Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine) Growth Performance in Complemented Aquaponic Solution Outperforms Hydroponics

Metadata

Cite key: delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: B. Delaide, S. Goddek, J. Gott, H. Soyeurt, M.H. Jijakli
Affiliation: Integrated and Urban Plant Pathology Laboratory, Universite de Liege, Gembloux, Belgium (Delaide, Jijakli); Biobased Chemistry & Technology, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands (Goddek); Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, UK (Gott); Statistics, Informatics, and Applied Modelling Unit, Dept. AGROBIOCHEM, University of Liege, Gembloux, Belgium (Soyeurt)
Journal: Water 8 (2016) Article 467, Issue 10
Date: 10/2016
Date added: 2019-01-16
DOI: 10.3390/w8100467
Funding: COST Action FA1305 - The EU Aquaponics Hub (networking and publication support only; no research funding body stated) (Acknowledgments, p.9)
URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100467
PDF: Delaide et al. - 2016 - Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine) Growth Pe.pdf

Opinion

Clean, tightly controlled greenhouse comparison with a genuinely interesting design (RAS water complemented up to hydroponic nutrient levels rather than just compared raw), and the leaf-mineral panel is a real strength. The main methodological weakness is that each of the three nutrient solutions was run through a single dedicated AeroFlo/NFT unit per trial — so treatment and system are fully confounded (pseudoreplication at the water/system level; only individual plants are replicated). The authors partly compensate by repeating the whole experiment as a second, independently-timed trial, which is good practice, but this is still not true spatial replication of the treatment. Worth citing for the CAP concept and the leaf nutrient dataset; treat the significance tests on shoot/root weight with the usual caveat for single-tank aquaponics-vs-hydroponics comparisons.

Abstract

Plant growth performance is optimized under hydroponic conditions. The comparison between aquaponics and hydroponics has attracted considerable attention recently, particularly regarding plant yield. However, previous research has not focused on the potential of using aquaponic solution complemented with mineral elements to commercial hydroponic levels in order to increase yield. For this purpose, lettuce plants were put into AeroFlo installations and exposed to hydroponic (HP), aquaponic (AP), or complemented aquaponic (CAP) solutions. The principal finding of this research was that AP and HP treatments exhibited similar (p > 0.05) plant growth, whereas the shoot weight of the CAP treatment showed a significant (p < 0.05) growth rate increase of 39% on average compared to the HP and AP treatments. Additionally, the root weight was similar (p > 0.05) in AP and CAP treatments, and both were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that observed in the HP treatment. The results highlight the beneficial effect of recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) water on plant growth. The findings represent a further step toward developing decoupled aquaponic systems (i.e., two- or multi-loops) that have the potential to establish a more productive alternative to hydroponic systems. Microorganisms and dissolved organic matter are suspected to play an important role in RAS water for promoting plant roots and shoots growth.

Summary

The authors ran two independent greenhouse trials (May-Sept 2015) comparing lettuce (cv. Sucrine) grown in three NFT/AeroFlo systems fed with hydroponic solution (HP, rainwater + mineral salts to Resh’s targets), aquaponic solution (AP, tilapia RAS water diluted 1:10 and topped up to UVI/Rakocy targets), or complemented aquaponic solution (CAP, 100% RAS water complemented with mineral salts to match the HP targets). Across both trials, CAP shoot fresh weight was about 39% higher than HP, while AP and HP shoot weights did not differ; root fresh weight was similar between AP and CAP and both exceeded HP. Water chemistry, physiological nutrient ratios, and leaf mineral content were characterised in detail during trial 2 only. The authors conclude that something other than macronutrient concentration in RAS water (likely dissolved organic matter and/or plant growth-promoting microorganisms) drove the extra root and shoot growth in CAP/AP relative to HP, since CAP and HP were formulated to near-identical nutrient targets. The paper is an argument for decoupled aquaponic system (DAPS) designs where RAS water is remineralised rather than used raw.

Experiment data

Location: Climate-controlled experimental greenhouse, Integrated and Urban Plant Pathology Laboratory, University of Liege, Gembloux, Belgium (50.55 N, 4.6833 E, altitude 157 m)

Design: 3 nutrient-solution treatments (HP, AP, CAP), each run in one dedicated AeroFlo 28 NFT system (1 m2 planting area, 100 L recirculated volume); no stated randomisation of treatment-to-system assignment; whole experiment repeated as two temporally separate trials (trial 1: 21 May 2015 start; trial 2: 20 Aug 2015 start)

Replicates / n: Individual plants per treatment as the statistical unit (Trial 1: CAP n=26, HP n=26, AP n=25; Trial 2: CAP n=24, HP n=20, AP n=25); only one system (no spatial replicate) per treatment per trial

Duration: 36 days from transplant (15-day-old seedlings) to harvest, both trials

Organisms: Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine); source water from an existing tilapia RAS (species not specified)

Statistics: One-way ANOVA on shoot/root fresh weight and leaf nutrient content; repeated-measures model (treatment fixed, week repeated) for water nutrient concentrations and ratios; Duncan multiple-comparison on LS means; PROC GLM, SAS 9.4

Shoot fresh weight: CAP 136.28 g/plant vs HP 98.17 vs AP 80.55 (Trial 1, LS means, p<0.001); CAP 55.05 vs HP 39.64 vs AP 35.72 (Trial 2, p<0.01) — CAP significantly higher than both, AP and HP not different

