframe’, describing the summer end-of-season foliar-Ca decline (Table 5: 8.85ab->8.99a->8.54bc->8.24c %DM as target pH 7.0->5.0, a linear ~6.9% decrease, L*). But Table 4 (p.6) end-of-season summer soluble Ca in the irrigation water is 110b->111b->115a->118a mg/L over the SAME pH range (L*** trend), i.e. soluble Ca INCREASES, not decreases, as pH falls — matching the Discussion’s separate, correct statement (p.9): ‘Soluble calcium (Ca)… in AE increased… as target pH decreased from 7.0 to 5.0’. Reconcilable: yes — Table 4’s own numbers and significance letters are internally consistent and corroborated elsewhere in the same paper, so the p.5 ‘decrease’ wording is treated as the erroneous outlier. Table 4’s actual (increasing) values are what is recorded in this row’s NO3-N/NO-COLUMN water remarks and in plant.csv; no cell was changed by this flag, but the authors’ own narrative contradicts itself and should not be quoted as ‘Ca decreased in solution’. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 12 / end-of-season 14; K midseason 173 b / end-of-season 98; Ca midseason 106 / end-of-season 115 a; Mg midseason 19 / end-of-season 29 b (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason <0.10 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason <0.10 / end 0.12; Mn midseason 0.21 / end 0.25; Fe midseason <0.10 / end 0.22; Cu midseason <0.10 / end <0.10 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 5.8, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 1892/1580, K 716/540, S 1150/925, Ca 5100/5013, Mg 350/400 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 5/1, Zn 125/150, Mn 450/2238, Fe 1038/813, Cu 25/13 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 9.65 ns cm/day; Internode length 9.65 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 8.84 kg/plant (ns) -> 8840 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Protein | 36 |
| P | 0.9 |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily until satiation with commercial aquaculture feed (36% crude protein, 6% crude fat, 3.5% crude fiber, 0.9% phosphorus; Cargill, Franklinton, LA) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 204000 L (fish tanks only; 2 x 102,000 L rectangular tanks, p.2; excludes 2 x 1500 L clarifiers) |
| Water type | Aquaculture effluent (AE) from tilapia culture, clarified via two passive clarifiers (~50% suspended solids removed) (p.2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 5% (approx. 5100 L of 102,000 L tank volume replaced with fresh water daily, p.2) |
| Aq pH | Target 5.0 (actual measured 6.1 ± 0.70, pH units; Summer 2019, Tables 1-9, p.4-8) |
| pHOptimal | NR (paper concludes ‘no consistent increase in nutrient availability or uptake that would necessitate the use of pH adjustment’, p.10 — no optimal pH identified) |
| NO3-N | mg/L, midseason 85 c -> end-of-season 90 b (range only, not a trial mean; two point-in-time samplings at 30 and 60 DAT, Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Delta Star’) |
| Details | Seeds sown in 72-count round-cell (58 mL) trays; transplanted upon emergence of true leaves into 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets, 100% perlite; vines trained on Bato bobbins to 2.1 m trellis, then leaned/lowered; lateral stems removed (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 & 60 (tissue and water sampling, p.3); yield summed at end of 60-day cycle length (p.3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 8990 ns (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 8.99 kg/plant -> 8990 g/plant; marketable fruit yield, sum over 60-day cycle, Table 1, p.4) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled, media-based (perlite/Dutch bucket), biofloc-type aquaponic system with minimal solids removal (two passive 1500 L cone-bottom clarifiers in series, ~50% solids removal) (p.2, title) |
| Media Details | 100% perlite media in 11 L rectangular Dutch buckets (Crop King Inc., Lodi, OH) (p.2) |
| Air supplement | Y (‘Aquaculture effluent was continuously pumped into the first clarifier using an air lift’ (p.2); fish tank ammonia and dissolved oxygen ‘remained within acceptable levels for fish production for the duration of the experiment’ (p.2), implying maintained aeration, though no dedicated aerator/blower device is separately named — [unclear] whether the air lift itself was intended as system aeration or purely as a pumping mechanism.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Hydrated lime slurry added to the fish culture tank ‘several times a week as needed to raise pH to the appropriate level’ to maintain fish-tank pH at 7.0 (p.2); acid injection (1M citric acid, spring 2019; 33% sulfuric acid, summer 2019) via Chemilizer injectors to lower irrigation water toward target treatment pH (p.3); target levels not fully achieved due to high system buffering capacity (p.10).) |
| Climate control | Y (Fish production in a 9.1 x 29.3 m double polyethylene-covered greenhouse (p.2); cucumbers grown in a separate research greenhouse; a randomized complete block design (4 blocks) was used specifically ‘to account for a temperature gradient in the greenhouse’ (p.2), implying no active elimination of that gradient.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No external nutrient solution or fertilizer was added; plants were irrigated solely with (pH-adjusted) clarified aquaculture effluent throughout. The paper’s central question is whether AE alone — found to be statistically lower in most macro/micronutrients than standard hydroponic solution (p.9) — was sufficient without supplementation; Conclusions (p.11) attribute adequate tissue nutrition to solids accumulation/mineralization in the media rather than any added fertilizer.) |
| Equipment | Chemilizer chemical injectors (Hydro Systems Co.); inline static mixer (Johnson Screens); Sterling 30 irrigation controller (Superior Controls); HI9813-6 pH/EC/TDS/Temperature meter (Hanna Instruments); L-AQUA twin handheld meters (Horiba); two 1500 L cone-bottom passive clarifiers in series; air-lift pump (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | Irrigation (horticulture-unit) water pH held at 4 target levels (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) via acid injection; fish-tank pH separately maintained at 7.0 via hydrated lime (p.2-3) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (yield, converted to g/plant for Plant fresh weight); cm/day (growth rate, NO COLUMN); cm (internode length, NO COLUMN); mg/L (water nutrients); % or mg/kg dry matter (foliar tissue, see plant.csv) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA via PROC GLIMMIX + LSMEANS (block as random effect, Type III SS), SAS 9.4; Dunnett’s test via PROC TTEST vs. hydroponic solution standards (Resh 2008); PROC TTEST vs. standard tissue sufficiency levels (Mills & Jones 1996); linear/quadratic trend analysis in PROC GLIMMIX (p.4) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 (4 RCBD blocks per treatment per season; n=16 plots across all 4 treatments per season for tissue/water sampling, p.2-3) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T8 = Summer 2019, target irrigation pH 5.0 (aquaculture effluent, AE, from tilapia culture, clarified ~50% solids removed), actual measured pH 6.1 ± 0.70; one of 4 pH treatments (7.0, 6.5, 5.8, 5.0) x 2 seasons (Spring 2019 with 1M citric acid, Summer 2019 with 33% sulfuric acid as acidifying agent) analyzed separately by the authors ‘due to acid type and seasonal changes’ (p.3). No pH-adjustment applied to the target-7.0 treatment (‘acid was not added to one treatment level, target pH of 7.0, to observe the effects of unadjusted aquaculture effluent on plant growth’, p.3). RCBD, 4 blocks (temperature-gradient blocking), n=4 experimental units per treatment per season (16 plots total per season across all 4 treatments). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper — all 8 trials are aquaponic AE at different pH; AP/HYD columns set NA, AP vs HP left empty. | WARN-CHECK Aq pH target vs. actual: target pH levels were explicitly NOT reached in either season — ‘Citric acid was used to adjust pH in the spring trial; however, target levels were not reached’ and ‘Sulfuric acid was used in the summer trial, and while treatment pH was lower… target pH levels were still not reached’ (p.3); Conclusions (p.10) attribute this to high system buffering capacity (hydrated lime additions to the fish tank, high solid/soluble organic matter, possible denitrification in irrigation lines). Two candidate values per trial: nominal/target (5.0, used for trial labelling and matches how every table in the paper is organized) vs. measured/actual (6.1 ± 0.70). Both recorded together in the Aq pH cell since they measure different things (intended treatment vs. delivered treatment) and the paper itself reports both side by side in every table; this is a CHECK not a BLOCK because neither value is wrong, they are simply not the same quantity. | WARN-BLOCK Mills/Tyson citation mix-up (misattribution): Table 3 footnote (p.5) reads ‘Sufficiency levels obtained from Mills [11]’, but reference [11] in the paper’s own reference list is Tyson et al. 2008 ‘Effect of Water pH on Yield and Nutritional Status of Greenhouse Cucumber…’ — Mills is actually reference [15] (Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B. Plant Analysis Handbook II, 1996), correctly cited as [15] in the equivalent footnotes of Tables 5, 8 and 9 (pp.6-7). This is a citation-numbering error internal to the source paper, not an extraction ambiguity: the numeric sufficiency values in Table 3 (N4.30/P0.30/K3.10/Ca2.40/Mg0.35/S0.32) are identical to those in Tables 5/8/9, confirming Mills & Jones 1996 is the true source and [11] is a typo for [15]. Per the rule that any misattribution is BLOCK and forces quality:suspect, flagged here; does not change any recorded foliar value (Table 3 numbers used as printed) but forced quality:suspect for the whole paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Soluble Ca (summer, water) direction of change: Results text (p.5) states ‘This decrease in Ca uptake correlated seemingly well to