Exploring the Potential of Biostimulants to Optimize Lettuce Cultivation in Coupled and Decoupled Aquaponics Systems

Metadata

Cite key: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: Eirini Chandrou, Sofia Faliagka, Anastasia Mourantian, Marios Georgios Kollaros, Katerina Karamanoli, Eleftheria-Maria Pechlivani, Nikolaos Katsoulas, Efi Levizou
Affiliation: Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, N. Ionia, Volos, Greece; School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; Information Technologies Institute, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece
Journal: Horticulturae 10 (2024) 514
Date: 05/2024 (Received 9 April 2024; Revised 14 May 2024; Accepted 15 May 2024; Published 16 May 2024)
Date added: [not reported]
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae10050514
Funding: PestNu project, European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Green Deal grant agreement No. 101037128
URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10050514
PDF: Chandrou et al. - 2024 - Exploring the Potential of Biostimulants to Optimize Lettuce Cultivation in Coupled and Decoupled Aq.pdf

Opinion

A well-designed, cleanly reported two-factor experiment (cultivation system x biostimulant) from a research group with a strong track record at this exact facility (their own Aslanidou et al. 2022/2023 and Mourantian et al. 2023 papers share the site and fish stock). Table 2 (leaf mineral content) is internally very consistent — I recomputed several of its own narrated percentage differences (K -30%, N -22%, Na +172-193%, Ca +90-107% at D38) and all check out almost exactly. The D56 paragraph is the one weak spot: the stated “Na+ 4-5.7 times higher” and “Ca2+ … 23% decrease” don’t reproduce cleanly from Table 2’s own numbers (see Extraction notes, both WARN-MINOR, no cell affected since Table 2’s raw values are what get extracted). The paper’s biggest limitation for reuse is that most of its physiological/growth headline results (fresh weight, leaf count, SPAD, PRI, fluorescence JIP parameters) live only in bar/radar-chart figures with no absolute numbers in text or a table — so despite being a rich physiological study, very little of it is extractable into trials.csv/plant.csv under the “never read a value off a figure” rule. The metabolomics dataset (49 metabolites) is likewise heatmap-only in the main PDF; the real numbers are in Supplementary Table S2, not provided here. Would cite for the Table 2 mineral data and the qualitative CAP-vs-DCAP-vs-HP story, but would not treat the fresh-weight/leaf-count percentage claims as citable numbers without pulling the supplementary files.

Abstract

Zero-discharge and low-input aquaponics systems are a promising alternative to the intensive agricultural and aquacultural production systems currently used, ensuring high environmental sustainability. However, new approaches and management practices are needed to increase their productivity to reach the yields of classic production systems. In this context, the present study investigated for the first time the potential of two biostimulants to improve lettuce performance in aquaponics, whether coupled or decoupled, with hydroponics serving as a control. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted to assess the plant functional (focusing on the photosynthetic process evaluation) and growth responses at the whole-plant level. In addition, the nutritional state of the leaves was determined and metabolomic analysis was performed at the cellular level, the latter also for the first time in aquaponics research. The results demonstrated the limitations that coupled aquaponics poses in relation to lettuce growth, function and metabolism, which were already obvious from the 12th day of the experiment. Indicatively, the plants grown under coupled aquaponics exhibited a notable decrease in the leaf fresh weight, potassium content and nitrogen content, with reductions of 80%, 60%, and 30%, respectively, in comparison to the hydroponics control. However, the combined physiological and metabolomic data indicate that these plants down-regulate processes and metabolism to acclimate to low nutrient levels in lettuce leaves rather than experiencing damage. The application of biostimulants did not significantly optimize the plants’ performance, though one of them appeared to be effective in improving some aspects of the photochemical efficiency. The decoupled and hydroponics systems resulted in similarly high yields and efficiency in terms of plant function, without any marked contribution from the biostimulants. We conclude that the decoupled aquaponics system has been successful in achieving yields comparable to those of hydroponics, with lower chemical inputs. Future studies should focus on examining other biostimulants in this system to further improve its performance while maintaining its environmental benefits within a circular economy framework.

Summary

The authors grew lettuce (cv. Station) in a pilot greenhouse in Velestino, Greece, in a 3x3 factorial design: three cultivation systems (hydroponics/HP, decoupled aquaponics/DCAP, coupled aquaponics/CAP, all sharing one red tilapia RAS) crossed with three biostimulant regimes (none, BS1, BS2, both foliar-sprayed amino-acid/peptide formulations), over a 56-day growing period. They tracked growth (fresh weight, leaf count at three harvests), photosynthetic function (SPAD, PRI, chlorophyll a fluorescence/JIP test across five time points), leaf total phenolics, leaf mineral content (N, K, Na, Ca at two time points), and — for the first time in aquaponics research — polar metabolomics via GC-MS. CAP plants were consistently and substantially worse off than HP and DCAP on growth, chlorophyll, and photosynthetic performance indices from as early as day 12, with parallel deficits in leaf K and N and excesses in leaf Na and Ca; DCAP, in contrast, tracked HP closely on almost every measure. Biostimulants had essentially no effect on growth or the leaf mineral profile, though BS2 in the DCAP system produced a distinct metabolomic signature (elevated amino acids, TCA-cycle organic acids, and sugars) without translating into extra biomass. The authors interpret the CAP plants’ physiology and metabolome as a controlled acclimation response to nutrient scarcity rather than as damage, and conclude that decoupled aquaponics is the more promising route to hydroponic-equivalent lettuce yields with a smaller chemical footprint than DCAP’s fertilizer top-up currently requires.

Experiment data

Location: Pilot-scale aquaponics greenhouse, University of Thessaly, Velestino (stated “39°44′ N, 22°79′ E”; recovered as decimal 39.44° N, 22.79° E — see Extraction notes), Central Greece

Design: Two-factor factorial: cultivation system (HP, DCAP, CAP) x biostimulant (none, BS1, BS2) = 9 treatments, 60 lettuce plants/treatment (540 total), perlite slabs, drip irrigation

Replicates / n: 6 (growth/harvest measurements); 20 (SPAD, PRI, chl a fluorescence); 10 (total phenolics); 6 (leaf N/K/Na/Ca, Table 2); 4 (metabolomics) — see Extraction notes

Duration: 56 days (November 2021-January 2022); harvests at D26, D38, D56

Organisms: Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) cv. Station / Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) (system component only, not itself measured — see Extraction notes)

Statistics: Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant), Tukey post hoc (or Kruskal-Wallis + Dunn’s if ANOVA assumptions failed), p<=0.05, JASP v.0.18.1

Leaf potassium content: CAP treatments 30% lower than HP/DCAP at D38, 60% lower at D56 (Table 2, p.9)

Leaf fresh weight: CAP 72.6% lower than HP/DCAP at D26, 80% lower at D56 — values only in Fig. 1a bar chart, no absolute numbers in text (NR in trials.csv)

Cultivation system effects on growth and physiology

This paper: CAP lettuce was significantly smaller than HP and DCAP lettuce at every harvest (72.6% lower fresh weight at D26, rising to 80% at D54/D56; 21.7-28.7% fewer leaves), with DCAP statistically indistinguishable from HP throughout. The same CAP-vs-(HP=DCAP) pattern held for SPAD (total chlorophyll), PRI (light-use-efficiency proxy, reaching negative values in CAP on D19), and the chl a fluorescence JIP-test performance index (PItotal), with functional impairment detectable from D12. Biostimulants had no significant effect on growth in any treatment and did not rescue CAP performance, though BS1/BS2 produced small, non-significant partial improvements in some fluorescence parameters in CAP on certain dates.

Compared with:

todo Yang and Kim 2020 — comparable HP yield but a better-performing CAP system reaching 68% of HP (this paper’s CAP reached only ~20% of HP/DCAP at final harvest). (p.11)
todo Nozzi et al. 2018 — CAP lettuce fresh weight 260 g (75% of HP), achieved by daily Fe/K/P supplementation to the aquaponic water. (p.11)
todo Delaire et al. 2016 — surprisingly low HP yield (~90 g/plant, similar to CAP), while DCAP outperformed both at 136 g/plant; described as a discrepancy with this paper’s own DCAP-approx-HP result. (p.11)
todo Tsoumalakou et al. 2022 — “minimal input” CAP lettuce reached HP-comparable yield by adding only K+ and Fe2+ at hydroponic concentrations. (p.12)

Leaf nutritional state (N, K+, Na+, Ca2+)

This paper: Table 2 (verbatim values extracted to plant.csv, category mineral). At D38, total N did not differ significantly among treatments except CAP-BS2 (22% lower than HP); all CAP treatments showed ~30% lower K+ and 172-193% higher Na+ and 90-107% higher Ca2+ than HP/DCAP, with no significant differences between any HP and DCAP variant. At D56, all CAP treatments had deteriorated further on every element (N ~30% lower, K+ ~60% lower than HP; Na+ stated as “4-5.7 times higher,” reaching 12.01 mg g DW⁻¹; Ca2+ stated as “23% lower” in CAP only) — see Extraction notes for a recompute check on the two D56 narrative figures (WARN-MINOR, no cell affected). DCAP-BS2 stood out at D56 with K+ significantly lower than all other DCAP/HP treatments (50.79 mg g DW⁻¹) yet still double the CAP treatments’ K+.