Root fresh weight: CAP 4.86 g/plant vs HP 3.58 vs AP 5.80 (Trial 1, p<0.05); CAP 1.71 vs HP 1.08 vs AP 1.52 (Trial 2, p<0.01) — AP and CAP similar, both higher than HP

Water NO3-N (Trial 2 mean): CAP 215.5 +/- 28.1 mg/L, HP 193.3 +/- 12.4 mg/L, AP 50.3 +/- 1.8 mg/L

Shoot and Root Fresh Weight

This paper: CAP produced ~39% more shoot fresh weight than HP in both trials (Trial 1: 136.28 vs 98.17 g/plant; Trial 2: 55.05 vs 39.64 g/plant), while AP and HP shoot weights did not differ significantly. Root fresh weight was similar between AP and CAP (both higher than HP), so the shoot:root ratio was similar for CAP and HP but significantly lower for AP.

Compared with:

todo Licamele 2009 — PhD thesis reporting similar AP vs HP lettuce yields, cited as precedent (p.2)
todo Pantanella et al. 2012 — “Aquaponics vs. hydroponics: production and quality of lettuce crop”, cited as precedent for similar AP/HP yields (p.2)
todo Rakocy et al. 2004 — UVI single-loop aquaponic nutrient targets used to formulate the AP treatment (Table 1)
todo Burns et al. 2010 — reported lettuce fresh weight halved under ~50% light reduction, used to explain the trial 1 vs trial 2 yield gap (p.8)
todo Waterer and Bertelsen 2014 — Bibb lettuce hydroponic biomass benchmark cited for comparison with the HP trial 1 result (p.8)

Water Nutrient Chemistry

This paper: AP treatment had 4- to 14-fold lower macronutrient concentrations than HP/CAP depending on the element (see WARN-MINOR below), while micronutrient concentrations were broadly similar across treatments. Na+ was 6-9x higher in AP/CAP than HP because Na2CO3 was used for pH control in the RAS-derived solutions.

Compared with:

todo Santos et al. 2004 — PO4-P uptake plateau above 20 mg/L in lettuce, cited to argue AP’s lower P did not limit growth (p.8)
todo Letey et al. 1982 — no shoot/root weight difference in Romaine lettuce across 5-105 mg/L NO3-N, cited for the same argument (p.8)
todo Hambly et al. 2015 — characterises dissolved organic matter (humic-like, protein-like) accumulating in RAS water, cited as a candidate growth-promoting factor (p.9)
todo Haghighi et al. 2012 — humic acid improved lettuce N metabolism and photosynthesis in hydroponics, cited as supporting evidence for the DOM hypothesis (p.9)
todo Mangmang et al. 2014 — Azospirillum brasilense inoculation of lettuce on fish effluent increased IAA/chlorophyll/protein, cited as supporting evidence for the PGPR hypothesis (p.9)

Leaf Nutrient Content

This paper: Leaf mineral content (Trial 2 only, ICP-OES on 6 pooled/dried plants per treatment) was highest in CAP for all macronutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, S), while AP had the lowest content of every macro- and micronutrient except Mn and Mo (highest in AP) and Na (highest in AP, ~9x HP). Fe and Zn leaf content were highest in HP.

Compared with: (no external comparison given by the authors for this dataset — internal treatment comparison only)

Extraction notes

Type classification (judgment call): Classified quasi-experiment rather than experiment. The paper has defined treatments, replication at the plant level, and formal ANOVA/Duncan tests — but each treatment (HP, AP, CAP) was assigned to exactly one AeroFlo/NFT system per trial, with no stated randomisation of treatment-to-system assignment and no system-level (spatial) replicate within a trial. The two temporally separate trials are a form of repetition but not true replication of the treatment unit. Per SCHEMA.md’s decision rule (“Randomised treatments with replication? … Treatments without randomisation or true replication -> quasi-experiment”), this fits quasi-experiment. Still eligible for trials.csv per SCHEMA.md.

Fish/tilapia tagging (judgment call): Meta/Fish/ tag NOT applied. The RAS water source was an already-running tilapia RAS; no fish parameters (stocking density, FCR, growth, survival) were measured or manipulated as part of this study — the fish system was a pre-existing water source, not an experimental subject. Per CLAUDE.md (“Only tag an organism if the paper studied it”), tilapia was not experimentally studied here.

WARN-MATERIAL — “39% growth rate increase” scope. Abstract (p.1): “the shoot weight of the CAP treatment showed a significant (p<0.05) growth rate increase of 39% on average compared to the HP and AP treatments.” Results, section 3.1 (p.4): “For both trials, the shoot weight of the CAP treatment showed a 39% higher growth rate compared to the HP treatment” (AP not mentioned here). Recomputing from Table 2 raw LS means (p.4) confirms 39% describes CAP-vs-HP only: Trial 1 (136.28-98.17)/98.17 = 38.8%; Trial 2 (55.05-39.64)/39.64 = 38.9%. CAP-vs-AP is actually much larger: Trial 1 (136.28-80.55)/80.55 = 69.2%; Trial 2 (55.05-35.72)/35.72 = 54.1%. Recorded: the raw Table 2 means only (unambiguous, no cell required a choice). The abstract’s claim that the 39% figure applies “compared to the HP and AP treatments” is an imprecise overgeneralization not supported by the paper’s own table; readers citing “39% vs AP” from the abstract would be citing a number the paper’s own data contradicts. Affects interpretation/citation only, not any extracted cell.

WARN-MINOR — “four- to ten-fold lower” macronutrients claim. Discussion (p.5): “Depending on the nutritive mineral, AP treatment had four- to ten-fold lower macronutrient concentrations compared to the other treatments.” Recomputing ratios from the paper’s own Table 4 (trial 2, HP/AP): TAN ~13.2x (23.95/1.82) and Ca ~14.0x (205.68/14.72) exceed the stated ten-fold ceiling; PO4-P ~6.5x, SO4-S ~8.7x, K ~4.1x, Mg ~5.9x, NO3-N ~3.8-4.3x fall inside the stated range. No cell affected — Table 4 raw values are recorded directly in trials.csv/plant.csv regardless of this prose summary’s imprecision.

[not reported] / [unclear] fields, grouped:

Fish: species (only “tilapia” stated), stocking density, FCR, SGR, fish size, survival, weight gain, fish trial duration — the fish system was not part of this study’s design (pre-existing RAS used only as water source); see quality/tagging note above.
Feed N/P/K composition of the source RAS feed (only protein 40%, lipid 12%, sugar 3.7% given) — [not reported].
Water recycle flow rate (L/min) — [not reported], only “constantly recirculated by a submersible pump” stated.
Daily water exchange rate as a % — [not reported]; the paper states a full weekly replacement of the 100 L solution instead, which is not the same unit.
Plants/m2 — [not reported] as an explicit density; the paper states “four NFT channels containing seven holes each” in a 1 m2 area (p.3), which would multiply to 28, but this is not derived per the no-derivation rule.
Plant height, leaf count, SPAD, dry matter %, tissue nitrate — [not reported]; the paper reports full leaf mineral panel (P,K,Ca,Mg,S,Na,Fe,B,Cu,Zn,Mn,Mo) but not NO3 in tissue.
NO2-N in water — [not reported] anywhere in the paper.
Water DO in Trial 1 — explicitly “missing data” per the paper’s own Table 3 footnote (not silence, an acknowledged gap).
Water classification, Fish Category, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE — [not reported] / no column definition given by the paper.

NO COLUMN items (see out/delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016.trials.csv Experimental Remarks for full per-row detail):

Root fresh weight and Log10(shoot:root) per treatment per trial (Table 2) — no dedicated column in the 87-col schema.
Full water micronutrient panel from Table 4 (Fe, B, Cu, Zn, Mn, Mo, Na, plus PO4-P, SO4-S, K, Ca, Mg) beyond TAN and NO3-N, trial 2 only.
HP (hydroponic control) water chemistry values themselves (pH, EC, DO, water temperature, TAN, NO3-N) — the schema’s water-quality columns are scoped to “the aquaponic loop,” so HP’s own values are cross-referenced in remarks rather than given a column.
Environmental conditions: greenhouse air temperature and relative humidity (Table 3) beyond the “Average room Temperature” column, and total accumulated solar radiant exposure (316.21 MJ/m2 trial 1 vs 180.94 MJ/m2 trial 2), used by the authors to explain the roughly two-fold yield difference between trials.

No water panel excluded from plant.csv. The full leaf mineral panel (Table 5) was routed to plant.csv as mineral category rows; the water-chemistry panel (Table 4) was routed to trials.csv per SCHEMA.md, not to plant.csv — nothing water-related was dropped as “too valuable to discard.”

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Source: Delaide et al. - 2016 - Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine) Growth Pe.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

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Tilapia (species NR)
Protein	40
Feed regime	40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar commercial feed (Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers, Baasrode, Belgium) fed to the source tilapia RAS; not a fish trial in this study, feeding rate/frequency NR (p.3)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	100
Water type	100% RAS water (tilapia) complemented with high-purity mineral salts to reach HP/Resh target concentrations (p.3)
Aq pH	5.59 +/- 0.69
EC	2.606 +/- 0.297
Water temperature	20.01 +/- 1.46

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine)
Details	15-day-old Latin-type lettuce seedlings (cv. Sucrine, Semailles, Faulx-Les-Tombes, Belgium) transplanted into AeroFlo NFT system and harvested 36 days later (p.3)
Plant Category	Latin-type lettuce, close to Bibb butterhead type (p.8, citing Mou 2008)
Days Plant after transplant	36
Plant fresh weight	136.28

