Grafted and Nongrafted ‘Cherokee Purple’ Tomato Performance in Aquaponic and Hydroponic Greenhouse Production in Oklahoma
Metadata
- Cite key: deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: C. Deer, B.L. Dunn, B. Hu, C. Goad, D.E. Shoup
- Affiliation: Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University (Deer, Dunn, Hu); Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State University (Goad); Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management, Oklahoma State University (Shoup)
- Journal: HortScience 58 (2023) 1332-1340
- Date: 11/2023
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.21273/hortsci17248-23
- Funding: [not reported]
- URL: https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci17248-23
- PDF:
Deer et al. - 2023 - Grafted and Nongrafted 'Cherokee Purple' Tomato Pe.pdf
Opinion
A genuinely useful negative/mixed result (grafting helps vegetative vigor but not yield; hydroponics outyields aquaponics for this cultivar) with a real split-plot design and two years of replication, which is more rigorous than most single-season soilless comparisons. The main weakness for data extraction is that several headline biomass/yield outcomes (shoot/root fresh-dry weight, total/unmarketable fruit weight and number) had non-significant System x Graft interactions, so the paper only publishes main-effect tables — the specific “aquaponic + grafted” or “aquaponic + nongrafted” cell values are never printed. That is a genuine reporting gap, not a fault of ours to paper over. The abstract also appears to mislabel which fruit-count variable was significant (see contradictions below).
Abstract
‘Cherokee Purple’ tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants are a highly sought-after heirloom cultivar in the United States but are low yielding and highly susceptible to soil-borne pathogens, and may benefit from being grafted. Soilless systems such as aquaponics and hydroponics help increase yield, mitigate disease, and serve as an alternative to field production. The objective of this study was to evaluate a grafting combination of ‘Cherokee Purple’ x ‘Maxifort’ and nongrafted controls in 1.85-m2 media grow beds with hydroponic and aquaponic systems using copper nose bluegill in a greenhouse. Grafting increased stem diameter, leaf count, stem height, flower count, and bud count compared with nongrafted plants. In aquaponics, grafting increased the phosphorus uptake over nongrafted plants grown in the aquaponic system. Grafting resulted in greater fresh (49.2%) and dry (40.0%) shoot biomass, and fresh (33.3%) and dry (42.8%) root biomass. Grafting also increased the uptake of copper and sulfur in the aquaponic systems. The hydroponic systems resulted in greater leaf count, soil plant analysis development, stem height, shoot biomass, and greater boron, phosphorus, potassium, iron, and manganese levels than aquaponic systems. Total fruit number and weight were greater in hydroponic systems than in aquaponic systems by 35.4% and 30.4%, respectively, but fruit splitting was a problem in both. Aquaponics resulted in greater root fresh weight than hydroponics. The nutrients zinc and copper increased with the use of aquaponic systems over hydroponic systems. This research suggests that the type of system can affect growth and nutrient uptake, and ‘Cherokee Purple’ should not be used in a soilless system because of excessive fruit splitting, leading to unmarketable fruit and low yield, unless environmental conditions can be managed during the heat of the summer.
Summary
Over two growing seasons (2021, 2022) at Oklahoma State University, the authors grew grafted (‘Cherokee Purple’ x ‘Maxifort’) and nongrafted ‘Cherokee Purple’ tomatoes in parallel media-bed aquaponic (coppernose bluegill) and hydroponic systems, using a split-plot randomized complete block design (system = whole plot, graft = subplot, 3 replicate systems each). Grafting increased vegetative vigor (stem diameter, leaf count late-season, stem height late-season, flower and bud counts) and shoot/root fresh and dry biomass, but did not change marketable, unmarketable, or total fruit number/weight. Hydroponic systems outperformed aquaponic systems in shoot biomass, several tissue macro/micronutrients (B, P, K, Fe, Mn), and total fruit yield, while aquaponic systems produced more root fresh weight and higher tissue Zn and Cu. Both systems suffered heavy fruit splitting/cracking, which the authors attribute to high summer greenhouse temperatures (up to 42.6 degC) combined with nutrient-solution concentration effects on fruit skin elasticity, and this was the dominant driver of poor marketable yield regardless of graft or system treatment. The authors conclude ‘Cherokee Purple’ is a poor candidate for soilless production without better environmental (heat) control.
Experiment data
- Location: Oklahoma State University Research Greenhouses, Stillwater, OK, USA (lat. 36.1260 N, long. -97.0752 W)
- Design: Split-plot in a randomized complete block design, repeated across 2 years (2021, 2022) and combined in analysis. Soilless system (hydroponic vs aquaponic) = whole-plot factor, 3 replicate systems each; grafted vs nongrafted = subplot factor within each system.