Compared with:

todo Roosta et al. — foliar K application at HP/DCAP-equivalent levels significantly enhanced biomass and leaf K+ in a different aquaponic crop; cited to interpret the CAP K+ deficit here. (p.12)
todo Yang and Kim 2020 — reported similar CAP/HP leaf Na+ concentrations (11.8 vs 3.6 mg g DW⁻¹) with no adverse growth effect attributed to Na+ alone. (p.12)
todo Hnilickova et al. — reported that ~30 mg g DW⁻¹ leaf Na is needed before lettuce growth/function is disturbed, well above this paper’s CAP values (8-12 mg g DW⁻¹), used to argue Na+ alone doesn’t explain the CAP growth deficit. (p.12)

Total phenolics

This paper: Measured by Folin-Ciocalteu at D26, D38, D56 (10 replicates/treatment). Remained broadly similar across treatments at D26; by D38 all CAP-related treatments were significantly higher than all HP-related treatments and DCAP-BS2, with HP the lowest (13 mg GAE/100 g DW) and CAP-BS2 the highest (21 mg GAE/100 g DW) — the only two absolute values stated in running text, extracted to plant.csv (category biochemistry). By D56, all three CAP treatments were higher than the others (CAP ~47% higher than HP), but only relative/percentage figures are given in text for that date.

Metabolomics (GC-MS polar metabolite profile)

This paper: 49 metabolites identified (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other), quantified by relative abundance vs. an internal standard (adonitol) and presented only as a heatmap of fold-change vs. HP control (Fig. 5) — actual values are in Supplementary Table S2, not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. DCAP, DCAP-BS2, and HP-BS2 showed broad increases across amino acids, organic acids (notably TCA-cycle intermediates: citric, malic, succinic, isocitric acids), and sugars relative to HP; CAP and CAP-BS1 showed the opposite pattern (10 significantly decreased metabolites). Common responses across all treatments: decreased threonine, xylose, and butyric acid; increased aspartic acid, glycine, oxalic acid, succinic acid, and meso-erythritol.

Not entered in plant.csv: no absolute numeric values available in the main text/figures per the “never read a value off a figure” rule; see Extraction notes.

Linked claims

Citations to chase

todo Yang and Kim (2020) — CAP/HP/DCAP tomato/basil/lettuce nutrient mass balance, comparison CAP:HP yield and Na benchmarks
todo Nozzi et al. (2018) — Fe/K/P daily supplementation raising CAP lettuce yield to 75% of HP
todo Delaide et al. (2016) — DCAP lettuce outperforming both HP and CAP
todo Tsoumalakou et al. (2022) — “minimal input” K+/Fe2+ supplementation restoring CAP lettuce yield
todo Roosta (foliar K application study cited on p.12) — K+ foliar application effect on biomass/leaf K+
todo Hnilickova et al. — Na threshold (~30 mg g DW⁻¹) before lettuce growth disturbance
todo Aslanidou et al. (2022/2023) — full RAS/greenhouse system description this paper defers to (same facility; already in vault as aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023)
todo Mourantian et al. (2023) — same facility, basil functional/growth responses across CAP/DCAP/HP

Extraction notes

Severity tally: 0 ⚠️BLOCK, 0 ⚠️MATERIAL, 1 ⚠️CHECK, 2 ⚠️MINOR → quality: ok (0 BLOCK and <=2 MATERIAL per SCHEMA.md scoring table; CHECK and MINOR do not affect the score).

RESOLVED coordinate issue (not scored as BLOCK): Methods p.3 states “39°44′ N, 22°79′ E.” 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), the classic signature of decimal degrees mis-typeset with degree/minute symbols. Read as decimal (39.44° N, 22.79° E), this is geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site, Velestino, Central Greece. The same facility, fish stock, and an identical coordinate string/typo were already resolved exactly this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group’s paper on the same pilot greenhouse, already in this vault) — an independent cross-check confirming the recovery. Recorded Lat=39.44, Long=22.79 in all 6 trial rows.
⚠️CHECK — “Days Plant after transplant” basis unstated. The paper reports harvests on D26, D38, D56 and physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, plus BS applications on D7/D27/D40, but never explicitly states what “Day” is counted from (the “growing period” start is mentioned only generally, p.3-4; total experiment duration is stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D0=transplant, the conventional reading and consistent with the stated 56-day total duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed anywhere in the text. Added to REVIEW.md.
⚠️MINOR — Na+ “4-5.7 times higher” (D56) does not reproduce cleanly from Table 2. Results text p.9: “Na+ was 4–5.7 times higher in CAP than in HP… reaching 12.01 mg g DW−1.” Recomputing directly from Table 2’s own D56 values with matched BS-level pairs: CAP/HP = 11.49/3.20 = 3.59x; CAP-BS1/HP-BS1 = 11.97/2.45 = 4.89x; CAP-BS2/HP-BS2 = 12.01/2.22 = 5.41x — a 3.59-5.41x range, narrower and lower than the stated 4-5.7x, with the unmatched-BS-level CAP/HP pair falling below the stated minimum entirely. Not reconcilable with certainty (unclear which pairing convention, if any, the authors used), but doesn’t affect any extracted cell: plant.csv records Table 2’s raw per-treatment values directly, not this narrative ratio.
⚠️MINOR — Ca2+ “23% decrease” (D56) does not reproduce cleanly from Table 2. Same paragraph, p.9: “the CAP treatment exhibiting a significant decrease of 23% compared to all three HP treatments” (Ca2+, D56). Recompute: (9.34−6.14)/9.34 = 34.3%, not 23%. For comparison, the equivalent D38 narrative percentages (K −30%, N −22%, Na +172-193%, Ca +90-107%) all reproduce almost exactly from Table 2, so this looks like an isolated arithmetic slip specific to the D56 paragraph rather than a systematic problem. No cell affected (same reasoning as above).
Judgment call — no Meta/Fish/Tilapia tag. Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) is reared in the shared RAS and its feed composition/stocking density are reported (p.4), but the paper reports zero fish-specific outcome data (no FCR, growth, survival, or fish physiology) — fish are purely infrastructure for generating the tested water/nutrient conditions, not a studied organism. This differs from aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish), which is tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia; that paper at least analyses RAS solution chemistry as a fish-system output in some depth. Noted here for consistency-tracking across the vault’s sibling papers, not corrected in either note.

[not reported] fields (grouped by field name): Fish Category, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration, Water recycle (flow rate), Water volume in the system (total), Water classification, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, Dissolved Oxygen, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Plant Category, Plants/m2, SPAD (aquaponics — bar-chart only), Plant height, Leaf count (bar-chart only), Plant fresh weight/AP/HYD yield (bar-chart only), Plant dry matter, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (paper measured total leaf N via Kjeldahl, not nitrate ion specifically), Average room Temperature, Air supplement (Y/N/Details). Most of these are explicitly deferred by the authors to their own previous articles [8,9] describing the shared facility (p.3) rather than genuinely absent from the research — see “Fish/water-system details… not stated in this paper” remark repeated in each trial row.

[unclear] fields: none.

Scanned PDF check: clean, embedded text layer throughout (not a scan); not added to NEEDS_OCR.md.

No water quality panel excluded from plant.csv: this paper reports no water-chemistry panel at all (no TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, DO in any table or text) — nothing to route or exclude on that front. The dataset excluded from plant.csv is instead a plant panel: the 49-metabolite GC-MS profile (Fig. 5, heatmap only; absolute values in Supplementary Table S2, not provided in this PDF) and the chl a fluorescence JIP-test/SPAD/PRI physiological time series (Figs. 2-3, bar/radar charts only, no absolute numbers in running text).

New tags introduced: none — Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/Europe, and Meta/Plant/Lettuce all reused exactly as already spelled in existing vault notes (e.g. aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 for Europe; andersonGrowthTissueElemental2017/tadesseComprehensiveComparisonLettuce2023 for Lettuce).

New wikilink targets introduced: Eirini Chandrou, Sofia Faliagka, Anastasia Mourantian, Marios Georgios Kollaros, Katerina Karamanoli, Eleftheria-Maria Pechlivani, Nikolaos Katsoulas, Efi Levizou, Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Leaf potassium content, Leaf fresh weight, Coupled aquaponics produces nutrient-deficient solution relative to hydroponics, Decoupled aquaponics can match hydroponic lettuce yield with lower chemical inputs, Plant biostimulants do not substitute for fertilization under high nutrient demand, Nutrient-limited aquaponic lettuce down-regulates rather than damages its photosynthetic apparatus. Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) already exists in the vault (used identically in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023).

Source: Chandrou et al. - 2024 - Exploring the Potential of Biostimulants to Optimize Lettuce Cultivation in Coupled and Decoupled Aq.pdf

Data Tables

Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's trials.csv / plant_measurements.csv datasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).