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient film technique (NFT) - AeroFlo 28 (GHE, Fleurance, France) (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS water sourced from a running tilapia RAS (established system, not part of this study’s design) (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (Fe-EDTA added to all three solutions (HP, AP, CAP) to reach treatment-specific target Fe concentrations (p.3-4; Table 1 targets 5 mg/L HP-Resh, 2.5 mg/L AP-Rakocy))
Remineralization	Y (100% RAS water complemented with high-purity mineral salts to reach HP/Resh target concentrations (p.3))
pH Buffers	Y (pH adjusted with HCl and Na2CO3 for all treatments (p.3))
Climate control	Y (Climate-controlled experimental greenhouse, Integrated and Urban Plant Pathology Laboratory, University of Liege (Gembloux, Belgium); air temp and RH logged every 30 min via USB datalogger; trial 1 total solar radiant exposure 316.21 MJ/m2 (p.2))
Artificial Lighting	N (Natural solar irradiance only; no supplemental lighting stated (p.2-3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Macronutrient salts: MgSO4.7H2O, NH4NO3, K2HPO4, Ca(NO3)2.4H2O, KNO3, K2SO4, HNO3 (65%); micronutrient salts: Fe-EDTA, MnSO4.4H2O, CuSO4.5H2O, ZnSO4.7H2O, (NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O, H3BO3; sulfate used as degree of freedom for balancing (p.3))
Equipment	AeroFlo 28 NFT system (GHE, Fleurance, France); HI 83200 multiparameter spectrophotometer with HI 93700/93728/93717/93751/93750/93752 reagents (HANNA); ICP-OES 5100 VDV (Agilent Technologies); pH-meter Inolab pH level 1 (WTW); DO meter HI 98193 (HANNA); EC tester AD31 Waterproof (ADWA); USB datalogger (MOINEAU Instruments); Nanocolor NO3 test Ref 918 65 (Macherey-Nagel) (p.3-4)
Control Parameters	Weekly full solution renewal (fresh 100 L); pH, EC, DO and temperature monitored regularly; half-strength salts for first week to avoid osmotic shock (p.3)
Combination	Lettuce (cv. Sucrine) x three nutrient-solution sources (HP, AP, CAP) sharing tilapia RAS as the aquaponic water source; NFT/AeroFlo system; two temporal trial repeats (p.2-3)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Belgium
Lat	50.55
Long	4.6833
Average room Temperature	22.84 +/- 3.78

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g fw/plant (shoot and root fresh weight, Table 2); mg/gDM or ug/gDM (leaf mineral content, Table 5, trial 2 only)
Statistic Details	One-way ANOVA (treatment fixed effect) on shoot/root fresh weight and leaf nutrient content; repeated-measures model (treatment fixed, week repeated) for water nutrient concentrations; Duncan multiple-comparison for LS means; PROC GLM, SAS 9.4 (p.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	26
AP	136.28
HYD	98.17

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = complemented aquaponic (CAP) treatment, trial 1 (started 21 May 2015, 36-day cycle). Paired control = HP (hydroponic) trial 1, values in HYD column. | Root fresh weight (NO COLUMN): CAP trial1 = 4.86 g/plant (a), HP trial1 = 3.58 g/plant (b), AP trial1 = 5.80 g/plant (a) (Table 2, p.4). Log10(Shoot:Root): CAP=1.47(a), HP=1.47(a), AP=1.14(b). | HP (control) water chemistry (NO COLUMN, Aq pH/DO/EC/Water T columns represent this row’s own AP-type loop only): HP trial1 pH=5.73 +/- 0.45 (N=14); EC=2453 +/- 206 uS/cm (N=7); Water T=21.07 +/- 1.28 (N=10); DO missing data (Table 3 footnote). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 50 deg 33’ N, 4 deg 41’ E -> 50.55, 4.6833 decimal (p.2). EC 2606 +/- 297 uS/cm -> 2.606 +/- 0.297 dS/m (Table 3, p.5). | WARN-MATERIAL Growth rate increase: Abstract states CAP showed ‘a significant… growth rate increase of 39% on average compared to the HP and AP treatments.’ Results (p.4, sec 3.1) state ‘the shoot weight of the CAP treatment showed a 39% higher growth rate compared to the HP treatment’ (AP not mentioned in this specific claim). Recomputation from Table 2 raw means confirms 39% for CAP vs HP (Trial1: (136.28-98.17)/98.17=38.8%; Trial2: (55.05-39.64)/39.64=38.9%), but CAP vs AP is actually much larger (Trial1: (136.28-80.55)/80.55=69.2%; Trial2: (55.05-35.72)/35.72=54.1%). Recorded: raw Table 2 means only (unambiguous, no cell required a choice); the abstract’s framing that 39% applies compared to HP AND AP is an imprecise overgeneralization not supported by the paper’s own numbers. Affects narrative interpretation only. | Fish block: no fish trial was conducted in this study; RAS water was sourced from a pre-existing, already-running tilapia RAS (species not specified) used only as a water source, so Initial Stock density/FCR/SGR/% of body weight/Fish size initial and final/Total Feed/Fish biomass created/Fish survival rate/Fish weight gain/Fish trial duration are NA. Feed composition of the source RAS (40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar; Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers) is reported as background (p.3) and recorded where a column exists (Protein=40; feed N/P/K composition not reported=NR). Judgment call, see Extraction notes in the .md file. | Plants/m2 NOT derived: paper states ‘four NFT channels containing seven holes each’ in a 1 m2 planting area (p.3), which multiplies to 28, but this exact density figure is never stated by the authors and is not recorded as a derived cell; left NR. Daily Water exchange rate NR: paper states solutions were fully replaced with fresh 100 L weekly (p.3), not expressed as a daily % rate; not derived.

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Tilapia (species NR)
Protein	40
Feed regime	40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar commercial feed (Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers, Baasrode, Belgium) fed to the source tilapia RAS; not a fish trial in this study, feeding rate/frequency NR (p.3)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	100
Water type	RAS water (tilapia), diluted 1:10 in rainwater then complemented with high-purity mineral salts to match UVI/Rakocy targets (p.3)
Aq pH	7.32 +/- 0.50
EC	0.823 +/- 0.163
Water temperature	19.60 +/- 1.43

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine)
Details	15-day-old Latin-type lettuce seedlings (cv. Sucrine, Semailles, Faulx-Les-Tombes, Belgium) transplanted into AeroFlo NFT system and harvested 36 days later (p.3)
Plant Category	Latin-type lettuce, close to Bibb butterhead type (p.8, citing Mou 2008)
Days Plant after transplant	36
Plant fresh weight	80.55

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient film technique (NFT) - AeroFlo 28 (GHE, Fleurance, France) (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS water sourced from a running tilapia RAS (established system, not part of this study’s design) (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (Fe-EDTA added to all three solutions (HP, AP, CAP) to reach treatment-specific target Fe concentrations (p.3-4; Table 1 targets 5 mg/L HP-Resh, 2.5 mg/L AP-Rakocy))
Remineralization	Y (RAS water diluted 1:10 in rainwater then complemented with high-purity mineral salts to match UVI/Rakocy targets (p.3))
pH Buffers	Y (pH adjusted with HCl and Na2CO3 for all treatments (p.3))
Climate control	Y (Climate-controlled experimental greenhouse, Integrated and Urban Plant Pathology Laboratory, University of Liege (Gembloux, Belgium); air temp and RH logged every 30 min via USB datalogger; trial 1 total solar radiant exposure 316.21 MJ/m2 (p.2))
Artificial Lighting	N (Natural solar irradiance only; no supplemental lighting stated (p.2-3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Macronutrient salts: MgSO4.7H2O, NH4NO3, K2HPO4, Ca(NO3)2.4H2O, KNO3, K2SO4, HNO3 (65%); micronutrient salts: Fe-EDTA, MnSO4.4H2O, CuSO4.5H2O, ZnSO4.7H2O, (NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O, H3BO3; sulfate used as degree of freedom for balancing (p.3))
Equipment	AeroFlo 28 NFT system (GHE, Fleurance, France); HI 83200 multiparameter spectrophotometer with HI 93700/93728/93717/93751/93750/93752 reagents (HANNA); ICP-OES 5100 VDV (Agilent Technologies); pH-meter Inolab pH level 1 (WTW); DO meter HI 98193 (HANNA); EC tester AD31 Waterproof (ADWA); USB datalogger (MOINEAU Instruments); Nanocolor NO3 test Ref 918 65 (Macherey-Nagel) (p.3-4)
Control Parameters	Weekly full solution renewal (fresh 100 L); pH, EC, DO and temperature monitored regularly; half-strength salts for first week to avoid osmotic shock (p.3)
Combination	Lettuce (cv. Sucrine) x three nutrient-solution sources (HP, AP, CAP) sharing tilapia RAS as the aquaponic water source; NFT/AeroFlo system; two temporal trial repeats (p.2-3)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Belgium
Lat	50.55
Long	4.6833
Average room Temperature	22.84 +/- 3.78

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g fw/plant (shoot and root fresh weight, Table 2); mg/gDM or ug/gDM (leaf mineral content, Table 5, trial 2 only)
Statistic Details	One-way ANOVA (treatment fixed effect) on shoot/root fresh weight and leaf nutrient content; repeated-measures model (treatment fixed, week repeated) for water nutrient concentrations; Duncan multiple-comparison for LS means; PROC GLM, SAS 9.4 (p.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	25
AP	80.55
HYD	98.17

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = aquaponic (AP) treatment, trial 1. Paired control = HP trial 1 (same HYD values as T1, repeated per schema convention since HP is the shared control for all treatments within a trial). | Root fresh weight (NO COLUMN): AP trial1=5.80(a); HP trial1=3.58(b); CAP trial1=4.86(a) (Table2, p.4). Log10(Shoot:Root): AP=1.14(b), lowest of the three - AP had proportionally more root than shoot vs HP/CAP. | HP water chemistry cross-ref (NO COLUMN): same as T1 remarks (trial1 HP pH=5.73 +/- 0.45 N=14; EC=2453 +/- 206 uS/cm N=7; WaterT=21.07 +/- 1.28 N=10; DO missing). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 50 deg 33’ N, 4 deg 41’ E -> 50.55, 4.6833 decimal (p.2). EC 823 +/- 163 uS/cm -> 0.823 +/- 0.163 dS/m. | Same WARN-MATERIAL as T1 re: abstract 39% claim - see T1 remarks for full evidence. For this AP row specifically: the paper’s finding was ‘AP and HP treatments exhibited similar (p>0.05) plant growth’ (Abstract), confirmed by Table2 letter-groups (AP and HP share letter b, trial1 shoot weight; both b, trial2) - this comparison is NOT part of the 39% dispute. | Fish block: no fish trial was conducted in this study; RAS water was sourced from a pre-existing, already-running tilapia RAS (species not specified) used only as a water source, so Initial Stock density/FCR/SGR/% of body weight/Fish size initial and final/Total Feed/Fish biomass created/Fish survival rate/Fish weight gain/Fish trial duration are NA. Feed composition of the source RAS (40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar; Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers) is reported as background (p.3) and recorded where a column exists (Protein=40; feed N/P/K composition not reported=NR). Judgment call, see Extraction notes in the .md file. | Plants/m2 NOT derived: paper states ‘four NFT channels containing seven holes each’ in a 1 m2 planting area (p.3), which multiplies to 28, but this exact density figure is never stated by the authors and is not recorded as a derived cell; left NR. Daily Water exchange rate NR: paper states solutions were fully replaced with fresh 100 L weekly (p.3), not expressed as a daily % rate; not derived.

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Tilapia (species NR)
Protein	40
Feed regime	40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar commercial feed (Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers, Baasrode, Belgium) fed to the source tilapia RAS; not a fish trial in this study, feeding rate/frequency NR (p.3)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	100
Water type	100% RAS water (tilapia) complemented with high-purity mineral salts to reach HP/Resh target concentrations (p.3)
Aq pH	5.87 +/- 0.43
Dissolved Oxigen	7.51 +/- 0.34
EC	2.493 +/- 0.116
Water temperature	20.68 +/- 1.39
TAN / NH4-N	25.79 +/- 3.09
NO3-N	215.54 +/- 28.13

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine)
Details	15-day-old Latin-type lettuce seedlings (cv. Sucrine, Semailles, Faulx-Les-Tombes, Belgium) transplanted into AeroFlo NFT system and harvested 36 days later (p.3)
Plant Category	Latin-type lettuce, close to Bibb butterhead type (p.8, citing Mou 2008)
Days Plant after transplant	36
Plant fresh weight	55.05

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient film technique (NFT) - AeroFlo 28 (GHE, Fleurance, France) (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS water sourced from a running tilapia RAS (established system, not part of this study’s design) (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (Fe-EDTA added to all three solutions (HP, AP, CAP) to reach treatment-specific target Fe concentrations (p.3-4; Table 1 targets 5 mg/L HP-Resh, 2.5 mg/L AP-Rakocy))
Remineralization	Y (100% RAS water complemented with high-purity mineral salts to reach HP/Resh target concentrations (p.3))
pH Buffers	Y (pH adjusted with HCl and Na2CO3 for all treatments (p.3))
Climate control	Y (Climate-controlled experimental greenhouse, Integrated and Urban Plant Pathology Laboratory, University of Liege (Gembloux, Belgium); air temp and RH logged every 30 min via USB datalogger; trial 2 total solar radiant exposure 180.94 MJ/m2 (p.2))
Artificial Lighting	N (Natural solar irradiance only; no supplemental lighting stated (p.2-3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Macronutrient salts: MgSO4.7H2O, NH4NO3, K2HPO4, Ca(NO3)2.4H2O, KNO3, K2SO4, HNO3 (65%); micronutrient salts: Fe-EDTA, MnSO4.4H2O, CuSO4.5H2O, ZnSO4.7H2O, (NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O, H3BO3; sulfate used as degree of freedom for balancing (p.3))
Equipment	AeroFlo 28 NFT system (GHE, Fleurance, France); HI 83200 multiparameter spectrophotometer with HI 93700/93728/93717/93751/93750/93752 reagents (HANNA); ICP-OES 5100 VDV (Agilent Technologies); pH-meter Inolab pH level 1 (WTW); DO meter HI 98193 (HANNA); EC tester AD31 Waterproof (ADWA); USB datalogger (MOINEAU Instruments); Nanocolor NO3 test Ref 918 65 (Macherey-Nagel) (p.3-4)
Control Parameters	Weekly full solution renewal (fresh 100 L); pH, EC, DO and temperature monitored regularly; half-strength salts for first week to avoid osmotic shock (p.3)
Combination	Lettuce (cv. Sucrine) x three nutrient-solution sources (HP, AP, CAP) sharing tilapia RAS as the aquaponic water source; NFT/AeroFlo system; two temporal trial repeats (p.2-3)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Belgium
Lat	50.55
Long	4.6833
Average room Temperature	22.15 +/- 2.58

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g fw/plant (shoot and root fresh weight, Table 2); mg/gDM or ug/gDM (leaf mineral content, Table 5, trial 2 only)
Statistic Details	One-way ANOVA (treatment fixed effect) on shoot/root fresh weight and leaf nutrient content; repeated-measures model (treatment fixed, week repeated) for water nutrient concentrations; Duncan multiple-comparison for LS means; PROC GLM, SAS 9.4 (p.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	24
AP	55.05
HYD	39.64

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = complemented aquaponic (CAP) treatment, trial 2 (started 20 Aug 2015, 36-day cycle). Paired control = HP trial 2. | Root fresh weight (NO COLUMN): CAP trial2=1.71(a); HP trial2=1.08(b); AP trial2=1.52(a) (Table2). Log10(Shoot:Root): CAP=1.52(a), HP=1.53(a), AP=1.39(b). | Water micronutrients not in schema (NO COLUMN, Table 4, trial2, mg/L, CAP column): Fe3+ 4.40 +/- 0.20; B3+ 0.59 +/- 0.03; Cu+ 0.12 +/- 0.01; Mn2+ 0.66 +/- 0.06; Mo+ 0.33 +/- 0.02; Zn2+ 0.16 +/- 0.03; Na+ 71.67 +/- 18.24; PO4-P 52.66 +/- 2.42; SO4-S 66.72 +/- 6.97; K+ 219.31 +/- 39.46; Ca2+ 175.09 +/- 14.87; Mg2+ 43.02 +/- 4.44 (Table4, p.6). | HP water chemistry cross-ref (NO COLUMN): HP trial2 pH=5.77 +/- 0.34 (N=20); EC=2418 +/- 140 uS/cm (N=9); DO=7.14 +/- 0.53 (N=10); WaterT=20.96 +/- 1.26 (N=16); TAN=23.95 +/- 2.51 (N=6); NO3-N=193.29 +/- 12.35 (N=6) (Table3/4, trial2). | Leaf mineral content (Table 5, trial2 only) routed to plant.csv (out/delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016.plant.csv), not duplicated here. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 50 deg 33’ N, 4 deg 41’ E -> 50.55, 4.6833 decimal (p.2). EC 2493 +/- 116 uS/cm -> 2.493 +/- 0.116 dS/m. | WARN-MINOR Text (p.5) states AP treatment had ‘four- to ten-fold lower macronutrient concentrations compared to the other treatments,’ but recomputing ratios from the paper’s own Table 4 (trial 2, HP/AP) gives TAN approx 13.2x (23.95/1.82) and Ca approx 14.0x (205.68/14.72), both exceeding the stated ten-fold upper bound; PO4-P approx 6.5x, SO4-S approx 8.7x, K approx 4.1x, Mg approx 5.9x, NO3-N approx 3.8-4.3x fall within the stated range. No cell affected - Table 4 raw values are recorded directly regardless of the prose summary’s imprecision. | Same WARN-MATERIAL as T1 re: 39% claim, see T1 remarks. | Fish block: no fish trial was conducted in this study; RAS water was sourced from a pre-existing, already-running tilapia RAS (species not specified) used only as a water source, so Initial Stock density/FCR/SGR/% of body weight/Fish size initial and final/Total Feed/Fish biomass created/Fish survival rate/Fish weight gain/Fish trial duration are NA. Feed composition of the source RAS (40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar; Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers) is reported as background (p.3) and recorded where a column exists (Protein=40; feed N/P/K composition not reported=NR). Judgment call, see Extraction notes in the .md file. | Plants/m2 NOT derived: paper states ‘four NFT channels containing seven holes each’ in a 1 m2 planting area (p.3), which multiplies to 28, but this exact density figure is never stated by the authors and is not recorded as a derived cell; left NR. Daily Water exchange rate NR: paper states solutions were fully replaced with fresh 100 L weekly (p.3), not expressed as a daily % rate; not derived.

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Tilapia (species NR)
Protein	40
Feed regime	40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar commercial feed (Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers, Baasrode, Belgium) fed to the source tilapia RAS; not a fish trial in this study, feeding rate/frequency NR (p.3)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	100
Water type	RAS water (tilapia), diluted 1:10 in rainwater then complemented with high-purity mineral salts to match UVI/Rakocy targets (p.3)
Aq pH	7.50 +/- 0.25
Dissolved Oxigen	7.36 +/- 0.32
EC	0.642 +/- 0.048
Water temperature	22.28 +/- 0.96
TAN / NH4-N	1.82 +/- 1.35
NO3-N	50.31 +/- 1.80

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine)
Details	15-day-old Latin-type lettuce seedlings (cv. Sucrine, Semailles, Faulx-Les-Tombes, Belgium) transplanted into AeroFlo NFT system and harvested 36 days later (p.3)
Plant Category	Latin-type lettuce, close to Bibb butterhead type (p.8, citing Mou 2008)
Days Plant after transplant	36
Plant fresh weight	35.72

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient film technique (NFT) - AeroFlo 28 (GHE, Fleurance, France) (p.3)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS water sourced from a running tilapia RAS (established system, not part of this study’s design) (p.3))
Iron supplemented	Y (Fe-EDTA added to all three solutions (HP, AP, CAP) to reach treatment-specific target Fe concentrations (p.3-4; Table 1 targets 5 mg/L HP-Resh, 2.5 mg/L AP-Rakocy))
Remineralization	Y (RAS water diluted 1:10 in rainwater then complemented with high-purity mineral salts to match UVI/Rakocy targets (p.3))
pH Buffers	Y (pH adjusted with HCl and Na2CO3 for all treatments (p.3))
Climate control	Y (Climate-controlled experimental greenhouse, Integrated and Urban Plant Pathology Laboratory, University of Liege (Gembloux, Belgium); air temp and RH logged every 30 min via USB datalogger; trial 2 total solar radiant exposure 180.94 MJ/m2 (p.2))
Artificial Lighting	N (Natural solar irradiance only; no supplemental lighting stated (p.2-3))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Macronutrient salts: MgSO4.7H2O, NH4NO3, K2HPO4, Ca(NO3)2.4H2O, KNO3, K2SO4, HNO3 (65%); micronutrient salts: Fe-EDTA, MnSO4.4H2O, CuSO4.5H2O, ZnSO4.7H2O, (NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O, H3BO3; sulfate used as degree of freedom for balancing (p.3))
Equipment	AeroFlo 28 NFT system (GHE, Fleurance, France); HI 83200 multiparameter spectrophotometer with HI 93700/93728/93717/93751/93750/93752 reagents (HANNA); ICP-OES 5100 VDV (Agilent Technologies); pH-meter Inolab pH level 1 (WTW); DO meter HI 98193 (HANNA); EC tester AD31 Waterproof (ADWA); USB datalogger (MOINEAU Instruments); Nanocolor NO3 test Ref 918 65 (Macherey-Nagel) (p.3-4)
Control Parameters	Weekly full solution renewal (fresh 100 L); pH, EC, DO and temperature monitored regularly; half-strength salts for first week to avoid osmotic shock (p.3)
Combination	Lettuce (cv. Sucrine) x three nutrient-solution sources (HP, AP, CAP) sharing tilapia RAS as the aquaponic water source; NFT/AeroFlo system; two temporal trial repeats (p.2-3)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Belgium
Lat	50.55
Long	4.6833
Average room Temperature	22.15 +/- 2.58

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g fw/plant (shoot and root fresh weight, Table 2); mg/gDM or ug/gDM (leaf mineral content, Table 5, trial 2 only)
Statistic Details	One-way ANOVA (treatment fixed effect) on shoot/root fresh weight and leaf nutrient content; repeated-measures model (treatment fixed, week repeated) for water nutrient concentrations; Duncan multiple-comparison for LS means; PROC GLM, SAS 9.4 (p.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	25
AP	35.72
HYD	39.64

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = aquaponic (AP) treatment, trial 2. Paired control = HP trial 2 (same HYD values as T3). | Root fresh weight (NO COLUMN): AP trial2=1.52(a); HP trial2=1.08(b); CAP trial2=1.71(a). Log10(Shoot:Root): AP=1.39(b). | Water micronutrients (NO COLUMN, Table4 trial2, AP column, mg/L): Fe3+ 3.47 +/- 1.05; B3+ 0.47 +/- 0.13; Cu+ 0.09 +/- 0.03; Mn2+ 0.50 +/- 0.12 (N=4); Mo+ 0.32 +/- 0.10; Zn2+ 0.14 +/- 0.03; Na+ 49.73 +/- 20.98; PO4-P 7.83 +/- 0.52; SO4-S 10.99 +/- 1.17; K+ 59.51 +/- 7.89; Ca2+ 14.72 +/- 2.03; Mg2+ 7.36 +/- 0.64. | HP water chemistry cross-ref (NO COLUMN): same as listed in T3 remarks. | Leaf mineral content (Table5, trial2) routed to plant.csv. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 50 deg 33’ N, 4 deg 41’ E -> 50.55, 4.6833 decimal (p.2). EC 642 +/- 48 uS/cm -> 0.642 +/- 0.048 dS/m. | Same WARN-MINOR (four-to-ten-fold claim) and WARN-MATERIAL (39% claim) as T3/T1 - see those remarks for full evidence. | Fish block: no fish trial was conducted in this study; RAS water was sourced from a pre-existing, already-running tilapia RAS (species not specified) used only as a water source, so Initial Stock density/FCR/SGR/% of body weight/Fish size initial and final/Total Feed/Fish biomass created/Fish survival rate/Fish weight gain/Fish trial duration are NA. Feed composition of the source RAS (40% protein, 12% lipid, 3.7% sugar; Omegabaars, Lambers-Seghers) is reported as background (p.3) and recorded where a column exists (Protein=40; feed N/P/K composition not reported=NR). Judgment call, see Extraction notes in the .md file. | Plants/m2 NOT derived: paper states ‘four NFT channels containing seven holes each’ in a 1 m2 planting area (p.3), which multiplies to 28, but this exact density figure is never stated by the authors and is not recorded as a derived cell; left NR. Daily Water exchange rate NR: paper states solutions were fully replaced with fresh 100 L weekly (p.3), not expressed as a daily % rate; not derived.

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	P	5.47 ± 0.02	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	P	9.25 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	P	8.56 ± 0.02	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	P	8.56 ± 0.02	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	K	24.6 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	K	29.8 ± 0.1	mg/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	K	24.7 ± 0.1	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	K	24.7 ± 0.1	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Ca	6.36 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Ca	11.3 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Ca	10.8 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Ca	10.8 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Mg	2.28 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Mg	3.36 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Mg	3.0 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Mg	3.0 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	S	1.97 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	S	2.75 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	S	2.56 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	S	2.56 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Na	3.7 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Na	2.8 ± 0.01	mg/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Na	0.4 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Na	0.4 ± 0.0	mg/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Fe	739 ± 5	ug/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Fe	935 ± 4	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Fe	1511 ± 4	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Fe	1511 ± 4	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	B	8.1 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	B	19.4 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	B	19.3 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	B	19.3 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Cu	12.6 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Cu	20.2 ± 0.2	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Cu	15.3 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Cu	15.3 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Zn	37.0 ± 0.3	ug/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Zn	69.1 ± 0.8	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Zn	102 ± 0	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Zn	102 ± 0	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Mn	1343 ± 3	ug/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Mn	208 ± 2	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Mn	202 ± 1	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Mn	202 ± 1	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	AP	mineral	Mo	26.5 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	a	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	CAP	mineral	Mo	19.8 ± 0.3	ug/gDM	b	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3	HYD	mineral	Mo	19.0 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4	HYD	mineral	Mo	19.0 ± 0.1	ug/gDM	c	Table 5, p.7

Quartz 5

Explorer

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine) Growth Performance in Complemented Aquaponic Solution Outperforms Hydroponics

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine) Growth Performance in Complemented Aquaponic Solution Outperforms Hydroponics

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Shoot and Root Fresh Weight

Water Nutrient Chemistry

Leaf Nutrient Content

Extraction notes

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T1

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T2

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T3

delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016-T4

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks