Quartz 5

Physiological Stress, Yield, and N and P Use Efficiency in an Intensive Tomato–Tilapia Aquaponic System

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/experiment, meta/region/northamerica, meta/fish/tilapia, meta/plant/tomato

27 min read

Physiological Stress, Yield, and N and P Use Efficiency in an Intensive Tomato–Tilapia Aquaponic System

Metadata

  • Cite key: deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025
  • Item type: Journal Article
  • Authors: J.J. De león-Ramírez, J.F. García-Trejo, C.F. Sosa-Ferreyra, L. Félix-Cuencas, S. López-Tejeida
  • Affiliation: Facultad de Ingeniería Campus Amazcala, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, El Marqués 76265, Mexico (1); Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Querétaro 76176, Mexico (2)
  • Journal: Horticulturae 11 (2025) 1474
  • Date: 12/2025
  • Date added: 2026-07-13
  • DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae11121474
  • Funding: “This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by SECIHTI through the resources allocated to project MADTEC-2025-M-759.” (p.16)
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11121474
  • PDF: De león-Ramírez et al. - 2025 - Physiological Stress, Yield, and N and P Use Efficiency in an Intensive Tomato–Tilapia Aquaponic Sys.pdf

Opinion

Methodologically ambitious — three full annual production cycles as true independent replicates (n=3) is a rare and valuable design for aquaponics research, and the paired stress-physiology + NUE/PUE framing is a genuinely useful angle. But the paper is let down by internal arithmetic care: the hydroponic NUE/PUE narrated in the discussion (357.64% / 186.27%) do not match the values printed in its own Table 11 (49.61% / 24.82%) for the same treatment, and one crop-growth-rate cell (HM, adult stage) is an order of magnitude outside its own trend line with no acknowledgement. The staggered multi-cohort fish design (three concurrent productive stages, restocked at days 60/120) also means most fish growth/efficiency metrics are only ever reported per-stage, never as a single whole-cycle figure — a structural limitation for cross-paper comparison, not a flaw in execution. Worth citing for the stress-biomarker findings and the water-quality comparison, but the NUE/PUE numbers need independent verification before use.

Abstract

Accelerated population growth has driven the search for efficient food production systems such as aquaponics, which integrates aquaculture and hydroponics in a closed-loop configuration. In conventional aquaculture and hydroponic systems, intensification often causes physiological stress, nutrient imbalances, and resource inefficiencies. This study tested the hypothesis that, in an intensive aquaponic configuration, the synergy between aquaculture and hydroponic modules helps mitigate stress, improve nutrient and water use efficiency, and sustain overall performance compared to stand-alone hydroponic and aquaculture systems. The experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions over three consecutive 180-day cycles, comparing an intensive aquaponic system with aquaculture and hydroponic modules. Tilapia in aquaponics showed 30% lower cortisol and 22% lower glucose (p < 0.05) than in aquaculture, indicating reduced stress. Tomatoes showed 25% higher catalase activity and 18% higher phenolic content (p < 0.05), reflecting moderate oxidative stress. Tilapia productivity reached 38.4 kg m−3 (+11.7%), tomato yield was 22.7% lower than in hydroponic conditions, and N–P use efficiencies were 23.3% and 20.7% (p < 0.05). Water use efficiency improved by 17.4%. Despite reduced plant growth, aquaponics decreased fish stress and enhanced nutrient recovery, supporting its potential as a sustainable, resource-efficient alternative for integrated food production under intensive conditions.

Summary

Researchers at Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro (Mexico) ran three complete 180-day annual production cycles (2022–2024) comparing an intensive aquaponic system (AS: Nile tilapia + tomato, 40 kg m⁻³ fish density, 8 plants m⁻²) against a stand-alone aquaculture module (AM, fish only) and a stand-alone hydroponic module (HM, tomato only, Peters 5-11-26 nutrient solution). They tracked fish stress biomarkers (cortisol, glucose), plant oxidative-stress markers (catalase, total phenolics), full growth/productivity/quality panels for both organisms, water quality, and nitrogen/phosphorus use efficiency (NUE/PUE). Tilapia in AS showed consistently lower cortisol and glucose than in AM, with the gap becoming statistically significant only at the adult stage, while tomato in AS showed significantly higher catalase and phenolic content than in HM at every sampling, attributed to comparatively imbalanced or fluctuating nutrient availability under the shared aquaponic loop. Tomato yield, height, dry weight, and most growth indices were significantly lower in AS than HM, but tilapia productivity and water-use efficiency were higher in AS than AM. NUE and PUE (Table 11) were intermediate for AS (23.35%/20.71%) between AM (lowest, ~11.4%) and HM (highest as tabulated, 49.61%/24.82%), though the discussion text separately narrates much larger HM NUE/PUE figures (357.64%/186.27%) that do not match the paper’s own table — an unresolved internal contradiction (see Extraction notes). The authors conclude aquaponics reduces fish stress and improves system-level nutrient/water efficiency at the cost of reduced plant productivity relative to hydroponics alone.