Trial Parameters

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Initial Stock density	8.4
Protein	29.0
Feed routine	Fed ad libitum, three times a day (p.4)
Feed regime	Prodac Pond Sticks Color: crude protein 29.0%, crude ash 5.7%, crude fibers 3.3%, crude fat 2.9%, moisture 4.8%, omega 6 42.2%, omega 3 5.7% (p.4)

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Water directly derived from the RAS, pH adjusted to increase nutrient availability, returned to fish tanks after sterilization (closed loop) (p.3)
Aq pH	5.6
EC	0.84

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Station)
Details	Aerial part harvested D26, D38, D56 (fresh weight, leaf count); SPAD/PRI/chl fluorescence D12,19,27,34,54; leaf nutrients D38,D56; metabolomics sampled D54 (p.3-5)
Days Plant after transplant	56

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Coupled aquaponics (CAP)
Media Details	Perlite slabs (Hydroperl 33L, Nordiaagro, Athens, Greece), 4 plants/slab, drip irrigation; 18 hydroponic channels (8.5 x 0.22 m) positioned 50 cm above ground (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS comprises 3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each) connected to a mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum, Retford, UK) and a bio-filter filled with ceramic rings (15 mm) and K1 (1 mm, Kaldness media), colonized by nitrifying bacteria converting fish-excreted ammonia to nitrates (p.3))
Iron supplemented	N (No fertilizer added to CAP; water taken directly from RAS with only pH adjustment (p.3))
pH Buffers	Y (Irrigation solution pH controlled to a mean of 5.6 across all treatments via a customized automated controller (Argos Electronics), following Aslanidou et al. 2022; CAP water additionally pH-adjusted after RAS extraction specifically to increase nutrient availability (p.3-4))
Climate control	Y (RAS installed in a closed chamber (80 m2) under controlled environmental conditions within a 440 m2 gothic-arch greenhouse (5 m high); full description of environmental control deferred to the authors’ previous articles [8,9] (Aslanidou et al. 2022; Mourantian et al. 2023), not restated in this paper (p.3))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer added to CAP; fertigated with pH-adjusted RAS water only (p.3))
Equipment	3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each); mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum); bio-filter (ceramic rings 15mm + K1 Kaldnes media 1mm); customized irrigation/fertilization controller (Argos Electronics); portable pH-EC-TDS-Temp meter (Combo, Hanna Instruments); SPAD 502Plus (Konica Minolta); PlantPen PRI 210 (Photon Systems Instruments); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter (Hansatech); double-beam spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1900); Flame Photometer (JENWAY PFP7); Thermo Trace Ultra GC with ISQ MS and TriPlus RSH autosampler (p.3-5)
Control Parameters	9 treatments = 3 cultivation systems (HP, DCAP, CAP) x 3 biostimulant levels (none, BS1, BS2); mean irrigation solution pH set at 5.6 in all treatments (per Aslanidou et al. 2022); EC 2.5 dS/m (HP, DCAP) vs 0.84 dS/m (CAP); BS applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.3-4)
Combination	Red tilapia and lettuce; CAP vs HP

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece
Lat	39.44
Long	22.79

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (aerial fresh weight, Fig. 1a - values only in bar chart, not stated in text); mg GAE/100 g DW (total phenolics); mg g DW-1 (leaf N, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Table 2)
Statistic Details	Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant) with Tukey post-hoc when Levene’s (variance homogeneity) and Shapiro-Wilk (normality) prerequisites met; otherwise Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc; significance p<=0.05; JASP v.0.18.1; heatmap generated with GraphPad Prism 9.0 (p.5-6)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1 = CAP (aquaponic arm) paired with HP (hydroponic control, matched biostimulant level) — one of 9 treatments (3 cultivation systems x 3 BS levels, p.3). This trial’s own paired HYD control is the same-BS-level HP variant, not plain HP, except where BS level is ‘none’. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY / coordinate recovery: paper states “39 deg 44 min N, 22 deg 79 min E” (p.3). 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), indicating decimal degrees mis-formatted with degree/minute symbols. Recovered as decimal 39.44 N, 22.79 E, geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site (Velestino, Central Greece). Same facility and identical coordinate string/typo already resolved this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group, same pilot greenhouse) — consistent independent confirmation. | Replicates (n) recorded as 6, matching the growth-harvest replication (Fig. 1 caption, ‘n = 6’, six plants per treatment measured at each harvest). Other measurements in this paper used different n: SPAD/PRI/chl a fluorescence n=20 plants/treatment (p.4); total phenolics n=10 (p.5); leaf nutrient content (Table 2) n=6 (p.5); metabolomics n=4 leaves/treatment (p.5). Not a contradiction — different assays deliberately used different replicate counts, stated explicitly for each. | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: the paper reports three harvests (D26, D38, D56) plus repeated physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, and BS applications on D7, D27, D40, but never explicitly states what ‘Day’ (D) is counted from (transplant date is mentioned only as the general start of ‘the growing period’, p.3-4; total experiment duration stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D-numbering starts at transplant (D0=transplant), which is the most common convention in this literature and matches the stated 56-day total experiment duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the text. Earlier harvests (D26, D38) also produced fresh-weight/leaf-count data (Fig. 1, bar chart only, no absolute values in text). Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR discrepancy (recompute check only, no cell affected): Results text p.9 states ‘Na+ was 4-5.7 times higher in CAP than in HP’ and ‘a significant decrease of 23%’ for Ca2+ at D56. Recomputing directly from this paper’s own Table 2 (D56, matched BS-level pairs): Na+ CAP/HP-matched ratios = 3.59x (CAP/HP), 4.89x (CAP-BS1/HP-BS1), 5.41x (CAP-BS2/HP-BS2) — narrower and lower than the stated ‘4-5.7x’ range, driven mainly by the unmatched CAP(noBS)/HP(noBS) pair falling below 4x. Ca2+ CAP/HP recompute = (9.34-6.14)/9.34 = 34.3% decrease, not the stated 23%. Does not affect any extracted cell: plant.csv records Table 2’s raw values directly, not these narrative percentages/ratios. | NO COLUMN: total phenolics content (Folin-Ciocalteu, GAE/100 g DW) measured on D26, D38, D56 — only two absolute values stated in running text (HP=13, CAP-BS2=21 mg GAE/100 g DW, both D38, p.8); routed to plant.csv (biochemistry). This trial’s paired HYD control is plain HP (no BS); the HP=13 mg GAE/100g DW value is the one directly comparable here. | NO COLUMN: chl a fluorescence JIP-test parameters (PItotal, Sm, phi-Eo, phi-Ro, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, 1-Vi, 1/Vi), SPAD index and PRI (photochemical reflectance index) time series (D12-D54) — all presented only as bar/radar/spider-plot figures (Figs. 2, 3) with letters/trend descriptions in text but no absolute numeric values in running text; not enterable per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule (p.5-8). | NO COLUMN: metabolomics — 49 polar metabolites (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other) identified by GC-MS, quantified as relative abundance vs internal standard (adonitol) and shown only as a heatmap (Fig. 5, Log2 fold-change vs HP control); actual values reported only in Supplementary Table S2, which is not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. Excluded from plant.csv entirely (see paper-level note). | NO COLUMN: total plant count/layout — 540 lettuce plants (cv. Station) randomly allocated across 9 treatments, 60 plants/treatment (p.3). | Biostimulant formulation for this trial: no biostimulant applied (control arm). Applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.4), to both the AP and matched HYD arm of this trial. | Iron supplemented reasoning: No fertilizer added to CAP; water taken directly from RAS with only pH adjustment (p.3) | Nutrient supplemented reasoning: No fertilizer added to CAP; fertigated with pH-adjusted RAS water only (p.3) | Fish/water-system details (Air supplement, Water volume in system, Water recycle flow rate, Water temperature, DO, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Average room Temperature) not stated in this paper; the authors explicitly defer the ‘full description of both the hydroponics and RAS sub-systems’ to their previous articles [8,9] (p.3) rather than restating it here. Recorded NR per single-paper extraction rule rather than importing from the sibling paper aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish stock/feed) held elsewhere in this vault. | Fish trial duration recorded NR: paper states ‘the duration of the experiment was 56 days’ (p.4, Nov 2021-Jan 2022) but never explicitly ties this figure to a fish-specific rearing period (vs. the plant growing period); the plant harvest cycle (D26/D38/D56) is recorded under ‘Days Plant after transplant’ instead. | Water volume in the system recorded NR (not a stated total): paper states 3 fish tanks x 1.3 m3 each plus a 0.5 m3 mechanical filter (p.3); total system volume (incl. biofilter, plant channels, sump) not given.