- Replicates / n: 3 aquaponic + 3 hydroponic systems (blocks); 5 plants per replication, averaged for growth/biomass/nutrient/harvest data
- Duration: Year 1 trial 24 May-24 Nov 2021 (transplanted 21 May 2021); Year 2 trial 24 Apr-24 Sep 2022 (transplanted 23 May 2022). Fruit harvested 2 Aug-21 Nov 2021 (17 harvests) and 12 Jul-22 Sep 2022 (6 harvests).
- Organisms: Coppernose bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) / ‘Cherokee Purple’ tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) grafted onto ‘Maxifort’ rootstock vs nongrafted
- Statistics: Linear mixed-models analysis for repeated measures (random effects: year, replication/block within year, whole-plot error, subplot error); means separation by Fisher’s least significant difference test; alpha = 0.05; SAS/STAT v9.4 (SAS Institute)
- Leaf Count: Significant System x Graft x Month interaction (p<0.0001, Table 1). October combined-years values: Hydroponic grafted 639.0, Aquaponic grafted 553.0, Hydroponic nongrafted 572.0, Aquaponic nongrafted 527.0 (Table 2, p.1334)
- Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): [not reported]
- Stem diameter (above graft union): Significant System x Graft x Month interaction (Table 1, p.1334); grafted aquaponic > nongrafted aquaponic from June-October (Table 2)
- Shoot fresh weight (kg/plant), main effects only: Aquaponics 2.0b, Hydroponics 2.4a; Grafted 2.9a, Nongrafted 1.5b (Table 8, p.1336). System x Graft interaction not significant (p=0.38, Table 7)
- Root fresh weight (kg/plant), main effects only: Aquaponics 1.4a, Hydroponics 0.7b (46.4% greater in aquaponics); Grafted 1.2a, Nongrafted 0.8b (Table 8). System x Graft ns (p=0.11)
- Total fruit weight (kg/plant), main effect: Aquaponics 2.6b, Hydroponics 3.7a (Table 8); System x Graft ns (p=0.97)
- SPAD, System x Graft interaction (combined-years mean, no month split): Aquaponics grafted 48.0a, Aquaponics nongrafted 42.3a, Hydroponics grafted 50.8a, Hydroponics nongrafted 48.4a (Table 5, p.1335; all share LSD letter ‘a’ despite a significant omnibus interaction test, p=0.03 in Table 1)
- Tissue P, S, B, Zn, System x Graft interaction (Table 10, p.1337): Aquaponics grafted P 0.9a / S 1.2a / B 117.4c / Zn 89.3a mg L-1; Aquaponics nongrafted P 0.7b / S 1.0b / B 110.7c / Zn 58.8b; Hydroponics grafted P 0.8ab / S 1.1ab / B 176.4b / Zn 43.0b; Hydroponics nongrafted P 0.8a / S 1.2ab / B 208.6a / Zn 40.5b
Aquaponic and hydroponic system construction
Three aquaponic systems (1.85 m2 expanded-shale media grow beds, Symbiotic Aquaponics), fish tank + filtration + grow bed combined = 575 L water. Mechanical bead filter (AquaDyne AD1000), 12,096 L/h pool pump (AquaPulse AP-IPP3200), snorkel bell siphon. Three parallel hydroponic systems, same 1.85 m2 expanded-shale grow beds, 379-L nutrient reservoirs (x3, total 1137.9 L), 9828 L/h underwater pump (Vivosun 332567).
Nutrient / water management
Aquaponic: untreated tap water (initial pH 7.4), nitrifying bacteria inoculated from a pre-established aquaponic system (250 mL media), NH3/NO2 kept <=4 ppm, DO 6-7 ppm, pH ramped from 7.9-8.4 (establishment) down to 6.8-7.0 via reverse-osmosis water, water temp 24-29 degC day / 18-21 degC night during establishment, average 26.9 degC through production, EC 0.77-0.83 mS/cm after fish-feed supplementation, NO3- target 40-50 ppm. Backwashed 2x/week during production. Coppernose bluegill stocked at 40 fish/tank (0.45 kg fish harvest weight/34 L water), fed 2-mm/1.5-mm OPTIMAL FISHFOOD ad libitum twice daily, feed rate driven by NO3 accumulation. Chelated iron (DTPA 11%) and K/Mg carbonate buffer added periodically.