Experiment data

  • Location: Aquaculture Unit, Amazcala Campus, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Mexico (100 m² greenhouse, 720-gauge plastic covering)
  • Design: Three treatments — aquaponic system (AS), aquaculture module (AM, fish-only control), hydroponic module (HM, tomato-only control) — each run as one complete system per treatment per year, three consecutive annual cycles (2022, 2023, 2024) as independent replicates (n=3); system positions re-randomized each cycle
  • Replicates / n: 3 (three independent annual production cycles used as experimental replicates; subsamples within a system treated as internal measurements, not separate replicates)
  • Duration: 180 days per cycle × 3 cycles (May–October, 2022/2023/2024)
  • Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) var. Rio Grande
  • Statistics: One-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test (p<0.05); Levene’s test for normality/variance homogeneity; JMP 9.0.1
  • Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR): AS lower (better) than AM at fingerling (1.74±0.07 vs 1.98±0.06) and adult (1.69±0.08 vs 1.83±0.09) stages, no stage-aggregate value given
  • Cortisol: significant AS < AM only at adult stage (p<0.05); fingerling/juvenile ns
  • Tomato yield: AS 3.22 kg m⁻², HM 4.18 kg m⁻² (22.7% lower in AS)
  • Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) / Phosphorus Use Efficiency (PUE): AS 23.35±2.41% / 20.71±1.92%; AM 11.44±1.33% / 11.45±1.09%; HM 49.61±2.28% / 24.82±1.13% (Table 11) — ⚠️ conflicts with discussion-text HM figures, see Extraction notes

Water Quality

This paper: Fish-tank water (Table 4, trial means ± SD): AS temperature 24.1±1.1°C, DO 6.81±0.36 mg/L, pH 7.8±0.5, nitrates 21.05±3.84 mg/L, nitrites 1.13±0.76 mg/L, non-ionized ammonia 0.81±0.13 mg/L — all significantly lower (nitrogen compounds) or comparable to AM. Irrigation/plant-bed water (Table 5): AS pH 6.3±0.3, DO 4.82±0.26 mg/L, EC 2.2±0.3 mS, all significantly higher than HM (pH 5.7±0.2, DO 3.61±0.29 mg/L, EC 1.6±0.2 mS).

Compared with: not benchmarked against external literature in this section beyond the paper’s own cited reference ranges (Table 4 ref [44]; Table 5 ref [19]).

Stress Indicators

This paper: Fish cortisol and glucose increased progressively with fish age in both AS and AM; significant AS<AM differences emerged only at the adult stage (cortisol 81.9% above the normal upper range in AS vs 116.5% in AM; glucose +20.4% in AS vs +50.5% in AM, relative to literature reference ranges). Plant catalase and total phenolics were significantly higher in AS than HM at all three sampling points (days 60, 90, 120); first-sampling catalase was 37.8% higher in AS than HM. Note: none of the fish cortisol/glucose or plant catalase/phenol values are given as numbers in text or table — they exist only as bar heights in Figures 3–6, so none of these are recorded as CSV cells (see Extraction notes / plant.csv).

Compared with:

Productive Performance

This paper: Fish growth/feed metrics (TWG, DWG, FCF, PE, SGR, CF, SR) reported per productive stage (fingerling/juvenile/adult), not as a single whole-cycle value (Table 6). Tomato growth metrics (PH, DW, RGR, PSR, LA, LAI, SLA, NAR, CGR) reported per phenological stage, consistently favouring HM over AS (Table 7). Total tilapia productivity: AS 36.2 kg m⁻³ vs AM 32.4 kg m⁻³ (+11.7%); water use efficiency AS 5.4 vs AM 4.6 kg fruit+fish/m³ (Table 8). Fillet quality: AS higher protein (28.15±0.81%) and ash, lower moisture and NFE, than AM (Table 9). Fruit quality: AS higher pH, TSS, TA than HM, but lower lycopene (45.18±0.09 vs 63.27±0.12 mg/g) (Table 10).

Compared with:

  • todo Schmautz et al. 2016 — cherry-tomato aquaponic productivity 21.8 kg m⁻³, both this paper’s treatments exceed it (ref 7)
  • todo Suhl et al. 2016 — DRAPS aquaponic WUE 5.47, comparable to this paper’s AS WUE of 5.4 (ref 8)
  • todo Cardoso et al. 2018 — hydroponic tomato yield 9.5 kg m⁻², both this paper’s treatments fall short of it (ref 63)

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use Efficiency

This paper: NUE/PUE calculated via a standardized methodology (ref 43) that differs by module: AS combines plant + fish biomass N/P retention relative to feed input; AM uses fish-only retention relative to feed; HM uses plant N/P assimilation relative to nutrient-solution N/P supplied (Equations 20–25). Table 11: AS NUE 23.35±2.41%, PUE 20.71±1.92%; AM NUE 11.44±1.33%, PUE 11.45±1.09%; HM NUE 49.61±2.28%, PUE 24.82±1.13% — all significantly different from each other (different superscripts). ⚠️ Discussion text (Section 4.4, p.15) separately states HM’s NUE/PUE as “357.64±25.70% and 186.27±12.80% respectively,” attributing the discrepancy to an estimation basis using biweekly nutrient-solution renewal, but this is never reconciled with Table 11’s HM values for the same metric. See Extraction notes.

Compared with:

  • todo Yang & Kim 2020 — N/P mass-balance methodology for tomato/basil/lettuce aquaponics vs hydroponics, cited as the source of the standardized NUE/PUE method (ref 43)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

  • todo Martínez-Porchas, Martínez-Córdova & Ramos-Enriquez (2009) — cortisol/glucose as fish stress indicators
  • todo Barreto & Volpato (2006) — normal Nile tilapia cortisol range (5–60 ng/mL)
  • todo Wang, Dong & Gao (2019) — hydroponic tomato catalase reference values, secondary figures cited in this paper
  • todo Schmautz et al. (2016) — cherry-tomato aquaponic productivity comparison (21.8 kg m⁻³)
  • todo Suhl et al. (2016) — DRAPS aquaponic WUE comparison (5.47), already in vault as suhlAdvancedAquaponicsEvaluation2016? verify before creating a new note
  • todo Cardoso et al. (2018) — hydroponic tomato yield with N/P/K-adjusted solution (9.5 kg m⁻²)
  • todo Yang & Kim (2020) — N/P mass balance methodology source for this paper’s NUE/PUE equations

Extraction notes

⚠️BLOCK — Hydroponic module NUE/PUE, Table 11 vs. Discussion text. Table 11 (p.15) states, with statistical superscripts distinguishing it from AS and AM: “HM: NUE 49.61 ± 2.28% (a), PUE 24.82 ± 1.13% (a).” Section 4.4 discussion text (p.15), describing the same treatment and the same metric, states: “The hydroponic module (HM) presented the highest NUE and PUE values, with 357.64 ± 25.70% and 186.27 ± 12.80% respectively, when estimated apparently based on the plant biomass produced and the total amount of nutrients supplied by the nutrient solution, considering a biweekly renewal.” The two sets of numbers differ by roughly 7x (NUE) and 7.5x (PUE) for the ostensibly same HM treatment and the same named metric, using what should be the same equation (Eq. 24/25, N or P assimilated/supplied × 100). The text offers a rationale (“apparently,” “biweekly renewal”) suggesting a different accounting basis was used for the narrative figures, but never states what that basis actually is or why it isn’t reflected in Table 11, and never explicitly flags the two figures as different quantities. No basis to prefer either figure as “the” HM NUE/PUE. Since NUE/PUE has no dedicated trials.csv column (routed to NO COLUMN, see below), this does not block a specific cell, but both value sets are recorded here in full for anyone citing this paper’s NUE/PUE. UNRESOLVED, verify before citing HM NUE or PUE from this paper.

⚠️BLOCK — Crop Growth Rate (CGR), HM, adult/maturation stage (Table 7, p.11). CGR values across the table follow a clear pattern within each system (AS always lower than paired HM, both increasing then plateauing across stages): Fingerling AS 0.027±0.001 / HM 0.034±0.002; Juvenile AS 0.058±0.002 / HM 0.086±0.002; Adult AS 0.072±0.002 / HM 1.001±0.003. The adult HM value is roughly 14x the adult AS value and an order of magnitude above every other cell in the same row and column, breaking the internal HM/AS ratio pattern seen at the two earlier stages (~1.26x, ~1.48x) by nearly 10x. No corrected value is given anywhere else in the paper. Most likely a decimal-point or transcription error (e.g., intended ~0.101), but this cannot be confirmed from the text. CGR has no dedicated trials.csv column (NO COLUMN item), so this does not block a cell, but is flagged here since it materially affects confidence in Table 7’s adult-stage HM figures. Recorded as UNCLEAR; not used in any cell.

⚠️MATERIAL — Table 7 stage labels. Table 7’s caption (p.11) states it covers “the flowering, fruiting and maturation stage,” but the table’s own column sub-headers (inherited verbatim from Table 6’s fish-stage layout) read “Fingerling / Juvenile / Adult.” Tomato plants are never staged as fingerling/juvenile/adult anywhere else in the paper — this is almost certainly a copy-paste artifact from the fish table. Resolution: values were assigned positionally (1st/2nd/3rd column = flowering/fruiting/maturation per the caption), since the reported values increase monotonically consistent with plant growth over time regardless of which literal label applies. Plant height and dry-weight cells in trials.csv use the 3rd (final/“maturation”) column: AS 117.4±6.8 cm / 304.67±13.63 g; HYD 134.7±4.2 cm / 345.86±16.52 g.

⚠️CHECK — Initial Stock density definition. Column expects an initial stocking density. The paper states only one density figure for AS: “a density of 40 kg m⁻³ for fish” (Section 2.2, p.3), which Section 2.3 (p.4) clarifies is the density “at the time of harvest (adjusted to 100 L)” — i.e., explicitly a target/final density, not a stated initial stocking density. Recorded 40 kg/m³ with this caveat; true initial stocking density (kg fish per L at stocking, before growth) is not stated anywhere. Added to REVIEW.md candidates: 40 (harvest-density, as stated) / NR (no true initial figure given).