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Initial Stock density	8.4
Protein	29.0
Feed routine	Fed ad libitum, three times a day (p.4)
Feed regime	Prodac Pond Sticks Color: crude protein 29.0%, crude ash 5.7%, crude fibers 3.3%, crude fat 2.9%, moisture 4.8%, omega 6 42.2%, omega 3 5.7% (p.4)

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Water directly derived from the RAS, pH adjusted to increase nutrient availability, returned to fish tanks after sterilization (closed loop) (p.3)
Aq pH	5.6
EC	0.84

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Station)
Details	Aerial part harvested D26, D38, D56 (fresh weight, leaf count); SPAD/PRI/chl fluorescence D12,19,27,34,54; leaf nutrients D38,D56; metabolomics sampled D54 (p.3-5)
Days Plant after transplant	56

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Coupled aquaponics (CAP)
Media Details	Perlite slabs (Hydroperl 33L, Nordiaagro, Athens, Greece), 4 plants/slab, drip irrigation; 18 hydroponic channels (8.5 x 0.22 m) positioned 50 cm above ground (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS comprises 3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each) connected to a mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum, Retford, UK) and a bio-filter filled with ceramic rings (15 mm) and K1 (1 mm, Kaldness media), colonized by nitrifying bacteria converting fish-excreted ammonia to nitrates (p.3))
Iron supplemented	N (No fertilizer added to CAP; water taken directly from RAS with only pH adjustment (p.3). BS1 foliar spray is not a root-zone fertilizer.)
pH Buffers	Y (Irrigation solution pH controlled to a mean of 5.6 across all treatments via a customized automated controller (Argos Electronics), following Aslanidou et al. 2022; CAP water additionally pH-adjusted after RAS extraction specifically to increase nutrient availability (p.3-4))
Climate control	Y (RAS installed in a closed chamber (80 m2) under controlled environmental conditions within a 440 m2 gothic-arch greenhouse (5 m high); full description of environmental control deferred to the authors’ previous articles [8,9] (Aslanidou et al. 2022; Mourantian et al. 2023), not restated in this paper (p.3))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer added to CAP; fertigated with pH-adjusted RAS water only (p.3). BS1 supplies only 3% total N and 1.2% K2O as a foliar spray, not root-zone fertilization.)
Equipment	3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each); mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum); bio-filter (ceramic rings 15mm + K1 Kaldnes media 1mm); customized irrigation/fertilization controller (Argos Electronics); portable pH-EC-TDS-Temp meter (Combo, Hanna Instruments); SPAD 502Plus (Konica Minolta); PlantPen PRI 210 (Photon Systems Instruments); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter (Hansatech); double-beam spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1900); Flame Photometer (JENWAY PFP7); Thermo Trace Ultra GC with ISQ MS and TriPlus RSH autosampler (p.3-5)
Control Parameters	9 treatments = 3 cultivation systems (HP, DCAP, CAP) x 3 biostimulant levels (none, BS1, BS2); mean irrigation solution pH set at 5.6 in all treatments (per Aslanidou et al. 2022); EC 2.5 dS/m (HP, DCAP) vs 0.84 dS/m (CAP); BS applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.3-4)
Combination	Red tilapia and lettuce; CAP-BS1 vs HP-BS1

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece
Lat	39.44
Long	22.79

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (aerial fresh weight, Fig. 1a - values only in bar chart, not stated in text); mg GAE/100 g DW (total phenolics); mg g DW-1 (leaf N, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Table 2)
Statistic Details	Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant) with Tukey post-hoc when Levene’s (variance homogeneity) and Shapiro-Wilk (normality) prerequisites met; otherwise Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc; significance p<=0.05; JASP v.0.18.1; heatmap generated with GraphPad Prism 9.0 (p.5-6)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2 = CAP-BS1 (aquaponic arm) paired with HP-BS1 (hydroponic control, matched biostimulant level) — one of 9 treatments (3 cultivation systems x 3 BS levels, p.3). This trial’s own paired HYD control is the same-BS-level HP variant, not plain HP, except where BS level is ‘none’. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY / coordinate recovery: paper states “39 deg 44 min N, 22 deg 79 min E” (p.3). 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), indicating decimal degrees mis-formatted with degree/minute symbols. Recovered as decimal 39.44 N, 22.79 E, geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site (Velestino, Central Greece). Same facility and identical coordinate string/typo already resolved this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group, same pilot greenhouse) — consistent independent confirmation. | Replicates (n) recorded as 6, matching the growth-harvest replication (Fig. 1 caption, ‘n = 6’, six plants per treatment measured at each harvest). Other measurements in this paper used different n: SPAD/PRI/chl a fluorescence n=20 plants/treatment (p.4); total phenolics n=10 (p.5); leaf nutrient content (Table 2) n=6 (p.5); metabolomics n=4 leaves/treatment (p.5). Not a contradiction — different assays deliberately used different replicate counts, stated explicitly for each. | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: the paper reports three harvests (D26, D38, D56) plus repeated physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, and BS applications on D7, D27, D40, but never explicitly states what ‘Day’ (D) is counted from (transplant date is mentioned only as the general start of ‘the growing period’, p.3-4; total experiment duration stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D-numbering starts at transplant (D0=transplant), which is the most common convention in this literature and matches the stated 56-day total experiment duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the text. Earlier harvests (D26, D38) also produced fresh-weight/leaf-count data (Fig. 1, bar chart only, no absolute values in text). Added to REVIEW.md. | See T1 remarks for the Na+/Ca2+ narrative-vs-Table-2 recompute check (WARN-MINOR, applies to the shared Table 2 dataset, not repeated in full here). | NO COLUMN: total phenolics content (Folin-Ciocalteu, GAE/100 g DW) measured on D26, D38, D56 — only two absolute values stated in running text (HP=13, CAP-BS2=21 mg GAE/100 g DW, both D38, p.8); routed to plant.csv (biochemistry). Neither this trial’s AP (CAP-BS1) nor HYD (HP-BS1) arm has an absolute D38 phenolics value stated in text; only plain HP and CAP-BS2 were quoted. | NO COLUMN: chl a fluorescence JIP-test parameters (PItotal, Sm, phi-Eo, phi-Ro, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, 1-Vi, 1/Vi), SPAD index and PRI (photochemical reflectance index) time series (D12-D54) — all presented only as bar/radar/spider-plot figures (Figs. 2, 3) with letters/trend descriptions in text but no absolute numeric values in running text; not enterable per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule (p.5-8). | NO COLUMN: metabolomics — 49 polar metabolites (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other) identified by GC-MS, quantified as relative abundance vs internal standard (adonitol) and shown only as a heatmap (Fig. 5, Log2 fold-change vs HP control); actual values reported only in Supplementary Table S2, which is not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. Excluded from plant.csv entirely (see paper-level note). | NO COLUMN: total plant count/layout — 540 lettuce plants (cv. Station) randomly allocated across 9 treatments, 60 plants/treatment (p.3). | Biostimulant formulation for this trial: BS1 = 12.5% free amino acids, 3% total N, 1.2% K2O, 14.5% total amino acids, 45% low-MW peptides, pH 5.8, no Azotobacter chroococcum (Table 1, p.4). Applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.4), to both the AP and matched HYD arm of this trial. | Iron supplemented reasoning: No fertilizer added to CAP; water taken directly from RAS with only pH adjustment (p.3). BS1 foliar spray is not a root-zone fertilizer. | Nutrient supplemented reasoning: No fertilizer added to CAP; fertigated with pH-adjusted RAS water only (p.3). BS1 supplies only 3% total N and 1.2% K2O as a foliar spray, not root-zone fertilization. | Fish/water-system details (Air supplement, Water volume in system, Water recycle flow rate, Water temperature, DO, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Average room Temperature) not stated in this paper; the authors explicitly defer the ‘full description of both the hydroponics and RAS sub-systems’ to their previous articles [8,9] (p.3) rather than restating it here. Recorded NR per single-paper extraction rule rather than importing from the sibling paper aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish stock/feed) held elsewhere in this vault. | Fish trial duration recorded NR: paper states ‘the duration of the experiment was 56 days’ (p.4, Nov 2021-Jan 2022) but never explicitly ties this figure to a fish-specific rearing period (vs. the plant growing period); the plant harvest cycle (D26/D38/D56) is recorded under ‘Days Plant after transplant’ instead. | Water volume in the system recorded NR (not a stated total): paper states 3 fish tanks x 1.3 m3 each plus a 0.5 m3 mechanical filter (p.3); total system volume (incl. biofilter, plant channels, sump) not given.

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Initial Stock density	8.4
Protein	29.0
Feed routine	Fed ad libitum, three times a day (p.4)
Feed regime	Prodac Pond Sticks Color: crude protein 29.0%, crude ash 5.7%, crude fibers 3.3%, crude fat 2.9%, moisture 4.8%, omega 6 42.2%, omega 3 5.7% (p.4)

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Water directly derived from the RAS, pH adjusted to increase nutrient availability, returned to fish tanks after sterilization (closed loop) (p.3)
Aq pH	5.6
EC	0.84

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Station)
Details	Aerial part harvested D26, D38, D56 (fresh weight, leaf count); SPAD/PRI/chl fluorescence D12,19,27,34,54; leaf nutrients D38,D56; metabolomics sampled D54 (p.3-5)
Days Plant after transplant	56

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Coupled aquaponics (CAP)
Media Details	Perlite slabs (Hydroperl 33L, Nordiaagro, Athens, Greece), 4 plants/slab, drip irrigation; 18 hydroponic channels (8.5 x 0.22 m) positioned 50 cm above ground (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS comprises 3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each) connected to a mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum, Retford, UK) and a bio-filter filled with ceramic rings (15 mm) and K1 (1 mm, Kaldness media), colonized by nitrifying bacteria converting fish-excreted ammonia to nitrates (p.3))
Iron supplemented	N (No fertilizer added to CAP; water taken directly from RAS with only pH adjustment (p.3). BS2 foliar spray is not a root-zone fertilizer.)
pH Buffers	Y (Irrigation solution pH controlled to a mean of 5.6 across all treatments via a customized automated controller (Argos Electronics), following Aslanidou et al. 2022; CAP water additionally pH-adjusted after RAS extraction specifically to increase nutrient availability (p.3-4))
Climate control	Y (RAS installed in a closed chamber (80 m2) under controlled environmental conditions within a 440 m2 gothic-arch greenhouse (5 m high); full description of environmental control deferred to the authors’ previous articles [8,9] (Aslanidou et al. 2022; Mourantian et al. 2023), not restated in this paper (p.3))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer added to CAP; fertigated with pH-adjusted RAS water only (p.3). BS2 supplies only 3% total N and 1.2% K2O as a foliar spray, not root-zone fertilization.)
Equipment	3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each); mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum); bio-filter (ceramic rings 15mm + K1 Kaldnes media 1mm); customized irrigation/fertilization controller (Argos Electronics); portable pH-EC-TDS-Temp meter (Combo, Hanna Instruments); SPAD 502Plus (Konica Minolta); PlantPen PRI 210 (Photon Systems Instruments); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter (Hansatech); double-beam spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1900); Flame Photometer (JENWAY PFP7); Thermo Trace Ultra GC with ISQ MS and TriPlus RSH autosampler (p.3-5)
Control Parameters	9 treatments = 3 cultivation systems (HP, DCAP, CAP) x 3 biostimulant levels (none, BS1, BS2); mean irrigation solution pH set at 5.6 in all treatments (per Aslanidou et al. 2022); EC 2.5 dS/m (HP, DCAP) vs 0.84 dS/m (CAP); BS applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.3-4)
Combination	Red tilapia and lettuce; CAP-BS2 vs HP-BS2

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece
Lat	39.44
Long	22.79

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (aerial fresh weight, Fig. 1a - values only in bar chart, not stated in text); mg GAE/100 g DW (total phenolics); mg g DW-1 (leaf N, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Table 2)
Statistic Details	Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant) with Tukey post-hoc when Levene’s (variance homogeneity) and Shapiro-Wilk (normality) prerequisites met; otherwise Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc; significance p<=0.05; JASP v.0.18.1; heatmap generated with GraphPad Prism 9.0 (p.5-6)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3 = CAP-BS2 (aquaponic arm) paired with HP-BS2 (hydroponic control, matched biostimulant level) — one of 9 treatments (3 cultivation systems x 3 BS levels, p.3). This trial’s own paired HYD control is the same-BS-level HP variant, not plain HP, except where BS level is ‘none’. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY / coordinate recovery: paper states “39 deg 44 min N, 22 deg 79 min E” (p.3). 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), indicating decimal degrees mis-formatted with degree/minute symbols. Recovered as decimal 39.44 N, 22.79 E, geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site (Velestino, Central Greece). Same facility and identical coordinate string/typo already resolved this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group, same pilot greenhouse) — consistent independent confirmation. | Replicates (n) recorded as 6, matching the growth-harvest replication (Fig. 1 caption, ‘n = 6’, six plants per treatment measured at each harvest). Other measurements in this paper used different n: SPAD/PRI/chl a fluorescence n=20 plants/treatment (p.4); total phenolics n=10 (p.5); leaf nutrient content (Table 2) n=6 (p.5); metabolomics n=4 leaves/treatment (p.5). Not a contradiction — different assays deliberately used different replicate counts, stated explicitly for each. | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: the paper reports three harvests (D26, D38, D56) plus repeated physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, and BS applications on D7, D27, D40, but never explicitly states what ‘Day’ (D) is counted from (transplant date is mentioned only as the general start of ‘the growing period’, p.3-4; total experiment duration stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D-numbering starts at transplant (D0=transplant), which is the most common convention in this literature and matches the stated 56-day total experiment duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the text. Earlier harvests (D26, D38) also produced fresh-weight/leaf-count data (Fig. 1, bar chart only, no absolute values in text). Added to REVIEW.md. | See T1 remarks for the Na+/Ca2+ narrative-vs-Table-2 recompute check (WARN-MINOR, applies to the shared Table 2 dataset, not repeated in full here). | NO COLUMN: total phenolics content (Folin-Ciocalteu, GAE/100 g DW) measured on D26, D38, D56 — only two absolute values stated in running text (HP=13, CAP-BS2=21 mg GAE/100 g DW, both D38, p.8); routed to plant.csv (biochemistry). This trial’s AP arm (CAP-BS2) is the D38 high value (21 mg GAE/100g DW) quoted in text; the paired HYD (HP-BS2) has no stated absolute value. | NO COLUMN: chl a fluorescence JIP-test parameters (PItotal, Sm, phi-Eo, phi-Ro, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, 1-Vi, 1/Vi), SPAD index and PRI (photochemical reflectance index) time series (D12-D54) — all presented only as bar/radar/spider-plot figures (Figs. 2, 3) with letters/trend descriptions in text but no absolute numeric values in running text; not enterable per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule (p.5-8). | NO COLUMN: metabolomics — 49 polar metabolites (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other) identified by GC-MS, quantified as relative abundance vs internal standard (adonitol) and shown only as a heatmap (Fig. 5, Log2 fold-change vs HP control); actual values reported only in Supplementary Table S2, which is not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. Excluded from plant.csv entirely (see paper-level note). | NO COLUMN: total plant count/layout — 540 lettuce plants (cv. Station) randomly allocated across 9 treatments, 60 plants/treatment (p.3). | Biostimulant formulation for this trial: BS2 = 14.4% free amino acids, 3% total N, 1.2% K2O, 16.8% total amino acids, 49.2% low-MW peptides, 28.8% organic material, pH 5.5, contains Azotobacter chroococcum (Table 1, p.4). Applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.4), to both the AP and matched HYD arm of this trial. | Iron supplemented reasoning: No fertilizer added to CAP; water taken directly from RAS with only pH adjustment (p.3). BS2 foliar spray is not a root-zone fertilizer. | Nutrient supplemented reasoning: No fertilizer added to CAP; fertigated with pH-adjusted RAS water only (p.3). BS2 supplies only 3% total N and 1.2% K2O as a foliar spray, not root-zone fertilization. | Fish/water-system details (Air supplement, Water volume in system, Water recycle flow rate, Water temperature, DO, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Average room Temperature) not stated in this paper; the authors explicitly defer the ‘full description of both the hydroponics and RAS sub-systems’ to their previous articles [8,9] (p.3) rather than restating it here. Recorded NR per single-paper extraction rule rather than importing from the sibling paper aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish stock/feed) held elsewhere in this vault. | Fish trial duration recorded NR: paper states ‘the duration of the experiment was 56 days’ (p.4, Nov 2021-Jan 2022) but never explicitly ties this figure to a fish-specific rearing period (vs. the plant growing period); the plant harvest cycle (D26/D38/D56) is recorded under ‘Days Plant after transplant’ instead. | Water volume in the system recorded NR (not a stated total): paper states 3 fish tanks x 1.3 m3 each plus a 0.5 m3 mechanical filter (p.3); total system volume (incl. biofilter, plant channels, sump) not given.

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Initial Stock density	8.4
Protein	29.0
Feed routine	Fed ad libitum, three times a day (p.4)
Feed regime	Prodac Pond Sticks Color: crude protein 29.0%, crude ash 5.7%, crude fibers 3.3%, crude fat 2.9%, moisture 4.8%, omega 6 42.2%, omega 3 5.7% (p.4)

Water

Field	Value
Water type	RAS water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets used for HP; not returned to fish tanks (open loop) (p.3)
Aq pH	5.6
EC	2.5

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Station)
Details	Aerial part harvested D26, D38, D56 (fresh weight, leaf count); SPAD/PRI/chl fluorescence D12,19,27,34,54; leaf nutrients D38,D56; metabolomics sampled D54 (p.3-5)
Days Plant after transplant	56

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Decoupled aquaponics (DCAP)
Media Details	Perlite slabs (Hydroperl 33L, Nordiaagro, Athens, Greece), 4 plants/slab, drip irrigation; 18 hydroponic channels (8.5 x 0.22 m) positioned 50 cm above ground (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS comprises 3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each) connected to a mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum, Retford, UK) and a bio-filter filled with ceramic rings (15 mm) and K1 (1 mm, Kaldness media), colonized by nitrifying bacteria converting fish-excreted ammonia to nitrates (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets as HP (incl. 35.0 uM Fe in the HP recipe), based on weekly RAS solution analysis and adjusted fertilizer dosing (p.3-4))
pH Buffers	Y (Irrigation solution pH controlled to a mean of 5.6 across all treatments via a customized automated controller (Argos Electronics), following Aslanidou et al. 2022; CAP water additionally pH-adjusted after RAS extraction specifically to increase nutrient availability (p.3-4))
Climate control	Y (RAS installed in a closed chamber (80 m2) under controlled environmental conditions within a 440 m2 gothic-arch greenhouse (5 m high); full description of environmental control deferred to the authors’ previous articles [8,9] (Aslanidou et al. 2022; Mourantian et al. 2023), not restated in this paper (p.3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (RAS solution analyzed weekly; fertilizer amounts calculated and dosed to reach HP nutrient concentration targets (p.4))
Equipment	3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each); mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum); bio-filter (ceramic rings 15mm + K1 Kaldnes media 1mm); customized irrigation/fertilization controller (Argos Electronics); portable pH-EC-TDS-Temp meter (Combo, Hanna Instruments); SPAD 502Plus (Konica Minolta); PlantPen PRI 210 (Photon Systems Instruments); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter (Hansatech); double-beam spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1900); Flame Photometer (JENWAY PFP7); Thermo Trace Ultra GC with ISQ MS and TriPlus RSH autosampler (p.3-5)
Control Parameters	9 treatments = 3 cultivation systems (HP, DCAP, CAP) x 3 biostimulant levels (none, BS1, BS2); mean irrigation solution pH set at 5.6 in all treatments (per Aslanidou et al. 2022); EC 2.5 dS/m (HP, DCAP) vs 0.84 dS/m (CAP); BS applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.3-4)
Combination	Red tilapia and lettuce; DCAP vs HP