Hydroponic: Masterblend 4N-7.9P-31.5K + calcium nitrate + magnesium sulfate; target EC 0.8 (seedling) to 2.0-2.3 mS/cm (production); target pH 6.3 via pH Up/Down; average water temp 27.3 degC through production; DO 6-7 ppm via aeration pumps; top-off 19-38 L 3x/week, full replacement at 50% reservoir turnover.
Growth, yield, and fruit quality
Grafting increased stem diameter, leaf count (through Sept), stem height (Sept-Oct), flower count (Aug-Oct), and bud count (+56% vs nongrafted) but had no significant effect on marketable, unmarketable, or total fruit number/weight (Table 7). Hydroponic systems had greater shoot fresh/dry weight and SPAD (Sept-Oct) than aquaponic systems, while aquaponics produced 46.4% greater root fresh weight. Fruit splitting/cracking was severe in both systems (marketable fruit as low as ~1.4 kg in any treatment); authors attribute this to high greenhouse heat (day temps up to 42.6 degC) interacting with nutrient-solution concentration effects on fruit-skin elasticity. Early blight (Alternaria solani) affected nongrafted plants only in the aquaponic systems; grafted plants were disease-free.
Foliar nutrient content
System x Graft interaction significant for B, Zn, P, S (Table 9-10). System main effect significant for K, Fe, Cu, Mn (hydroponics higher in K/Fe/Mn, aquaponics higher in Cu); graft main effect significant for Cu (grafted higher, pooled across system).
Linked claims
- Grafting increases tomato shoot and root biomass
- Hydroponic systems yield more tomato fruit than aquaponic systems
- Fruit cracking limits soilless tomato marketability under high heat
- Aquaponic systems accumulate more copper and zinc in plant tissue than hydroponics
Citations to chase
- todo Armenta-Bojorquez et al. (2021) — reported grafted tomato performed well in aquaponics (shrimp/tomato integrated system); direct comparator this paper cites as the only prior grafted-tomato-in-aquaponics study (p.1332)
- todo Roosta and Hamidpour (2011) — tomato biomass increased in hydroponic over aquaponic systems from nutrient fertility; cited to explain this paper’s leaf-count result (p.1335)
- todo Schmautz et al. (2016) — tomato productivity/quality comparison of three hydroponic methods in aquaponics (p.1332)
- todo Suhl et al. (2016) — intensive tomato production in aquaponics vs conventional hydroponics (p.1332)
- todo Pantanella et al. (2010) — aquaponics vs hydroponics lettuce P content comparison, cited as precedent for this paper’s P finding (p.1337)
- todo Dysko et al. (2009) — nutrient solution pH effect on tomato yield/quality, cited to explain aquaponic yield shortfall (p.1336)
Extraction notes
WARN-MATERIAL fruit-number labelling. Abstract (p.1332): “Total fruit number and weight were greater in hydroponic systems than in aquaponic systems by 35.4% and 30.4%, respectively.” Results text (p.1336): “Hydroponic systems had more unmarketable fruit, by 35.4%, than aquaponic systems (Table 8). The total weight in the hydroponic systems was 30% greater than in the aquaponic systems.” Table 7 (p.1336) significance levels: Total fruit no. System p=0.09 (not significant); Unmarketable fruit no. System p=0.05 (significant); Total fruit wt System p=0.05 (significant). The 35.4% figure the abstract attributes to “total fruit number” is, per the Results text and the significance table, actually the unmarketable fruit number difference — total fruit number was not significant. Reconcilable: Results text and Table 7 agree with each other and against the abstract, so the abstract’s variable label is treated as the error. No trials.csv cell is affected because the schema has no fruit-count column; this is recorded here for anyone citing the 35.4% figure. Total fruit weight (30.4%/30%, consistent between abstract and body, MINOR rounding only) is unaffected.
Interpretive note (not a numeric contradiction), Cu/graft/system specificity. Abstract states “Grafting also increased the uptake of copper and sulfur in the aquaponic systems,” implying a graft effect specific to the aquaponic system. Table 9 (p.1336) shows the System x Graft interaction for Cu at p=0.06 (not significant at the stated alpha=0.05); only the Graft main effect (pooled across both systems) is significant for Cu (Table 11, Grafted 24.3a vs Nongrafted 17.5b). Sulfur’s interaction IS significant (p=0.01, Table 9) and Table 10 supports an aquaponic-specific effect for S. So the AP-specific framing is well supported for sulfur but not clearly supported by the reported interaction test for copper. No cell recorded incorrectly since plant.csv already carries the Cu value at the Graft-main-effect level with a note; flagged here for anyone using the abstract’s stronger claim.