the observed decrease in soluble Ca in AE at the same timeframe’, describing the summer end-of-season foliar-Ca decline (Table 5: 8.85ab->8.99a->8.54bc->8.24c %DM as target pH 7.0->5.0, a linear ~6.9% decrease, L*). But Table 4 (p.6) end-of-season summer soluble Ca in the irrigation water is 110b->111b->115a->118a mg/L over the SAME pH range (L*** trend), i.e. soluble Ca INCREASES, not decreases, as pH falls — matching the Discussion’s separate, correct statement (p.9): ‘Soluble calcium (Ca)… in AE increased… as target pH decreased from 7.0 to 5.0’. Reconcilable: yes — Table 4’s own numbers and significance letters are internally consistent and corroborated elsewhere in the same paper, so the p.5 ‘decrease’ wording is treated as the erroneous outlier. Table 4’s actual (increasing) values are what is recorded in this row’s NO3-N/NO-COLUMN water remarks and in plant.csv; no cell was changed by this flag, but the authors’ own narrative contradicts itself and should not be quoted as ‘Ca decreased in solution’. | WARN-CHECK Solids nutrient composition (Tables 10-11, p.8) not partitioned by season: Methods (p.3) state ‘AE for solids collection was captured from emitters for each treatment in one block’, with no season specified, and Tables 10/11 report a single Pre-Plant/Post-Plant pair per pH level with no Spring/Summer split, unlike every other data table in the paper (1-9) which give separate Spring/Summer values. It is not stated whether this represents one season, an average, or a single one-off sampling. Recorded identically under both same-pH trials (spring and summer) below with this caveat attached; no basis to prefer one season’s attribution over the other. | NO COLUMN (irrigation water macronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column beyond NO3-N): P midseason 12 / end-of-season 13; K midseason 172 b / end-of-season 98; Ca midseason 105 / end-of-season 118 a; Mg midseason 19 / end-of-season 30 a (Tables 2 & 4, p.5-6). All measured levels of these elements were statistically lower than standard hydroponic cucumber solution recommendations (Resh 2008, via Dunnett’s/TTEST) in both seasons and timepoints, except Zn and Cu (p.9). | NO COLUMN (irrigation water micronutrients, mg/L, no dedicated column): B midseason <0.10 / end-of-season <0.10; Zn midseason <0.10 / end 0.13; Mn midseason 0.22 / end 0.27; Fe midseason <0.10 / end 1.13; Cu midseason <0.10 / end <0.10 (Tables 6 & 7, p.7). Recommended levels (Jones 2005): B 0.70, Zn N/A (not given), Mn 1.97, Fe 6.85, Cu 0.07 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (suspended-solids nutrient content, mg/kg dried solids, Pre-Plant/Post-Plant, target pH 5.0, no dedicated column; see WARN-CHECK above on season attribution): macronutrients — P 1693/2037, K 747/581, S 1213/963, Ca 3550/3238, Mg 350/325 (Table 10, p.8); micronutrients — B 1/1, Zn 13/150, Mn 13/1963, Fe 1113/1125, Cu 25/13 (Table 11, p.8). | NO COLUMN (no dedicated column for these growth metrics): Growth rate 9.98 ns cm/day; Internode length 9.70 ns cm (Table 1, p.4). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Yield 8.99 kg/plant (ns) -> 8990 g/plant, recorded in ‘Plant fresh weight’ (Table 1, p.4); marketable fruit only (15-25 cm, free of damage), summed over a 60-day cycle. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (6000 tilapia average per 102,000 L tank stated as a count, not kg/m3, p.2); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (no fish growth/production data reported anywhere — this paper studies effluent chemistry and cucumber response, not fish performance); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (initial/final height and node counts were collected per Methods p.3 solely to compute growth rate and internode length, but raw height/node values themselves are never tabulated); Plants/m2 (bucket/plot layout given, no per-area planting density stated); Tissue nitrate AP (paper reports total leaf N as %DM via ICPES, never nitrate-N in tissue specifically, so this is a different analyte, not a missing number); DO, EC, water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (all stated as ‘monitored’ in Methods p.3 but no numeric value, range or figure given anywhere in Results). | Fish Category NR: paper names only species and count (‘tilapia’, Oreochromis niloticus, average 6000/tank), no life-stage or category term given. Water classification NR: paper distinguishes ‘aquaculture effluent (AE)’ from ‘fresh water’ (pond-sourced tank make-up) but does not further classify AE itself (e.g. no salinity/hardness class given). | Foliar tissue macro- and micronutrient values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,S,B,Zn,Mn,Fe,Cu; midseason=30 DAT and end-of-season=60 DAT) recorded separately in plant.csv (mineral category), not in this row; all foliar values in both seasons and both timepoints were statistically above Mills & Jones (1996) sufficiency levels (p.5,7,9) despite the irrigation water being statistically below hydroponic recommended levels — paper’s central finding (Discussion, p.9, Conclusions p.10-11).
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.98 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.68 | % dry matter | a | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.95 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 8.36 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.58 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.76 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.26 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.54 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 4.11 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.46 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.41 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.23 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 60 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 95 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 46 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 106 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 12 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 58 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 95 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 60 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 104 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 12 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.96 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.52 | % dry matter | b | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.65 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 8.16 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.56 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.74 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.16 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.44 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 4.06 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.61 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.42 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.19 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 57 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 84 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 47 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 116 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 12 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 50 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 95 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 55 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 96 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 11 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.88 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.54 | % dry matter | b | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.59 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 7.65 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.54 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.74 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 4.84 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.44 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 3.82 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 4.92 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.40 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.07 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 55 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 82 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 46 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 120 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 11 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 48 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 86 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 54 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 93 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 11 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.90 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.57 | % dry matter | b | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.31 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 8.28 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.58 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.74 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.23 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.55 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 4.08 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.52 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.43 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.20 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 59 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 92 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 47 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 119 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 12 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 53 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 98 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 57 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 94.5 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 12 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 5.72 | % dry matter | ab | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.62 | % dry matter | a | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.19 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.56 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.46 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.98 | % dry matter | ns | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 3.94 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.38 | % dry matter | a | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 2.70 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 8.85 | % dry matter | ab | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.59 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.45 | % dry matter | ns | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 43 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 80 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 184 | mg/kg dry matter | ab | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 144 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 11 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 59 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 69 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 391 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 107 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T5 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 11 | mg/kg dry matter | ns | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 5.57 | % dry matter | c | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.51 | % dry matter | b | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.38 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.71 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.51 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.90 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 4.48 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.32 | % dry matter | b | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 2.50 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 8.99 | % dry matter | a | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.63 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.43 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 38 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 61 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 118 | mg/kg dry matter | c | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 78 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 9 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 53 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 59 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 342 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 100 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 10 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 5.85 | % dry matter | a | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.54 | % dry matter | b | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.18 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.10 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.51 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 1.09 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.10 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.33 | % dry matter | b | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 2.52 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 8.54 | % dry matter | bc | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.62 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.51 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 40 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 62 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 166 | mg/kg dry matter | b | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 89 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 10 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 53 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 67 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 285 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 101 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 10 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (midseason, 30 DAT) | 5.68 | % dry matter | bc | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.51 | % dry matter | b | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (midseason, 30 DAT) | 3.31 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (midseason, 30 DAT) | 4.47 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (midseason, 30 DAT) | 0.46 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (midseason, 30 DAT) | 1.03 | % dry matter | NR | Table 3, p.5 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf N (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 5.16 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf P (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.34 | % dry matter | b | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf K (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 2.66 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Ca (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 8.24 | % dry matter | c | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mg (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 0.62 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf S (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 1.54 | % dry matter | NR | Table 5, p.6 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (midseason, 30 DAT) | 38 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 79 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (midseason, 30 DAT) | 214 | mg/kg dry matter | a | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (midseason, 30 DAT) | 86 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (midseason, 30 DAT) | 10 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 8, p.7 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf B (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 54 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Zn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 77 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Mn (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 367 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Fe (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 109 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |
| blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf Cu (end-of-season, 60 DAT) | 10 | mg/kg dry matter | NR | Table 9, p.8 |