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece
Lat	39.44
Long	22.79

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (aerial fresh weight, Fig. 1a - values only in bar chart, not stated in text); mg GAE/100 g DW (total phenolics); mg g DW-1 (leaf N, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Table 2)
Statistic Details	Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant) with Tukey post-hoc when Levene’s (variance homogeneity) and Shapiro-Wilk (normality) prerequisites met; otherwise Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc; significance p<=0.05; JASP v.0.18.1; heatmap generated with GraphPad Prism 9.0 (p.5-6)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4 = DCAP (aquaponic arm) paired with HP (hydroponic control, matched biostimulant level) — one of 9 treatments (3 cultivation systems x 3 BS levels, p.3). This trial’s own paired HYD control is the same-BS-level HP variant, not plain HP, except where BS level is ‘none’. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY / coordinate recovery: paper states “39 deg 44 min N, 22 deg 79 min E” (p.3). 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), indicating decimal degrees mis-formatted with degree/minute symbols. Recovered as decimal 39.44 N, 22.79 E, geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site (Velestino, Central Greece). Same facility and identical coordinate string/typo already resolved this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group, same pilot greenhouse) — consistent independent confirmation. | Replicates (n) recorded as 6, matching the growth-harvest replication (Fig. 1 caption, ‘n = 6’, six plants per treatment measured at each harvest). Other measurements in this paper used different n: SPAD/PRI/chl a fluorescence n=20 plants/treatment (p.4); total phenolics n=10 (p.5); leaf nutrient content (Table 2) n=6 (p.5); metabolomics n=4 leaves/treatment (p.5). Not a contradiction — different assays deliberately used different replicate counts, stated explicitly for each. | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: the paper reports three harvests (D26, D38, D56) plus repeated physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, and BS applications on D7, D27, D40, but never explicitly states what ‘Day’ (D) is counted from (transplant date is mentioned only as the general start of ‘the growing period’, p.3-4; total experiment duration stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D-numbering starts at transplant (D0=transplant), which is the most common convention in this literature and matches the stated 56-day total experiment duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the text. Earlier harvests (D26, D38) also produced fresh-weight/leaf-count data (Fig. 1, bar chart only, no absolute values in text). Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR discrepancy (recompute check only, no cell affected): Results text p.9 states ‘Na+ was 4-5.7 times higher in CAP than in HP’ and ‘a significant decrease of 23%’ for Ca2+ at D56. Recomputing directly from this paper’s own Table 2 (D56, matched BS-level pairs): Na+ CAP/HP-matched ratios = 3.59x (CAP/HP), 4.89x (CAP-BS1/HP-BS1), 5.41x (CAP-BS2/HP-BS2) — narrower and lower than the stated ‘4-5.7x’ range, driven mainly by the unmatched CAP(noBS)/HP(noBS) pair falling below 4x. Ca2+ CAP/HP recompute = (9.34-6.14)/9.34 = 34.3% decrease, not the stated 23%. Does not affect any extracted cell: plant.csv records Table 2’s raw values directly, not these narrative percentages/ratios. | NO COLUMN: total phenolics content (Folin-Ciocalteu, GAE/100 g DW) measured on D26, D38, D56 — only two absolute values stated in running text (HP=13, CAP-BS2=21 mg GAE/100 g DW, both D38, p.8); routed to plant.csv (biochemistry). This trial’s paired HYD control is plain HP (no BS); the HP=13 mg GAE/100g DW value is the one directly comparable here. | NO COLUMN: chl a fluorescence JIP-test parameters (PItotal, Sm, phi-Eo, phi-Ro, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, 1-Vi, 1/Vi), SPAD index and PRI (photochemical reflectance index) time series (D12-D54) — all presented only as bar/radar/spider-plot figures (Figs. 2, 3) with letters/trend descriptions in text but no absolute numeric values in running text; not enterable per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule (p.5-8). | NO COLUMN: metabolomics — 49 polar metabolites (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other) identified by GC-MS, quantified as relative abundance vs internal standard (adonitol) and shown only as a heatmap (Fig. 5, Log2 fold-change vs HP control); actual values reported only in Supplementary Table S2, which is not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. Excluded from plant.csv entirely (see paper-level note). | NO COLUMN: total plant count/layout — 540 lettuce plants (cv. Station) randomly allocated across 9 treatments, 60 plants/treatment (p.3). | Biostimulant formulation for this trial: no biostimulant applied (control arm). Applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.4), to both the AP and matched HYD arm of this trial. | Iron supplemented reasoning: DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets as HP (incl. 35.0 uM Fe in the HP recipe), based on weekly RAS solution analysis and adjusted fertilizer dosing (p.3-4) | Nutrient supplemented reasoning: RAS solution analyzed weekly; fertilizer amounts calculated and dosed to reach HP nutrient concentration targets (p.4) | Fish/water-system details (Air supplement, Water volume in system, Water recycle flow rate, Water temperature, DO, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Average room Temperature) not stated in this paper; the authors explicitly defer the ‘full description of both the hydroponics and RAS sub-systems’ to their previous articles [8,9] (p.3) rather than restating it here. Recorded NR per single-paper extraction rule rather than importing from the sibling paper aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish stock/feed) held elsewhere in this vault. | Fish trial duration recorded NR: paper states ‘the duration of the experiment was 56 days’ (p.4, Nov 2021-Jan 2022) but never explicitly ties this figure to a fish-specific rearing period (vs. the plant growing period); the plant harvest cycle (D26/D38/D56) is recorded under ‘Days Plant after transplant’ instead. | Water volume in the system recorded NR (not a stated total): paper states 3 fish tanks x 1.3 m3 each plus a 0.5 m3 mechanical filter (p.3); total system volume (incl. biofilter, plant channels, sump) not given.

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Initial Stock density	8.4
Protein	29.0
Feed routine	Fed ad libitum, three times a day (p.4)
Feed regime	Prodac Pond Sticks Color: crude protein 29.0%, crude ash 5.7%, crude fibers 3.3%, crude fat 2.9%, moisture 4.8%, omega 6 42.2%, omega 3 5.7% (p.4)

Water

Field	Value
Water type	RAS water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets used for HP; not returned to fish tanks (open loop) (p.3)
Aq pH	5.6
EC	2.5

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Station)
Details	Aerial part harvested D26, D38, D56 (fresh weight, leaf count); SPAD/PRI/chl fluorescence D12,19,27,34,54; leaf nutrients D38,D56; metabolomics sampled D54 (p.3-5)
Days Plant after transplant	56

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Decoupled aquaponics (DCAP)
Media Details	Perlite slabs (Hydroperl 33L, Nordiaagro, Athens, Greece), 4 plants/slab, drip irrigation; 18 hydroponic channels (8.5 x 0.22 m) positioned 50 cm above ground (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS comprises 3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each) connected to a mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum, Retford, UK) and a bio-filter filled with ceramic rings (15 mm) and K1 (1 mm, Kaldness media), colonized by nitrifying bacteria converting fish-excreted ammonia to nitrates (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets as HP (incl. 35.0 uM Fe in the HP recipe), based on weekly RAS solution analysis and adjusted fertilizer dosing (p.3-4))
pH Buffers	Y (Irrigation solution pH controlled to a mean of 5.6 across all treatments via a customized automated controller (Argos Electronics), following Aslanidou et al. 2022; CAP water additionally pH-adjusted after RAS extraction specifically to increase nutrient availability (p.3-4))
Climate control	Y (RAS installed in a closed chamber (80 m2) under controlled environmental conditions within a 440 m2 gothic-arch greenhouse (5 m high); full description of environmental control deferred to the authors’ previous articles [8,9] (Aslanidou et al. 2022; Mourantian et al. 2023), not restated in this paper (p.3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (RAS solution analyzed weekly; fertilizer amounts calculated and dosed to reach HP nutrient concentration targets (p.4))
Equipment	3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each); mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum); bio-filter (ceramic rings 15mm + K1 Kaldnes media 1mm); customized irrigation/fertilization controller (Argos Electronics); portable pH-EC-TDS-Temp meter (Combo, Hanna Instruments); SPAD 502Plus (Konica Minolta); PlantPen PRI 210 (Photon Systems Instruments); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter (Hansatech); double-beam spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1900); Flame Photometer (JENWAY PFP7); Thermo Trace Ultra GC with ISQ MS and TriPlus RSH autosampler (p.3-5)
Control Parameters	9 treatments = 3 cultivation systems (HP, DCAP, CAP) x 3 biostimulant levels (none, BS1, BS2); mean irrigation solution pH set at 5.6 in all treatments (per Aslanidou et al. 2022); EC 2.5 dS/m (HP, DCAP) vs 0.84 dS/m (CAP); BS applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.3-4)
Combination	Red tilapia and lettuce; DCAP-BS1 vs HP-BS1