[not reported], grouped by field:
- Fish: Initial/final individual weight, survival rate, FCR, SGR, total feed weight, biomass created, fish trial duration (days) — feeding was ad libitum and adjusted to NO3 accumulation rather than to a fixed ration or weighed total; no per-fish or per-tank weight data given at any timepoint.
- Water chemistry: TAN/NH4-N and NO2-N trial means (only a combined “never exceeded 4 ppm” ceiling for NH3+NO2 together is given, not separable); Aq pH trial mean (only pre-production establishment-phase ranges given: 7.9-8.4, then adjusted to 6.8-7.0); Daily water exchange rate (aquaponic backwashing frequency given as “2x/week” but not as a % volume exchange); FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE.
- Plant: Days Plant after transplant (only calendar dates given, not day-counts referenced to a harvest event); Plants/m2 (bed area and plant spacing given but not row spacing, so plant density is not stated and not safely derivable); Plant height and Leaf count “at harvest” as single values — only full monthly repeated-measures matrices exist (Tables 2-4), with no month identified by the paper as the harvest timepoint, so these were left NR rather than substituting the last-measured month (October).
- Plant fresh weight / dry matter, and Total/Unmarketable fruit weight and number, at the AP-grafted / AP-nongrafted cell level: System x Graft interaction was not significant for any of these (Table 7, p=0.11-0.97), so the paper reports only System main effects (pooled across graft) and Graft main effects (pooled across system) — no joint cell exists in the paper to record per trial. Recorded NR in trials.csv with the main-effect values placed in Experimental Remarks / plant.csv Notes instead of estimating the joint cell.
- Funding, Date added: not stated anywhere in the PDF.
[unclear] fields: none beyond the two items flagged above as WARN-MATERIAL / interpretive-only.
New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Bluegill, Meta/Plant/Tomato (both already existed in the wider vault’s facet families per TAGS.md conventions; no new facet family created).
Source: Deer et al. - 2023 - Grafted and Nongrafted 'Cherokee Purple' Tomato Pe.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
deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Coppernose bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily at 10:30 AM and 5:30 PM |
| Feed regime | Ad libitum (apparent satiation), mix of 2-mm floating pellet and 1.5-mm fingerling feed (OPTIMAL FISHFOOD); feed increased depending on NO3 accumulation, baseline target 40-50 ppm |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 201.6 L/min (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 12,096 L/h / 60, AquaPulse AP-IPP3200 pool pump) |
| Water volume in the system | 575 (fish tank + filtration + grow beds combined, aquaponic system, p.1333) |
| Water type | Untreated greenhouse tap water |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6-7 |
| EC | 0.77-0.83 |
| Water temperature | 26.9 |
| NO3-N | 40-50 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | ’Cherokee Purple’ tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), grafted |
| Details | Scion ‘Cherokee Purple’ / rootstock ‘Maxifort’ (Tri-Hishtil Seed Company); double-stemmed, lean-and-lower trellis; transplanted 21 May 2021 / 23 May 2022, spaced 30.5 cm apart |
| Plant Category | Fruiting crop (p.1332) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 48.0 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media-based grow bed (expanded shale media) |
| Media Details | Expanded shale media (Symbiotic Aquaponics) in 1.85 m2 grow beds; 30.5-cm snorkel bell siphon with 20.3-cm PVC media guard (aquaponic, p.1333); paired hydroponic bed used a 30.5-cm bell siphon with 10.2-cm PVC media guard (p.1333); foam boards separated graft treatments within each bed (p.1333) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Nitrifying bacteria inoculated via 250 mL of media taken from a pre-established aquaponic system on 12 Apr 2021 (p.1333); water from the charged system reused in 2022) |
| Air supplement | Y (Air stones + air pump during dechlorination; two 227-L aeration pumps maintained DO 6-7 ppm in aquaponic systems (p.1333); paired hydroponic system also used two 227-L aeration pumps (p.1334)) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Chelated iron (DTPA 11%, Symbiotic Aquaponics) applied biweekly at 1.5-2.0 g per application to address Fe deficiency in aquaponic systems (p.1333)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Potassium carbonate added at 2.4-2.6 g, two to three times every 2 d, to aquaponic systems, providing K and Mg in aqueous form in addition to raising pH (p.1333)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponic: homogenized calcium carbonate / magnesium carbonate buffer blend + potassium carbonate to raise pH; reverse-osmosis water to lower pH from 7.9-8.4 to 6.8-7.0 (p.1333). Paired hydroponic: pH Up (potassium hydroxide) / pH Down (phosphoric acid), target pH 6.3 (p.1333)) |
| Climate control | Y (Commercial-grade fans added to correct high-heat/humidity-induced edema during year 1 (p.1336); trellis lines and fans shaken weekly to aid pollination (p.1333)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponic: fish-feed rate adjusted to NO3 accumulation, chelated iron, K/Mg carbonate (p.1333). Paired hydroponic: Masterblend 4N-7.9P-31.5K + calcium nitrate + magnesium sulfate, EC managed 0.8-2.3 mS/cm by growth stage (p.1333)) |
| Equipment | AquaDyne AD1000 bead filter; AquaPulse AP-IPP3200 pool pump (aquaponic, 12,096 L/h); Vivosun 332567 underwater pump (paired hydroponic, 9828 L/h); HANNA HI9813-61 pH/EC/TDS/temperature meter; Minolta SPAD meter; LECO TruSpec Elemental Analyzer |
| Control Parameters | Aquaponic: NH3+NO2 <=4 ppm ceiling, DO 6-7 ppm, pH 7.9-8.4 then 6.8-7.0, NO3- target 40-50 ppm, EC 0.77-0.83 mS/cm. NO COLUMN, paired hydroponic targets: pH 6.3, EC 0.8-2.3 mS/cm by growth stage |
| Combination | Coppernose bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and ‘Cherokee Purple’ x ‘Maxifort’ grafted tomato; aquaponic vs hydroponic, media-based (expanded shale) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
| Lat | 36.126 |
| Long | -97.0752 |
| Average room Temperature | 25.2 (2021) / 25.9 (2022) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (shoot/root biomass, fruit wt); % or mg/L (tissue macro/micronutrients); SPAD units (chlorophyll) |
| Statistic Details | Linear mixed-models repeated-measures analysis; random effects year, replication/block within year, whole-plot error, subplot error; Fisher’s LSD, alpha=0.05; SAS/STAT v9.4 (p.1334) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: this row = grafted ‘Cherokee Purple’ tomato grown in the aquaponic system (subplot within the aquaponic whole-plot). Paired control = grafted tomato in the hydroponic system, noted in remarks since the schema carries one HYD twin per row. The other row in this paper covers the nongrafted treatment. Evidenced by split-plot RCBD with system as whole-plot and graft as subplot (Methods p.1334) and per-treatment Tables 2, 3, 5, 10. | NO COLUMN: paired hydroponic-side values this schema has no HYD twin for — water temp avg 27.3 degC through production (p.1334); EC target 0.8 mS/cm (seedling) rising to 2.0-2.3 mS/cm (later production) (p.1333); DO maintained 6-7 ppm via two 227-L aeration pumps (p.1334); target pH 6.3 via pH Up/Down (p.1333); pump rate 9828 L/h = 163.8 L/min (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, p.1333); reservoirs 3x379 L = 1137.9 L (p.1333, reservoirs only, excludes grow-bed volume). | Initial Stock density NR: paper states ‘40 bluegill per tank (0.45 kg of fish harvest weight/34 L of water)’ (p.1333) — explicitly labelled harvest weight, not an initial stocking density, so not entered in this column. If it were a density figure: UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.45 kg/34 L = 13.2 kg/m3 (not recorded as Initial Stock density because the paper’s own label is ‘harvest weight’). | WARN-CHECK NO3-N: paper states ‘NO3- in each system was allowed to reach 40 to 50 ppm’ (p.1333) using the ion symbol NO3- throughout Methods, never NO3-N. Whether the reported ppm is as NO3- ion or as N-equivalent (factor of 4.43 apart) is not stated, and probe/kit calibration basis is not given. Recorded as-is (40-50) since no conversion basis is supplied; both readings are defensible depending on instrument calibration. Flagging for REVIEW.md. | Aq pH NR: only pre-production establishment-phase ranges are given — ‘pH was maintained from 7.9 to 8.4’ during bacterial establishment (p.1333), then ‘decreased gradually to 6.8 to 7.0… over the next 20 d’ once nutrient circulation began (p.1333). No production-phase trial-mean pH is stated for either system, so left NR rather than reporting an establishment-phase range as a production trial mean. | TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N NR: paper gives only a combined ceiling, ‘NH3 and NO2- levels never exceeded 4 ppm’ (p.1333) — not separable into the two analytes and not a trial mean. | AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter NR: System x Graft interaction was not significant for shoot/root fresh & dry weight or total/unmarketable fruit weight/number (Table 7 p.1336, p=0.11-0.97), so the paper reports only System main effects (pooled across graft) and Graft main effects (pooled across system) in Table 8 — no joint ‘aquaponic + graft’ cell is printed anywhere in the paper. System main effects for reference (NO COLUMN, not graft-specific): Shoot fresh wt AP 2.0b / HYD 2.4a kg; Shoot dry wt AP 0.3b / HYD 0.4a kg; Root fresh wt AP 1.4a / HYD 0.7b kg (46.4% greater AP); Root dry wt AP 0.3a / HYD 0.3a kg; Unmarketable fruit(n) AP 20.0b / HYD 31.0a; Total fruit wt AP 2.6b / HYD 3.7a kg (all per plant, Table 8 p.1336). Graft main effects for reference: Shoot fresh 2.9a(grafted)/1.5b(nongrafted) kg; Shoot dry 0.5a/0.3b kg; Root fresh 1.2a/0.8b kg; Root dry 0.3a/0.2b kg; Unmarketable fruit(n) 27.0a/24.0a (ns); Total fruit wt 3.5a/2.8a kg (ns). | WARN-MATERIAL fruit-number label (paper-level, not a specific cell in this schema): abstract (p.1332) attributes the significant 35.4% hydroponic-vs-aquaponic difference to ‘Total fruit number’, but Results text (p.1336) and Table 7 attribute the same 35.4% figure to ‘Unmarketable fruit number’ (Total fruit no. System p=0.09 ns; Unmarketable fruit no. System p=0.05 sig). Results text and Table 7 agree with each other against the abstract, so the abstract’s variable label is treated as the error; no cell in this schema is affected since there is no fruit-count column. See note Extraction notes. | Average room Temperature: paper reports separate per-year daytime production averages (25.2 degC 2021, 25.9 degC 2022, p.1332), not a single combined-years figure; both recorded, this is not a conflict (two different years, not two claims about the same year). | SPAD System x Graft cell for this treatment: AP 48.0a, paired HYD 50.8a (Table 5 p.1335, combined-years mean, no month split); all four System x Graft SPAD cells share LSD letter ‘a’ despite a significant omnibus interaction test (p=0.03, Table 1), so pairwise letters show no significant difference even though the interaction itself was significant — reported as stated, not reconciled.
deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Coppernose bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) |
| Feed routine | Fed twice daily at 10:30 AM and 5:30 PM |
| Feed regime | Ad libitum (apparent satiation), mix of 2-mm floating pellet and 1.5-mm fingerling feed (OPTIMAL FISHFOOD); feed increased depending on NO3 accumulation, baseline target 40-50 ppm |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 201.6 L/min (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 12,096 L/h / 60, AquaPulse AP-IPP3200 pool pump) |
| Water volume in the system | 575 (fish tank + filtration + grow beds combined, aquaponic system, p.1333) |
| Water type | Untreated greenhouse tap water |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6-7 |
| EC | 0.77-0.83 |
| Water temperature | 26.9 |
| NO3-N | 40-50 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | ’Cherokee Purple’ tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), nongrafted |
| Details | Nongrafted ‘Cherokee Purple’ control, seed from Seed Kingdom; double-stemmed, lean-and-lower trellis; transplanted 21 May 2021 / 23 May 2022, spaced 30.5 cm apart |
| Plant Category | Fruiting crop (p.1332) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 42.3 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media-based grow bed (expanded shale media) |
| Media Details | Expanded shale media (Symbiotic Aquaponics) in 1.85 m2 grow beds; 30.5-cm snorkel bell siphon with 20.3-cm PVC media guard (aquaponic, p.1333); paired hydroponic bed used a 30.5-cm bell siphon with 10.2-cm PVC media guard (p.1333); foam boards separated graft treatments within each bed (p.1333) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Nitrifying bacteria inoculated via 250 mL of media taken from a pre-established aquaponic system on 12 Apr 2021 (p.1333); water from the charged system reused in 2022) |
| Air supplement | Y (Air stones + air pump during dechlorination; two 227-L aeration pumps maintained DO 6-7 ppm in aquaponic systems (p.1333); paired hydroponic system also used two 227-L aeration pumps (p.1334)) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Chelated iron (DTPA 11%, Symbiotic Aquaponics) applied biweekly at 1.5-2.0 g per application to address Fe deficiency in aquaponic systems (p.1333)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Potassium carbonate added at 2.4-2.6 g, two to three times every 2 d, to aquaponic systems, providing K and Mg in aqueous form in addition to raising pH (p.1333)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponic: homogenized calcium carbonate / magnesium carbonate buffer blend + potassium carbonate to raise pH; reverse-osmosis water to lower pH from 7.9-8.4 to 6.8-7.0 (p.1333). Paired hydroponic: pH Up (potassium hydroxide) / pH Down (phosphoric acid), target pH 6.3 (p.1333)) |
| Climate control | Y (Commercial-grade fans added to correct high-heat/humidity-induced edema during year 1 (p.1336); trellis lines and fans shaken weekly to aid pollination (p.1333)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponic: fish-feed rate adjusted to NO3 accumulation, chelated iron, K/Mg carbonate (p.1333). Paired hydroponic: Masterblend 4N-7.9P-31.5K + calcium nitrate + magnesium sulfate, EC managed 0.8-2.3 mS/cm by growth stage (p.1333)) |
| Equipment | AquaDyne AD1000 bead filter; AquaPulse AP-IPP3200 pool pump (aquaponic, 12,096 L/h); Vivosun 332567 underwater pump (paired hydroponic, 9828 L/h); HANNA HI9813-61 pH/EC/TDS/temperature meter; Minolta SPAD meter; LECO TruSpec Elemental Analyzer |
| Control Parameters | Aquaponic: NH3+NO2 <=4 ppm ceiling, DO 6-7 ppm, pH 7.9-8.4 then 6.8-7.0, NO3- target 40-50 ppm, EC 0.77-0.83 mS/cm. NO COLUMN, paired hydroponic targets: pH 6.3, EC 0.8-2.3 mS/cm by growth stage |
| Combination | Coppernose bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and ‘Cherokee Purple’ x ‘Maxifort’ nongrafted tomato; aquaponic vs hydroponic, media-based (expanded shale) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
| Lat | 36.126 |
| Long | -97.0752 |
| Average room Temperature | 25.2 (2021) / 25.9 (2022) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant (shoot/root biomass, fruit wt); % or mg/L (tissue macro/micronutrients); SPAD units (chlorophyll) |
| Statistic Details | Linear mixed-models repeated-measures analysis; random effects year, replication/block within year, whole-plot error, subplot error; Fisher’s LSD, alpha=0.05; SAS/STAT v9.4 (p.1334) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: this row = nongrafted ‘Cherokee Purple’ tomato grown in the aquaponic system (subplot within the aquaponic whole-plot). Paired control = nongrafted tomato in the hydroponic system, noted in remarks since the schema carries one HYD twin per row. The other row in this paper covers the grafted treatment. Evidenced by split-plot RCBD with system as whole-plot and graft as subplot (Methods p.1334) and per-treatment Tables 2, 3, 5, 10. | NO COLUMN: paired hydroponic-side values this schema has no HYD twin for — water temp avg 27.3 degC through production (p.1334); EC target 0.8 mS/cm (seedling) rising to 2.0-2.3 mS/cm (later production) (p.1333); DO maintained 6-7 ppm via two 227-L aeration pumps (p.1334); target pH 6.3 via pH Up/Down (p.1333); pump rate 9828 L/h = 163.8 L/min (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, p.1333); reservoirs 3x379 L = 1137.9 L (p.1333, reservoirs only, excludes grow-bed volume). | Initial Stock density NR: paper states ‘40 bluegill per tank (0.45 kg of fish harvest weight/34 L of water)’ (p.1333) — explicitly labelled harvest weight, not an initial stocking density, so not entered in this column. If it were a density figure: UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.45 kg/34 L = 13.2 kg/m3 (not recorded as Initial Stock density because the paper’s own label is ‘harvest weight’). | WARN-CHECK NO3-N: paper states ‘NO3- in each system was allowed to reach 40 to 50 ppm’ (p.1333) using the ion symbol NO3- throughout Methods, never NO3-N. Whether the reported ppm is as NO3- ion or as N-equivalent (factor of 4.43 apart) is not stated, and probe/kit calibration basis is not given. Recorded as-is (40-50) since no conversion basis is supplied; both readings are defensible depending on instrument calibration. Flagging for REVIEW.md. | Aq pH NR: only pre-production establishment-phase ranges are given — ‘pH was maintained from 7.9 to 8.4’ during bacterial establishment (p.1333), then ‘decreased gradually to 6.8 to 7.0… over the next 20 d’ once nutrient circulation began (p.1333). No production-phase trial-mean pH is stated for either system, so left NR rather than reporting an establishment-phase range as a production trial mean. | TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N NR: paper gives only a combined ceiling, ‘NH3 and NO2- levels never exceeded 4 ppm’ (p.1333) — not separable into the two analytes and not a trial mean. | AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter NR: System x Graft interaction was not significant for shoot/root fresh & dry weight or total/unmarketable fruit weight/number (Table 7 p.1336, p=0.11-0.97), so the paper reports only System main effects (pooled across graft) and Graft main effects (pooled across system) in Table 8 — no joint ‘aquaponic + graft’ cell is printed anywhere in the paper. System main effects for reference (NO COLUMN, not graft-specific): Shoot fresh wt AP 2.0b / HYD 2.4a kg; Shoot dry wt AP 0.3b / HYD 0.4a kg; Root fresh wt AP 1.4a / HYD 0.7b kg (46.4% greater AP); Root dry wt AP 0.3a / HYD 0.3a kg; Unmarketable fruit(n) AP 20.0b / HYD 31.0a; Total fruit wt AP 2.6b / HYD 3.7a kg (all per plant, Table 8 p.1336). Graft main effects for reference: Shoot fresh 2.9a(grafted)/1.5b(nongrafted) kg; Shoot dry 0.5a/0.3b kg; Root fresh 1.2a/0.8b kg; Root dry 0.3a/0.2b kg; Unmarketable fruit(n) 27.0a/24.0a (ns); Total fruit wt 3.5a/2.8a kg (ns). | WARN-MATERIAL fruit-number label (paper-level, not a specific cell in this schema): abstract (p.1332) attributes the significant 35.4% hydroponic-vs-aquaponic difference to ‘Total fruit number’, but Results text (p.1336) and Table 7 attribute the same 35.4% figure to ‘Unmarketable fruit number’ (Total fruit no. System p=0.09 ns; Unmarketable fruit no. System p=0.05 sig). Results text and Table 7 agree with each other against the abstract, so the abstract’s variable label is treated as the error; no cell in this schema is affected since there is no fruit-count column. See note Extraction notes. | Average room Temperature: paper reports separate per-year daytime production averages (25.2 degC 2021, 25.9 degC 2022, p.1332), not a single combined-years figure; both recorded, this is not a conflict (two different years, not two claims about the same year). | SPAD System x Graft cell for this treatment: AP 42.3a, paired HYD 48.4a (Table 5 p.1335, combined-years mean, no month split); all four System x Graft SPAD cells share LSD letter ‘a’ despite a significant omnibus interaction test (p=0.03, Table 1), so pairwise letters show no significant difference even though the interaction itself was significant — reported as stated, not reconciled.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus | 0.9 | % | a | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus | 0.8 | % | ab | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus | 0.7 | % | b | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus | 0.8 | % | a | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Sulfur | 1.2 | % | a | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Sulfur | 1.1 | % | ab | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Sulfur | 1.0 | % | b | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Sulfur | 1.2 | % | ab | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Boron | 117.4 | mg/L | c | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Boron | 176.4 | mg/L | b | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Boron | 110.7 | mg/L | c | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Boron | 208.6 | mg/L | a | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Zinc | 89.3 | mg/L | a | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Zinc | 43.0 | mg/L | b | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Zinc | 58.8 | mg/L | b | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Zinc | 40.5 | mg/L | b | Table 10, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | biochemistry | SPAD (chlorophyll) | 48.0 | SPAD units | a | Table 5, p.1335 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | SPAD (chlorophyll) | 50.8 | SPAD units | a | Table 5, p.1335 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | biochemistry | SPAD (chlorophyll) | 42.3 | SPAD units | a | Table 5, p.1335 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | SPAD (chlorophyll) | 48.4 | SPAD units | a | Table 5, p.1335 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Total nutrients | 2.7 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Total nutrients | 2.9 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium | 3.3 | % | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium | 5.7 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium | 4.0 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium | 3.6 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium | 1.3 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium | 1.1 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Iron | 129.5 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Iron | 211.2 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Copper | 28.2 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Copper | 13.6 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | AP | mineral | Manganese | 89.1 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | HYD | mineral | Manganese | 462.6 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Total nutrients | 2.7 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Total nutrients | 2.9 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium | 3.3 | % | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium | 5.7 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium | 4.0 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium | 3.6 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium | 1.3 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium | 1.1 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Iron | 129.5 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Iron | 211.2 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Copper | 28.2 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Copper | 13.6 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | AP | mineral | Manganese | 89.1 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | HYD | mineral | Manganese | 462.6 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Total nutrients | 2.7 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Total nutrients | 2.8 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Potassium | 4.6 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Potassium | 4.4 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Calcium | 3.8 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Calcium | 3.6 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Magnesium | 1.2 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Magnesium | 1.2 | % | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Iron | 170.2 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Iron | 170.5 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Copper | 24.3 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Copper | 17.5 | mg/L | b | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T1 | Pooled | mineral | Manganese | 284.9 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |
| deerGraftedNongraftedCherokee2023-T2 | Pooled | mineral | Manganese | 266.9 | mg/L | a | Table 11, p.1337 |