⚠️CHECK — Fresh vs. dry weight basis for tomato yield. Table 8 reports “Total kg of Tomato” and “Tomato Productivity (kg m⁻²)” without stating whether this is fresh or dry fruit weight. Given tomato is conventionally marketed and harvested as fresh fruit, and the paper elsewhere explicitly distinguishes “dry weight (DW)” as a separate measured variable (Table 7, oven-dried 70°C/72h) from “kg of tomato” harvested (Table 8), fresh weight is the more defensible reading, but the paper never states this explicitly for Table 8. Recorded as reported (kg m⁻²) with this caveat in the AP/HYD yield cells.

⚠️CHECK — Non-ionized ammonia vs. TAN/NH4-N. The trials.csv column “TAN / NH4-N” wants total ammonia nitrogen or ammonium-N. Table 4 (p.9) reports “Non-ionized ammonia (mg L⁻¹),” i.e., un-ionized NH3, which is only a pH/temperature-dependent fraction of TAN, not TAN itself. The paper never reports TAN or NH4-N directly. Recorded the non-ionized ammonia value (AS 0.81±0.13 mg/L) as the closest available proxy, flagged as a different quantity than the column strictly wants.

⚠️CHECK — Nitrite/Nitrate N-basis unstated. Table 4 reports “Nitrates (mg L⁻¹)” and “Nitrites (mg L⁻¹)” without specifying whether these are NO3⁻/NO2⁻ or NO3-N/NO2-N (a 4.43x / ~3.29x difference respectively). Method citations (Hach methods 8039, 8507) are consistent with either reporting convention depending on calibration curve used, so this cannot be resolved from the paper. Recorded as stated (AS nitrate 21.05±3.84 mg/L, nitrite 1.13±0.76 mg/L) with this caveat.

[not reported] fields, grouped:

  • Fish growth/feed metrics with no whole-cycle aggregate (only per-stage values given, Table 6): FCR, SGR, Protein (feed %), % of body weight, Fish size initial, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Total Feed (kg). Structural reason: the AS/AM systems run three concurrent productive stages (fingerling/juvenile/adult) as a staggered, continuously restocked multi-cohort design (fish moved/replaced at days 60 and 120, Section 2.4), so the paper never reports a single “initial→final” figure spanning the full 180-day cycle for any individual fish cohort — only per-stage snapshots (Table 6). All per-stage values are given in the note text above and in Experimental Remarks; not aggregated here per the no-derivation rule.
  • N (feed), P (feed), K (feed): feed composition given only as % protein and % lipid (Table 2); N/P/K content of the feed itself is never stated.
  • Water type, Water classification, Water volume in the system (aggregate), Daily Water exchange rate, Average room Temperature, SPAD, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight (per-plant), Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, FUE AP, FUE HYD, Plant Category, Fish Category (beyond the paper’s own fingerling/juvenile/adult staging): none of these are stated anywhere in the paper.

[unclear] fields: none beyond the ⚠️CHECK items above.

NO COLUMN items (routed to Experimental Remarks in trials.csv, prefixed NO COLUMN:):

  • NUE and PUE for AS/AM/HM (Table 11, p.15; discussion text p.15 for the disputed HM figures) — per task instruction, N/P use-efficiency figures have no dedicated column
  • Protein Efficiency (PE), Daily Weight Gain (DWG), Condition Factor (CF), by stage and treatment (Table 6)
  • Leaf Area (LA), Leaf Area Index (LAI), Specific Leaf Area (SLA), Net Assimilation Rate (NAR), Crop Growth Rate (CGR), Relative Growth Rate (RGR), Plant Survival Rate (PSR), by stage and treatment (Table 7)
  • Fish fillet proximate composition: Moisture, Protein, Lipid, Ash, Nitrogen-Free Extract, AS vs AM (Table 9)
  • Tomato fruit quality: pH, TSS (°Brix), Titratable Acidity (%), TSS/TA ratio, AS vs HM (Table 10) — Lycopene and TSS routed to plant.csv as biochemistry analytes instead (see below); pH/TA/TSS-TA-ratio kept here as they are not compositional analytes
  • Ethics approval: Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Engineering, UAQ, file No. 10846; organisms handled per SENASICA Good Aquaculture Practices (p.2)

Plant biochemistry analytes, figure-only (plant.csv): Catalase (Figure 5) and Total phenols (Figure 6) are reported for AS vs HM at days 60/90/120, but only as bar-chart heights with significance-letter annotations (a/b) — no numeric value appears in running text or in any table. Per the “never read a value off a figure” rule, all 12 combinations (2 analytes × 2 systems × 3 timepoints) are recorded in plant.csv with Value = NR and the figure/panel cited as Location. The only numeric context given in running text is a relative percentage (“catalase 37.8% higher in AS than HM” at day 60) and external secondary comparison values (ref 53, not this paper’s own data) — neither is a primary value for this paper’s AS or HM catalase/phenol content, so neither is recorded as this paper’s data.

Plant biochemistry analytes, tabulated (plant.csv): Lycopene (Table 10) is recorded with real values, both AS and HM. Total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix) is also recorded as a sugars-adjacent biochemistry analyte per the plant.csv category guidance; pH, titratable acidity, and TSS/TA ratio were judged not to be compositional analytes and were left in trials.csv Experimental Remarks instead (judgment call — could reasonably be moved to plant.csv “proximate” or similar if the vault’s convention differs).

Water panel: both water-quality tables (Table 4, fish tank; Table 5, irrigation/plant-bed tank) were used to populate trials.csv’s water-quality columns directly (temperature, DO, pH, EC, NO3-N, NO2-N, TAN/NH4-N proxy), taking the plant-bed/irrigation-tank value where both compartments were reported (pH, DO, EC) and the fish-tank value where only the fish tank reported it (temperature, nitrogen compounds), per SCHEMA’s compartment rule. No water panel was excluded from the CSVs; the HM/AM comparison values for these same parameters (Tables 4 & 5) have no dedicated columns in this row-per-AP-treatment schema and are recorded in Experimental Remarks instead.

New tags introduced: none beyond existing vocabulary (Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/NorthAmerica, Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Tomato, all confirmed already in use elsewhere in the vault).

Source: De león-Ramírez et al. - 2025 - Physiological Stress, Yield, and N and P Use Efficiency in an Intensive Tomato–Tilapia Aquaponic Sys.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

deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1

Fish

FieldValue
FishNile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
Fish CategoryFingerling, juvenile, and adult productive stages, concurrently held (Table 1, p.4)
Initial Stock density40
Feed routineThree times daily, commercial diet (MaltaCleyton (R) brand): 8:00 (30%), 13:00 (40%), 18:00 (30%) (Table 2, p.4)
Feed regimeCommercial pelleted diet (MaltaCleyton (R)), stage-specific formulation: Fingerling 5-20g 45% protein/16% lipid/8% daily feed; Fingerling 20-50g 45%/16%/5%; Juvenile 50-150g 35%/3%/4%; Adult 150-300g 30%/3%/2% (Table 2, p.4)
Fish trial duration (days)180

Water

FieldValue
Water recycle~33.3 L/min
Aq pH6.3 +/- 0.3
pHOptimal5.5-6.5
WUE5.4
Dissolved Oxigen4.82 +/- 0.26
EC2.2 +/- 0.3
Water temperature24.1 +/- 1.1
TAN / NH4-N0.81 +/- 0.13
NO2-N1.13 +/- 0.76
NO3-N21.05 +/- 3.84

Plant

FieldValue
PlantTomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Rio Grande)
DetailsSeedlings 40 days post-germination, initial height 25.85+/-3.24 cm at transplant; grown through vegetative, flowering, fruiting, and maturation stages over 180 days; fruit harvested at maturity grade 4 (30-60% pink/red surface color) (p.4)
Days Plant after transplant180
Plants/m28
Plant height117.4 +/- 6.8
Plant dry matter304.67 +/- 13.63 g/plant

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeSubstrate culture, drip-fertigated grow bags (coconut fiber/dust)
Media Details9 L substrate/grow bag (70% coconut fiber, 30% coconut dust); 10 grow bags/row, 2 plants/bag; 4 rows of 5.0 x 0.25 m spaced 30 cm apart (p.2)
Iron supplementedY (HM: Peters (R) Professional Hydroponic Special 5-11-26 solution includes 3 mg/L Fe (p.3). AS received no exogenous iron supplementation — nutrients derive solely from fish waste.)
pH BuffersY (Irrigation water pH adjusted to 6 when required (Hach HQ40d monitoring, Section 2.5 p.5); adjustment chemical/method not specified.)
Climate controlY (100 m2 greenhouse covered with 720-gauge plastic, Aquaculture Unit, Amazcala Campus, UAQ (p.2); no specific climate-control equipment or setpoints stated beyond the greenhouse structure itself.)
Nutrient supplementedY (HM: Peters (R) Professional Hydroponic Special 5-11-26 (150 mg/L N, 48 mg/L P, 216 mg/L K, 31 mg/L Mg, 125 mg/L SO4, 3 mg/L Fe, 0.5 mg/L Mn, 1.5 mg/L Zn, 0.15 mg/L Cu, 0.5 mg/L B, 0.1 mg/L Mo) (p.3). AS received no exogenous nutrient solution.)
EquipmentBOYU (R) EFU-13500 UV biofilter; 750W submersible pump (2000 L/h per-tank supply); 45W submersible pump (plant irrigation); Hach (R) HQ40d (pH/DO/temp); Hach (R) DR6000 spectrophotometer (N compounds, methods 8039/8507/8038); HANNA (R) HI 98130 (EC); Neogen (R) ELISA kit (cortisol); Biodiagnostic (R) kit (glucose) (Sections 2.1, 2.5, 2.6)
Control ParametersIrrigation pH adjusted to 6 when required; water replenished daily to offset evaporation/uptake, constant operating volume maintained; timer + solenoid valve controlling irrigation cycles (p.2, p.5)
CombinationNile tilapia and tomato; aquaponic system (AS) vs. hydroponic module (HM, plant-only control) vs. aquaculture module (AM, fish-only control); substrate/grow-bag culture

Site

FieldValue
RegionNorth America
CountryMexico
Lat20.6454
Long-100.4195

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg/m2 & kg/m3 (yield); g (dry weight, weight gain); cm (plant height); mg/L (water N compounds); ng/mL & mg/dL (fish cortisol/glucose); umol/mg protein/min (catalase); ug GAE/g (phenols); mg/g (lycopene); degBrix (TSS); % (survival, proximate composition, TA)
Statistic DetailsOne-way ANOVA; Tukey’s post hoc test, p<0.05; Levene’s test for normality/variance homogeneity; JMP (R) 9.0.1 (Section 2.9, p.8)
Statistically analysedY
Replicates (n)3
AP3.22
HYD4.18

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = aquaponic system (AS: tilapia + tomato, 40 kg/m3 fish density target at harvest, 8 plants/m2), the paper’s only aquaponic treatment. Fish-side paired control = aquaculture module (AM, fish-only, no plant integration); plant-side paired control = hydroponic module (HM, tomato-only, Peters 5-11-26 nutrient solution), recorded in the HYD columns. AM has no dedicated column set in this schema (only AP/HYD pairing exists) — AM comparison values are recorded below as NO COLUMN. Three independent annual production cycles (2022/2023/2024) = the n=3 replicates (Section 2.9, p.8), not multiple simultaneous tanks. | WARN-BLOCK Hydroponic module NUE/PUE: Table 11 (p.15) states HM NUE 49.61 +/- 2.28% (superscript a) and PUE 24.82 +/- 1.13% (superscript a), distinct from AS (23.35/20.71%, b) and AM (11.44/11.45%, c). Discussion text Section 4.4 (p.15) states for the SAME HM treatment and same-named metric: ‘NUE and PUE values, with 357.64 +/- 25.70% and 186.27 +/- 12.80% respectively, when estimated apparently based on the plant biomass produced and the total amount of nutrients supplied by the nutrient solution, considering a biweekly renewal.’ The two figure sets differ by ~7x (NUE) and ~7.5x (PUE) for the same treatment/metric name; the text’s stated basis (‘apparently’, ‘biweekly renewal’) is never reconciled with Table 11’s method or value. No basis to prefer either. NUE/PUE has no dedicated column (see NO COLUMN below); both value sets recorded there. UNRESOLVED, verify before citing HM NUE or PUE from this paper. | WARN-BLOCK Crop Growth Rate (CGR), Table 7 p.11, HM adult/maturation stage: pattern across stages is AS always lower than paired HM (Fingerling AS 0.027+/-0.001 / HM 0.034+/-0.002 [HM/AS ~1.26x]; Juvenile AS 0.058+/-0.002 / HM 0.086+/-0.002 [~1.48x]; Adult AS 0.072+/-0.002 / HM 1.001+/-0.003 [~13.9x]). The adult HM value breaks the established ~1.3-1.5x ratio by nearly 10x and is an order of magnitude above every other CGR cell in the table. No corrected value given elsewhere; likely a decimal/transcription error (e.g. intended ~0.101) but unconfirmable. CGR has no dedicated column (NO COLUMN); recorded UNCLEAR there, not used in any cell. | WARN-MATERIAL Table 7 stage labels: caption (p.11) states the table covers ‘the flowering, fruiting and maturation stage’, but the table’s own column sub-headers read ‘Fingerling / Juvenile / Adult’ (copied verbatim from Table 6’s fish-stage layout; tomato is never staged this way elsewhere in the paper). Resolved positionally: 1st/2nd/3rd column = flowering/fruiting/maturation per the caption, since values increase monotonically consistent with plant growth over time regardless of the erroneous sub-header. Plant height and dry matter cells below use the 3rd (‘maturation’) column. | WARN-CHECK Initial Stock density: paper states only ‘a density of 40 kg/m3 for fish’ (Section 2.2 p.3), which Section 2.3 (p.4) clarifies is the density ‘at the time of harvest (adjusted to 100 L)’ — i.e. explicitly a target/final density, not a stated initial stocking density. Recorded 40 with this caveat; true initial density not given. | WARN-CHECK Fresh vs dry weight for tomato yield: Table 8 ‘Total kg of Tomato’ / ‘Tomato Productivity kg/m2’ does not state fresh or dry basis. Paper elsewhere explicitly distinguishes oven-dried ‘Dry Weight (DW)’ (Table 7, 70C/72h) as a separate variable from ‘kg of tomato’ harvested (Table 8), so fresh weight is the more defensible reading of the yield figures used in AP/HYD cells below, but this is inferred, not stated. | WARN-CHECK TAN/NH4-N: column wants total ammonia nitrogen or ammonium-N; Table 4 (p.9) reports ‘Non-ionized ammonia (mg/L)’ = un-ionized NH3 only, a pH/temperature-dependent fraction of TAN, not TAN itself. Paper never reports TAN or NH4-N directly. Recorded the non-ionized ammonia value as closest available proxy (AS 0.81+/-0.13 mg/L), flagged as a different quantity. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N / NO3-N basis: Table 4 reports ‘Nitrites (mg/L)’ and ‘Nitrates (mg/L)’ without stating whether these are NO2-/NO3- or NO2-N/NO3-N (a ~3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively); cited Hach methods (8507, 8039) are compatible with either convention. Recorded as stated (nitrite 1.13+/-0.76, nitrate 21.05+/-3.84 mg/L, AS fish tank) with this caveat. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 20 deg 38’ 43.3” N / 100 deg 25’ 10.3” W -> decimal 20.6454 / -100.4195. Water recycle 2000 L/h (per-tank supply from the 750W main pump, Section 2.1 p.2) -> 33.3 L/min. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR, SGR, Protein(feed%), % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Total Feed (kg) — Table 6 (p.11) and Table 2 (p.4) give these only per productive stage (fingerling/juvenile/adult), never as a single whole-180-day-cycle figure, because AS/AM run a staggered, continuously-restocked multi-cohort fish design (cohorts replaced/redistributed at days 60 and 120, Section 2.4 p.4) rather than one cohort tracked start-to-finish. Per-stage AS values: FCF 1.74+/-0.07 (fingerling) / 1.72+/-0.09 (juvenile) / 1.69+/-0.08 (adult); SGR 3.81+/-0.12 / 1.69+/-0.05 / 0.92+/-0.03; feed protein 45% / 35% / 30%; % body weight 8-5% / 4% / 2%; initial weight 5.65+/-0.12g / 51.13+/-2.73g / 150.98+/-8.21g (Table 1); ‘expected’ final weight 50g / 150g / 250g (Table 1, stated as EXPECTED not measured, so not used as Fish size final); TWG (weight gain) 54.66+/-2.03g / 99.79+/-4.23g / 115.45+/-4.92g; SR 89.6+/-2.1% / 94.6+/-1.5% / 97.5+/-0.9%. Aggregating these into one figure would be derivation (stages have different fish counts/durations); not done. N/P/K of feed: only feed protein% and lipid% given (Table 2), N/P/K content never stated. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created — Table 1 gives ‘Expected Final Biomass’ (2.4/3.6/4.0 kg, stated as EXPECTED) and Table 8 gives ‘Total kg of Tilapia’ harvested (32.6 kg, AS, across 3 harvests) but no stated final-minus-initial delta. | Fish Category: paper categorises tilapia only by its own three concurrent productive stages, not by any external taxonomy (Table 1, p.4): fingerling (48 fish, 1 tank), juvenile (24 fish x 2 tanks), adult (16 fish x 3 tanks); recorded as such since no single-category label is given. | NO COLUMN: Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) and Phosphorus Use Efficiency (PUE) — Table 11 (p.15): AS NUE 23.35+/-2.41%, PUE 20.71+/-1.92%; AM NUE 11.44+/-1.33%, PUE 11.45+/-1.09%; HM NUE 49.61+/-2.28%, PUE 24.82+/-1.13% (all significantly different, p<0.05). Discussion text separately gives HM NUE 357.64+/-25.70%, PUE 186.27+/-12.80% — see WARN-BLOCK above, both value sets given here since neither has a cell to occupy. | NO COLUMN: Protein Efficiency (PE), Daily Weight Gain (DWG), Condition Factor (CF) by stage, AS vs AM (Table 6, p.11): PE 1.43+/-0.06/1.26+/-0.06 (fingerling), 1.64+/-0.06/1.53+/-0.08 (juvenile), 1.85+/-0.05/1.73+/-0.09 (adult); DWG 0.91+/-0.05/0.85+/-0.08, 1.66+/-0.07/1.59+/-0.06, 1.92+/-0.08/1.90+/-0.07 g; CF 0.82+/-0.02/0.80+/-0.03, 1.16+/-0.05/1.07+/-0.04, 1.19+/-0.05/1.27+/-0.08. | NO COLUMN: Leaf Area (LA), Leaf Area Index (LAI), Specific Leaf Area (SLA), Net Assimilation Rate (NAR), Relative Growth Rate (RGR), Plant Survival Rate (PSR), Crop Growth Rate (CGR), by stage, AS vs HM (Table 7, p.11): LA(cm2) 1285+/-50/1840+/-65, 1780+/-35/2445+/-45, 2345+/-40/2895+/-35; LAI 1.71+/-0.06/2.45+/-0.10, 2.37+/-0.05/3.26+/-0.07, 3.12+/-0.06/3.86+/-0.05; SLA(cm2/g) 9.49+/-0.33/12.61+/-0.47, 8.51+/-0.21/11.21+/-0.42, 7.69+/-0.22/8.37+/-0.23; NAR(g/cm2/day) 0.0054+/-0.0002/0.0053+/-0.0001, 0.0027+/-0.0001/0.0029+/-0.0001, 0.0025+/-0.0001/0.0026+/-0.0001; RGR(g/g/day) 0.085+/-0.003/0.102+/-0.003, 0.024+/-0.001/0.033+/-0.004, 0.020+/-0.001/0.025+/-0.002; PSR(%) 94.2+/-2.1/95.2+/-1.6, 89.8+/-1.9/94.7+/-3.2, 85.4+/-2.1/97.9+/-4.1; CGR(g/cm2/day) 0.027+/-0.001/0.034+/-0.002, 0.058+/-0.002/0.086+/-0.002, 0.072+/-0.002/1.001+/-0.003(see WARN-BLOCK). | NO COLUMN: Fish fillet proximate composition, AS vs AM (Table 9, p.11): Moisture 61.98+/-0.11%/64.23+/-0.12%; Protein 28.15+/-0.81%/24.98+/-0.73%; Lipid 3.42+/-0.16%/3.51+/-0.14% (ns); Ash 1.71+/-0.04%/1.42+/-0.04%; Nitrogen-Free Extract 2.74+/-0.05%/2.86+/-0.08%. | NO COLUMN: Tomato fruit quality (non-biochemistry-analyte subset; Lycopene and TSS routed to plant.csv instead), AS vs HM (Table 10, p.12): pH 4.49+/-0.09/4.12+/-0.11; Titratable Acidity 0.57+/-0.04%/0.51+/-0.03%; TSS/TA ratio 11.26+/-0.13/11.09+/-0.23 (ns). | Water panel: Table 4 (fish tank, AS vs AM) and Table 5 (irrigation/plant-bed tank, AS vs HM) both used; plant-bed/irrigation values taken for Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, EC per the plant-bed-preferred compartment rule (AS irrigation pH 6.3+/-0.3, DO 4.82+/-0.26 mg/L, EC 2.2+/-0.3 mS ~= dS/m); fish-tank values taken for Water temperature and the nitrogen compounds since no plant-bed equivalents were reported (AS fish tank temp 24.1+/-1.1C, nitrate 21.05+/-3.84, nitrite 1.13+/-0.76, non-ionized ammonia 0.81+/-0.13 mg/L). AM fish-tank values (temp 23.7+/-1.4C, DO 6.73+/-0.38, pH 8.1+/-0.6, nitrate 32.02+/-3.03, nitrite 2.92+/-0.85, ammonia 1.19+/-0.14 mg/L) and HM irrigation values (pH 5.7+/-0.2, DO 3.61+/-0.29, EC 1.6+/-0.2 mS) have no dedicated comparison columns in this row-per-AP-treatment schema; recorded here for completeness. No water panel excluded from the CSVs. | Water volume in the system: individual components stated (six 100L geomembrane fish ponds [60cm diameter x 50cm height]; 100L plant-irrigation tank; unspecified-volume collection tank, Section 2.1 p.2) but never summed to a total system volume by the paper; not aggregated here (would be derivation). | Plants/m2: Section 2.2 (p.3) states AS density as ‘8 plants m-2’ as a stated design parameter; HM is described as ‘a hydroponic module… which acted as hydroponic control’ without restating a different density, and Figures 1/2 show identical row/plant layouts for AS and HM diagrams, so the same 8 plants/m2 is used for both AP and HYD (not independently re-stated for HM). | Days Plant after transplant: 180, the stated cultivation/production-cycle length ‘for a period of 180 days’ (Section 2.3 p.4) covering transplant through final harvest; not a separately-stated ‘harvest day counted from transplant’ figure, but the only duration given for the plant cycle. | pHOptimal: irrigation-tank reference range 5.5-6.5 (Table 5 ref [19]) used to match the irrigation-tank Aq pH value recorded; fish-tank reference range was separately 5-9 (Table 4 ref [44]).

Plant Measurements

TrialSystemCategoryAnalyteValueUnitSig.Location
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryCatalase activityNRumol/mg protein/minaFigure 5A
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryCatalase activityNRumol/mg protein/minbFigure 5A
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryCatalase activityNRumol/mg protein/minaFigure 5B
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryCatalase activityNRumol/mg protein/minbFigure 5B
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryCatalase activityNRumol/mg protein/minaFigure 5C
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryCatalase activityNRumol/mg protein/minbFigure 5C
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryTotal phenolsNRug GAE/g sampleaFigure 6A
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryTotal phenolsNRug GAE/g samplebFigure 6A
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryTotal phenolsNRug GAE/g sampleaFigure 6B
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryTotal phenolsNRug GAE/g samplebFigure 6B
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryTotal phenolsNRug GAE/g sampleaFigure 6C
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryTotal phenolsNRug GAE/g samplebFigure 6C
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryLycopene45.18 ± 0.09mg/gb (p<0.05 vs HYD)Table 10, p.12
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryLycopene63.27 ± 0.12mg/ga (p<0.05 vs AP)Table 10, p.12
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1APbiochemistryTotal soluble solids (degrees Brix)6.42 ± 0.21degBrixa (p<0.05 vs HYD)Table 10, p.12
deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025-T1HYDbiochemistryTotal soluble solids (degrees Brix)5.66 ± 0.12degBrixb (p<0.05 vs AP)Table 10, p.12

Graph View

Backlinks