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece
Lat	39.44
Long	22.79

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (aerial fresh weight, Fig. 1a - values only in bar chart, not stated in text); mg GAE/100 g DW (total phenolics); mg g DW-1 (leaf N, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Table 2)
Statistic Details	Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant) with Tukey post-hoc when Levene’s (variance homogeneity) and Shapiro-Wilk (normality) prerequisites met; otherwise Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc; significance p<=0.05; JASP v.0.18.1; heatmap generated with GraphPad Prism 9.0 (p.5-6)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5 = DCAP-BS1 (aquaponic arm) paired with HP-BS1 (hydroponic control, matched biostimulant level) — one of 9 treatments (3 cultivation systems x 3 BS levels, p.3). This trial’s own paired HYD control is the same-BS-level HP variant, not plain HP, except where BS level is ‘none’. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY / coordinate recovery: paper states “39 deg 44 min N, 22 deg 79 min E” (p.3). 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), indicating decimal degrees mis-formatted with degree/minute symbols. Recovered as decimal 39.44 N, 22.79 E, geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site (Velestino, Central Greece). Same facility and identical coordinate string/typo already resolved this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group, same pilot greenhouse) — consistent independent confirmation. | Replicates (n) recorded as 6, matching the growth-harvest replication (Fig. 1 caption, ‘n = 6’, six plants per treatment measured at each harvest). Other measurements in this paper used different n: SPAD/PRI/chl a fluorescence n=20 plants/treatment (p.4); total phenolics n=10 (p.5); leaf nutrient content (Table 2) n=6 (p.5); metabolomics n=4 leaves/treatment (p.5). Not a contradiction — different assays deliberately used different replicate counts, stated explicitly for each. | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: the paper reports three harvests (D26, D38, D56) plus repeated physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, and BS applications on D7, D27, D40, but never explicitly states what ‘Day’ (D) is counted from (transplant date is mentioned only as the general start of ‘the growing period’, p.3-4; total experiment duration stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D-numbering starts at transplant (D0=transplant), which is the most common convention in this literature and matches the stated 56-day total experiment duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the text. Earlier harvests (D26, D38) also produced fresh-weight/leaf-count data (Fig. 1, bar chart only, no absolute values in text). Added to REVIEW.md. | See T1 remarks for the Na+/Ca2+ narrative-vs-Table-2 recompute check (WARN-MINOR, applies to the shared Table 2 dataset, not repeated in full here). | NO COLUMN: total phenolics content (Folin-Ciocalteu, GAE/100 g DW) measured on D26, D38, D56 — only two absolute values stated in running text (HP=13, CAP-BS2=21 mg GAE/100 g DW, both D38, p.8); routed to plant.csv (biochemistry). Neither this trial’s AP (DCAP-BS1) nor HYD (HP-BS1) arm has an absolute D38 phenolics value stated in text; only plain HP and CAP-BS2 were quoted. | NO COLUMN: chl a fluorescence JIP-test parameters (PItotal, Sm, phi-Eo, phi-Ro, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, 1-Vi, 1/Vi), SPAD index and PRI (photochemical reflectance index) time series (D12-D54) — all presented only as bar/radar/spider-plot figures (Figs. 2, 3) with letters/trend descriptions in text but no absolute numeric values in running text; not enterable per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule (p.5-8). | NO COLUMN: metabolomics — 49 polar metabolites (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other) identified by GC-MS, quantified as relative abundance vs internal standard (adonitol) and shown only as a heatmap (Fig. 5, Log2 fold-change vs HP control); actual values reported only in Supplementary Table S2, which is not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. Excluded from plant.csv entirely (see paper-level note). | NO COLUMN: total plant count/layout — 540 lettuce plants (cv. Station) randomly allocated across 9 treatments, 60 plants/treatment (p.3). | Biostimulant formulation for this trial: BS1 = 12.5% free amino acids, 3% total N, 1.2% K2O, 14.5% total amino acids, 45% low-MW peptides, pH 5.8, no Azotobacter chroococcum (Table 1, p.4). Applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.4), to both the AP and matched HYD arm of this trial. | Iron supplemented reasoning: DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets as HP (incl. 35.0 uM Fe in the HP recipe), based on weekly RAS solution analysis and adjusted fertilizer dosing (p.3-4) | Nutrient supplemented reasoning: RAS solution analyzed weekly; fertilizer amounts calculated and dosed to reach HP nutrient concentration targets (p.4) | Fish/water-system details (Air supplement, Water volume in system, Water recycle flow rate, Water temperature, DO, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Average room Temperature) not stated in this paper; the authors explicitly defer the ‘full description of both the hydroponics and RAS sub-systems’ to their previous articles [8,9] (p.3) rather than restating it here. Recorded NR per single-paper extraction rule rather than importing from the sibling paper aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish stock/feed) held elsewhere in this vault. | Fish trial duration recorded NR: paper states ‘the duration of the experiment was 56 days’ (p.4, Nov 2021-Jan 2022) but never explicitly ties this figure to a fish-specific rearing period (vs. the plant growing period); the plant harvest cycle (D26/D38/D56) is recorded under ‘Days Plant after transplant’ instead. | Water volume in the system recorded NR (not a stated total): paper states 3 fish tanks x 1.3 m3 each plus a 0.5 m3 mechanical filter (p.3); total system volume (incl. biofilter, plant channels, sump) not given.

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Initial Stock density	8.4
Protein	29.0
Feed routine	Fed ad libitum, three times a day (p.4)
Feed regime	Prodac Pond Sticks Color: crude protein 29.0%, crude ash 5.7%, crude fibers 3.3%, crude fat 2.9%, moisture 4.8%, omega 6 42.2%, omega 3 5.7% (p.4)

Water

Field	Value
Water type	RAS water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets used for HP; not returned to fish tanks (open loop) (p.3)
Aq pH	5.6
EC	2.5

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Station)
Details	Aerial part harvested D26, D38, D56 (fresh weight, leaf count); SPAD/PRI/chl fluorescence D12,19,27,34,54; leaf nutrients D38,D56; metabolomics sampled D54 (p.3-5)
Days Plant after transplant	56

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Decoupled aquaponics (DCAP)
Media Details	Perlite slabs (Hydroperl 33L, Nordiaagro, Athens, Greece), 4 plants/slab, drip irrigation; 18 hydroponic channels (8.5 x 0.22 m) positioned 50 cm above ground (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS comprises 3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each) connected to a mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum, Retford, UK) and a bio-filter filled with ceramic rings (15 mm) and K1 (1 mm, Kaldness media), colonized by nitrifying bacteria converting fish-excreted ammonia to nitrates (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets as HP (incl. 35.0 uM Fe in the HP recipe), based on weekly RAS solution analysis and adjusted fertilizer dosing (p.3-4))
pH Buffers	Y (Irrigation solution pH controlled to a mean of 5.6 across all treatments via a customized automated controller (Argos Electronics), following Aslanidou et al. 2022; CAP water additionally pH-adjusted after RAS extraction specifically to increase nutrient availability (p.3-4))
Climate control	Y (RAS installed in a closed chamber (80 m2) under controlled environmental conditions within a 440 m2 gothic-arch greenhouse (5 m high); full description of environmental control deferred to the authors’ previous articles [8,9] (Aslanidou et al. 2022; Mourantian et al. 2023), not restated in this paper (p.3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (RAS solution analyzed weekly; fertilizer amounts calculated and dosed to reach HP nutrient concentration targets (p.4))
Equipment	3 fish tanks (1.3 m3 each); mechanical filter (0.5 m3, Combi Bio 15, ProfiDrum); bio-filter (ceramic rings 15mm + K1 Kaldnes media 1mm); customized irrigation/fertilization controller (Argos Electronics); portable pH-EC-TDS-Temp meter (Combo, Hanna Instruments); SPAD 502Plus (Konica Minolta); PlantPen PRI 210 (Photon Systems Instruments); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter (Hansatech); double-beam spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1900); Flame Photometer (JENWAY PFP7); Thermo Trace Ultra GC with ISQ MS and TriPlus RSH autosampler (p.3-5)
Control Parameters	9 treatments = 3 cultivation systems (HP, DCAP, CAP) x 3 biostimulant levels (none, BS1, BS2); mean irrigation solution pH set at 5.6 in all treatments (per Aslanidou et al. 2022); EC 2.5 dS/m (HP, DCAP) vs 0.84 dS/m (CAP); BS applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.3-4)
Combination	Red tilapia and lettuce; DCAP-BS2 vs HP-BS2

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece
Lat	39.44
Long	22.79

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (aerial fresh weight, Fig. 1a - values only in bar chart, not stated in text); mg GAE/100 g DW (total phenolics); mg g DW-1 (leaf N, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Table 2)
Statistic Details	Two-way ANOVA (cultivation system x biostimulant) with Tukey post-hoc when Levene’s (variance homogeneity) and Shapiro-Wilk (normality) prerequisites met; otherwise Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc; significance p<=0.05; JASP v.0.18.1; heatmap generated with GraphPad Prism 9.0 (p.5-6)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6 = DCAP-BS2 (aquaponic arm) paired with HP-BS2 (hydroponic control, matched biostimulant level) — one of 9 treatments (3 cultivation systems x 3 BS levels, p.3). This trial’s own paired HYD control is the same-BS-level HP variant, not plain HP, except where BS level is ‘none’. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY / coordinate recovery: paper states “39 deg 44 min N, 22 deg 79 min E” (p.3). 79 minutes is impossible in DMS notation (max 59), indicating decimal degrees mis-formatted with degree/minute symbols. Recovered as decimal 39.44 N, 22.79 E, geographically consistent with the paper’s own named site (Velestino, Central Greece). Same facility and identical coordinate string/typo already resolved this way in aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same research group, same pilot greenhouse) — consistent independent confirmation. | Replicates (n) recorded as 6, matching the growth-harvest replication (Fig. 1 caption, ‘n = 6’, six plants per treatment measured at each harvest). Other measurements in this paper used different n: SPAD/PRI/chl a fluorescence n=20 plants/treatment (p.4); total phenolics n=10 (p.5); leaf nutrient content (Table 2) n=6 (p.5); metabolomics n=4 leaves/treatment (p.5). Not a contradiction — different assays deliberately used different replicate counts, stated explicitly for each. | WARN-CHECK Days Plant after transplant: the paper reports three harvests (D26, D38, D56) plus repeated physiological measurements on D12, D19, D27, D34, D54, and BS applications on D7, D27, D40, but never explicitly states what ‘Day’ (D) is counted from (transplant date is mentioned only as the general start of ‘the growing period’, p.3-4; total experiment duration stated as 56 days, Nov 2021-Jan 2022, p.4). Recorded 56 (final harvest, D56) on the assumption D-numbering starts at transplant (D0=transplant), which is the most common convention in this literature and matches the stated 56-day total experiment duration, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the text. Earlier harvests (D26, D38) also produced fresh-weight/leaf-count data (Fig. 1, bar chart only, no absolute values in text). Added to REVIEW.md. | See T1 remarks for the Na+/Ca2+ narrative-vs-Table-2 recompute check (WARN-MINOR, applies to the shared Table 2 dataset, not repeated in full here). | NO COLUMN: total phenolics content (Folin-Ciocalteu, GAE/100 g DW) measured on D26, D38, D56 — only two absolute values stated in running text (HP=13, CAP-BS2=21 mg GAE/100 g DW, both D38, p.8); routed to plant.csv (biochemistry). Neither this trial’s AP (DCAP-BS2) nor HYD (HP-BS2) arm has an absolute D38 phenolics value stated in text; only plain HP and CAP-BS2 were quoted. | NO COLUMN: chl a fluorescence JIP-test parameters (PItotal, Sm, phi-Eo, phi-Ro, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, 1-Vi, 1/Vi), SPAD index and PRI (photochemical reflectance index) time series (D12-D54) — all presented only as bar/radar/spider-plot figures (Figs. 2, 3) with letters/trend descriptions in text but no absolute numeric values in running text; not enterable per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule (p.5-8). | NO COLUMN: metabolomics — 49 polar metabolites (17 organic acids, 9 amino acids, 15 water-soluble sugars, 5 sugar alcohols, 3 other) identified by GC-MS, quantified as relative abundance vs internal standard (adonitol) and shown only as a heatmap (Fig. 5, Log2 fold-change vs HP control); actual values reported only in Supplementary Table S2, which is not included in the PDF provided for this extraction. Excluded from plant.csv entirely (see paper-level note). | NO COLUMN: total plant count/layout — 540 lettuce plants (cv. Station) randomly allocated across 9 treatments, 60 plants/treatment (p.3). | Biostimulant formulation for this trial: BS2 = 14.4% free amino acids, 3% total N, 1.2% K2O, 16.8% total amino acids, 49.2% low-MW peptides, 28.8% organic material, pH 5.5, contains Azotobacter chroococcum (Table 1, p.4). Applied by foliar spray on D7, D27, D40 at 1.5 L/ha (p.4), to both the AP and matched HYD arm of this trial. | Iron supplemented reasoning: DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to meet the same nutrient concentration targets as HP (incl. 35.0 uM Fe in the HP recipe), based on weekly RAS solution analysis and adjusted fertilizer dosing (p.3-4) | Nutrient supplemented reasoning: RAS solution analyzed weekly; fertilizer amounts calculated and dosed to reach HP nutrient concentration targets (p.4) | Fish/water-system details (Air supplement, Water volume in system, Water recycle flow rate, Water temperature, DO, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Average room Temperature) not stated in this paper; the authors explicitly defer the ‘full description of both the hydroponics and RAS sub-systems’ to their previous articles [8,9] (p.3) rather than restating it here. Recorded NR per single-paper extraction rule rather than importing from the sibling paper aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 (same facility, same fish stock/feed) held elsewhere in this vault. | Fish trial duration recorded NR: paper states ‘the duration of the experiment was 56 days’ (p.4, Nov 2021-Jan 2022) but never explicitly ties this figure to a fish-specific rearing period (vs. the plant growing period); the plant harvest cycle (D26/D38/D56) is recorded under ‘Days Plant after transplant’ instead. | Water volume in the system recorded NR (not a stated total): paper states 3 fish tanks x 1.3 m3 each plus a 0.5 m3 mechanical filter (p.3); total system volume (incl. biofilter, plant channels, sump) not given.

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	41.98 ± 1.7	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	45.42 ± 1.19	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	33.65 ± 2.34	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	48.63 ± 2.7	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	8.09 ± 2.06	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.8 ± 0.33	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	10.35 ± 1.18	mg/g DW	c	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	5.0 ± 2.06	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	29.28 ± 1.82	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	42.34 ± 0.73	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	24.83 ± 3.44	mg/g DW	c	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	61.87 ± 4.67	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	11.49 ± 1.64	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	3.2 ± 1.45	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	6.14 ± 0.83	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.34 ± 0.76	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	42.48 ± 2.8	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	46.11 ± 1.69	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	33.55 ± 1.66	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	49.7 ± 3.8	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	8.21 ± 0.93	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.97 ± 0.59	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.68 ± 0.83	mg/g DW	c	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	4.67 ± 1.62	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	29.1 ± 1.8	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	44.18 ± 0.73	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	23.71 ± 2.74	mg/g DW	c	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	61.24 ± 3.11	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	11.97 ± 0.89	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.45 ± 0.68	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	7.65 ± 1.18	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.34 ± 1.54	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	35.82 ± 1.58	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	43.42 ± 1.57	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	32.37 ± 2.14	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	47.18 ± 3.75	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	7.62 ± 1.99	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.57 ± 0.76	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.51 ± 1.97	mg/g DW	bc	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	5.51 ± 1.77	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	31.07 ± 2.04	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	45.24 ± 0.49	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	25.13 ± 3.35	mg/g DW	c	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	58.65 ± 4.57	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	12.01 ± 1.49	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.22 ± 0.56	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	8.84 ± 0.83	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.17 ± 1.66	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	44.17 ± 0.53	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	45.42 ± 1.19	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	46.21 ± 9.82	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	48.63 ± 2.7	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.45 ± 0.71	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.8 ± 0.33	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	4.32 ± 1.51	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	5.0 ± 2.06	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	43.17 ± 0.76	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	42.34 ± 0.73	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	59.2 ± 4.25	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	61.87 ± 4.67	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.14 ± 0.51	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	3.2 ± 1.45	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	7.82 ± 1.78	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.34 ± 0.76	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	42.99 ± 0.63	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	46.11 ± 1.69	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	49.94 ± 2.38	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	49.7 ± 3.8	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	3.0 ± 0.51	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.97 ± 0.59	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	4.5 ± 1.05	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	4.67 ± 1.62	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	42.76 ± 0.91	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	44.18 ± 0.73	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	57.57 ± 7.99	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	61.24 ± 3.11	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.53 ± 0.37	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.45 ± 0.68	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	7.65 ± 1.19	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.34 ± 1.54	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	45.05 ± 1.18	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	43.42 ± 1.57	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	49.96 ± 1.85	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	47.18 ± 3.75	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	3.43 ± 0.94	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.57 ± 0.76	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	5.01 ± 1.97	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	5.51 ± 1.77	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	41.64 ± 0.82	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)	45.24 ± 0.49	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	50.79 ± 5.04	mg/g DW	b	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	58.65 ± 4.57	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.71 ± 0.34	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2.22 ± 0.56	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	7.82 ± 1.05	mg/g DW	ab	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	9.17 ± 1.66	mg/g DW	a	Table 2, p.9 (D56)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Total phenolics	13	mg GAE/100 g DW	NR	Results text p.8 (D38)
chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3	AP	biochemistry	Total phenolics	21	mg GAE/100 g DW	NR	Results text p.8 (D38)

Quartz 5

Explorer

Exploring the Potential of Biostimulants to Optimize Lettuce Cultivation in Coupled and Decoupled Aquaponics Systems: Growth Performance, Functional Characteristics and Metabolomic Analysis

Exploring the Potential of Biostimulants to Optimize Lettuce Cultivation in Coupled and Decoupled Aquaponics Systems

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Cultivation system effects on growth and physiology

Leaf nutritional state (N, K+, Na+, Ca2+)

Total phenolics

Metabolomics (GC-MS polar metabolite profile)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T1

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T2

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T3

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T4

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T5

chandrouExploringPotentialBiostimulants2024-T6

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks