Micronutrient supplementation needs for halophytes in saline aquaponics with BFT system water
Metadata
- Cite key: doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: K.B. Doncato, C.S.B. Costa
- Affiliation: Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Aquicultura, Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG), Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; Laboratorio de Biotecnologia de Halofitas, Instituto de Oceanografia, FURG, Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
- Journal: Aquaculture 531 (2021) 735815
- Date: 01/2021
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735815
- Funding: Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) - Brazil; EU Work programme H2020-SC2 Project n. BG-08-2018-Part C
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735815
- PDF:
Doncato and Costa - 2021 - Micronutrient supplementation needs for halophytes.pdf
Opinion
A genuinely useful, narrowly-scoped experiment: a real 3-treatment x 3-species factorial with randomization, replication (n=22 or 12), and proper transformation/ANOVA/Tukey handling, on a question (micronutrient sufficiency of BFT water for halophytes) almost nobody else asks. The water-quality tables (1 and 2) are clean and internally consistent, and the paper is admirably honest about its own limitations - explicitly saying the celery result is inconclusive rather than dressing up a null result. The main weakness for reuse is that every final growth/biomass number lives only in Fig. 1’s bar charts with no table or in-text point estimates (only F/p-statistics and, for two results, relative percentages) - so most of the actual magnitude of the reported effects cannot be extracted into this schema. The schema also has no columns at all for water Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/B/Mo, which is awkward for a paper whose entire subject is water micronutrients; I have routed Table 2 into the Iron/Nutrient supplemented “Details” columns as the closest fit. Worth citing for the water-micronutrient-sufficiency angle and the important caution about Fe toxicity thresholds if BFT water is reused for shrimp after micronutrient supplementation.
Abstract
Saline aquaponics is a fast-growing research field, although little attention has been paid to micronutrients in water from aquaculture and their nutritional potential to sustain commercial vegetable production. This study evaluated the effects of micronutrient supplementation, direct in the water and by foliar spraying, against a no nutrient addition control, on growth and biomass production of the Brazilian halophytes Salicornia neei Lag., Apium graveolens L. and Paspalum vaginatum Sw., using saline aquaponics with one-year-old BFT system water from breeding stock tanks of the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Plants were established in hydroponic units and clarified saline water from a BFT system was recirculated and replaced weekly over 30 days. Micronutrient addition in the water significantly increased the concentrations of iron, manganese and molybdenum, but water quality parameters and macronutrients were not modified. Micronutrient addition in the water increased P. vaginatum growth (shoot height and leaf number) and biomass production 20-30% compared to non-supplemented plants, showing the high micronutritional requirement of this species, most likely for iron. Salicornia neei plants showed no benefits when grown with the extra supply of micronutrients in the water, but a 73% reduction of shoot biomass occurred using foliar fertilization compared to the control treatment. Due to the poor development of A. graveolens plants, the response of this species to micronutrient additions could not be evaluated. Overall, clarified BFT system water can supply micronutritional requirements for halophytes, but supplementation may be necessary for species that have high demands and/or are more sensitive to the neutral-alkaline condition of marine aquaculture (e.g., impairment of Fe availability), such as P. vaginatum. Foliar spraying was not effective at improving halophyte growth, and caution should be taken when reusing water supplemented with micronutrients after it leaves an aquaponics system, due to the lack of knowledge about the toxicity of these added elements to animals.
Summary
The authors ran a 30-day decoupled saline aquaponics trial using one-year-old, clarified biofloc (BFT) water drawn from Litopenaeus vannamei shrimp breeding-stock tanks, feeding three separate NFT hydroponic systems that differed only in micronutrient handling: T1 (no supplementation), T2 (micronutrients added to the recirculating water weekly), and T3 (the same micronutrient mix applied as a foliar spray twice weekly). Three Brazilian halophytes were grown in parallel in every system - Salicornia neei (sea asparagus), Apium graveolens (wild celery), and Paspalum vaginatum (seashore paspalum) - with growth and shoot biomass measured at day 0 and day 30. Water supplementation successfully raised measured water iron (152x), manganese (18x) and molybdenum (2x) without changing macronutrients, pH, salinity, or temperature. P. vaginatum responded strongly and positively to water-borne micronutrients (taller shoots, more leaves, 20-30% more biomass), attributed mainly to iron; S. neei showed no benefit from water supplementation and was actively harmed by foliar spraying (73% less shoot biomass, likely a surfactant effect rather than a nutrient effect); and A. graveolens grew poorly across all treatments due to heat stress and premature bolting, so its micronutrient response could not be evaluated at all. The paper’s practical takeaway is that one-year-old BFT water already meets most halophyte micronutrient needs except for iron-demanding, alkaline-sensitive species like P. vaginatum, and that any water leaving the system after micronutrient supplementation should not be recycled back to shrimp culture without checking iron toxicity thresholds.
Experiment data
- Location: Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura (EMA), Instituto de Oceanografia, FURG, Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (trial-site coordinates not stated; nearest paper-given marker is the INMET weather station at 32°04’43”S, 52°10’03”W)
- Design: Fully crossed 3 (micronutrient treatment: control / water-supplemented / foliar-supplemented) x 3 (halophyte species) design, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system (NFT hydroponic bench) fed by clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water; randomized net-pot placement within benches
- Replicates / n: 22 plants/treatment for S. neei and P. vaginatum; 12 plants/treatment for A. graveolens
- Duration: 30 days (summer 2019, January-February); shrimp/water system itself was one-year-old at the start
- Organisms: Salicornia neei (BTH2 lineage) / Apium graveolens / Paspalum vaginatum / Litopenaeus vannamei (water source only, not itself trialed)
- Statistics: One-way ANOVA per parameter (log10 or sqrt transformation where needed after Shapiro-Wilk/Levene checks), Tukey HSD post-hoc, alpha=0.05
- Water iron: control 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L vs water-supplemented 1072.75 +/- 197.90 ug/L (152-fold, F=162.38, p<0.001)
- Paspalum vaginatum shoot biomass: 20-30% higher under water supplementation vs non-supplemented (F=8.58, p<0.001)
- Salicornia neei shoot biomass: 73% lower under foliar supplementation vs control (F=5.29, p<0.01)
Water micronutrient supplementation
This paper: Water-borne micronutrient addition (T2) significantly raised measured water Fe (7.00->1072.75 ug/L, 152-fold, F=162.38, p<0.001), Mn (3.00->56.00 ug/L, 18-fold, F=20.09, p<0.001) and Mo (3.75->10.50 ug/L, 2-fold, F=22.59, p<0.001), while Zn, Cu and B were unchanged (ns) (Table 2, p.3). Foliar spraying (T3) left all six water micronutrients statistically indistinguishable from control, confirming the foliar route did not leak into the recirculating water. Macronutrients (TAN, NO2, NO3, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4), pH (7.82+/-0.04), salinity (20.66+/-1.57 g NaCl/L) and temperature (25.12+/-0.38 degC) were unaffected by any treatment (Table 1, p.3).
Compared with:
- #todo Kasozi et al. 2019 - review on iron supplementation/management in aquaponic systems, cited for the point that optimal Fe concentration is still unknown even for leafy vegetables/fruit in freshwater aquaponics (p.4).
- #todo Frias-Espericueta et al. 2003 - acute toxicity thresholds (LC50/100) for Cu/Zn/Fe/Mn to L. vannamei postlarvae; this paper’s supplemented water Fe (1072.75 ug/L) and Zn exceed the postlarval safety thresholds they report, motivating the paper’s caution about reusing supplemented water for shrimp culture (p.6).
Species-specific growth response
This paper: P. vaginatum was the only species to benefit from water-borne micronutrient supplementation - greater shoot height, leaf number and shoot dry biomass under T2 (F=8.71/7.67/8.58 respectively, all p<0.001; no difference in tiller number or longest leaf), attributed most likely to iron given P. vaginatum’s known sensitivity to low Fe availability under neutral-alkaline marine conditions (Discussion 4.2, p.4-6). S. neei showed no response to water supplementation and was significantly harmed by foliar spraying (shorter shoots, fewer/shorter branches, reduced foliar index, 73% less shoot biomass, all p<0.05-0.01); the authors suspect the 0.1% Tween 20 surfactant itself, not the (very low) molybdenum dose, is responsible. A. graveolens grew poorly under all three treatments, exhibiting heat-stress symptoms (~30 degC on half the trial days) and bolting in T1/T2 (not T3); the authors explicitly state its micronutrient response “could not be evaluated” due to this confound (p.4, p.6).
Compared with:
- #todo Araújo et al. 2014 - Paspalum urvillei tolerated and grew better with 250-2432 ug Fe/L, with foliar bronzing at the high end (p.4).
- #todo Pessarakli and Kopec 2004 - P. vaginatum cv. Sea Isle 2000 grew better with Fe as a base fertilizer, but root growth was inhibited at very high concentrations (p.4).
- #todo Ventura et al. 2010 - foliar molybdenum (287.82 ug Mo/L, ~26x this paper’s foliar dose) increased S. europaea biomass up to 37% with no surfactant used, the opposite direction of this paper’s foliar result for S. neei (p.6).
- #todo Singh et al. 2014 - S. dolichostachya grown hydroponically in alkaline artificial seawater developed chlorosis, preventable with Fe-EDDHA; contrasts with this paper’s lack of Fe response in S. neei (p.6).
- #todo Watts et al. 1984 - A. graveolens tissue culture showed severe sensitivity to 30 degC and no biomass gain over 15 days, supporting this paper’s heat-stress explanation for poor celery growth (p.6).
Reuse and toxicity caution
This paper: Iron and molybdenum are not part of shrimp feed micronutrients and likely enter BFT water via coastal source water, molasses, or other BFT management inputs (limestone, probiotics), whereas Mn/Zn/Cu are attributed to feed/aged biofloc material (Discussion 4.3, p.6). Measured Zn and Cu were within recommended limits for L. vannamei grow-out, but this paper’s Zn level exceeded the LC50/100 threshold for L. vannamei postlarvae, and supplemented water Fe exceeded the equivalent postlarval Fe threshold - motivating the authors’ explicit caution against reusing micronutrient-supplemented water in a closed loop back to shrimp breeding stock (p.6).
Compared with:
- #todo Van Wyk and Scarpa 1999 - recommended shrimp grow-out water limits (Zn <=100 ug/L, Cu <=25 ug/L) used as the paper’s benchmark (p.6).
- #todo Pescod 1992 - FAO wastewater-reuse guideline thresholds for glycophytic crops, cited as the (non-halophyte-specific) benchmark this paper’s supplemented water stayed below (p.6).
Citations to chase
- #todo Kasozi et al. (2019) - review of iron supplementation/management in aquaponic systems
- #todo Frias-Espericueta et al. (2003) - acute Cu/Zn/Fe/Mn toxicity thresholds for L. vannamei postlarvae
- #todo Araújo et al. (2014) - iron tolerance and growth response in Paspalum urvillei
- #todo Pessarakli and Kopec (2004) - iron fertilization of P. vaginatum cv. Sea Isle 2000
- #todo Ventura et al. (2010) - foliar molybdenum effect on Salicornia europaea biomass
- #todo Singh et al. (2014) - chlorosis and Fe-EDDHA correction in Salicornia dolichostachya
- #todo Watts et al. (1984) - heat sensitivity of Apium graveolens tissue culture
- #todo Van Wyk and Scarpa (1999) - shrimp grow-out water quality limits
- #todo Pescod (1992) - FAO wastewater reuse guideline for crop irrigation
Extraction notes
Contradictions (severity-tagged):
- ⚠️WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels its nitrogen-species columns “Nitrite-NO2” and “Nitrate-NO3” (mg/L) - not explicitly “as N” - while the same table spells out “Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN” for the ammonia column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are ion mass or N-equivalent mass (a 3.29x/4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 values) in the trials.csv NO2-N/NO3-N columns for every row, since no other basis is given; both readings are defensible and only the definition is unstated (CHECK, not BLOCK). Affects all 9 trial rows’ NO2-N/NO3-N cells (values repeat by treatment, per SCHEMA.md guidance on repeating shared values).
- ⚠️WARN-MATERIAL A. graveolens “Statistically analysed”: ANOVA was formally run and found no significant treatment effect (Fig. 1C-D, p.4-5), but the authors themselves state the poor, heat/bolting-confounded growth means the micronutrient response of this species “could not be evaluated” (Abstract, Conclusions) and the result “was not conclusive” (Discussion 4.2, p.6). This is not two conflicting values in the paper, but a single defensible judgement call about how to record a non-significant-but-explicitly-uninterpretable ANOVA; recorded
UNCLEARin theStatistically analysedcell for the 3 A. graveolens rows (T4-T6) rather thanY, with this note. Tallied as MATERIAL. - Baseline (day-0) imbalance in P. vaginatum shoot height (T1 significantly taller than T2/T3, F=4.77, p<0.05, Section 3.2) is flagged in the trial rows’
Detailscolumn as an important confound to keep in mind, but is not a⚠️contradiction (nothing conflicts - both baseline and final values are consistently reported) and does not affect the severity tally.
Severity tally: 0 BLOCK, 1 MATERIAL, 1 CHECK, 0 MINOR -> quality: ok (0 BLOCK and <=2 MATERIAL).
[not reported] / [unclear] grouped by field:
- Not reported (NR): Initial Stock density; FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days); Total Feed (kg); Daily Water exchange rate; feed N (%); feed K (%); % of body weight; EC; Dissolved Oxigen; pHOptimal; FUE AP; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP; Average room Temperature; Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting; Tissue nitrate AP; Plant height (all species); Plant fresh weight (all species); Plant dry matter (all species); Leaf count (A. graveolens, P. vaginatum - graph-only final values; see reason below).
- Not applicable (NA, entire fish-growth-trial fields are NR not NA - see below; NA reserved for the no-hydroponic-control design gap): HYD; Tissue nitrate HYD; FUE HYD; Leaf count for S. neei (this species does not produce leaves in the measured sense - only branches/shoots - so NA rather than NR).
- Reason for the largest NR cluster (final plant growth values): Plant height, Leaf count and Plant dry matter/fresh weight are shown only in Fig. 1’s bar charts for all three species; Results 3.3 gives only F/p-statistics and, for two results, relative percentages (P. vaginatum “20-30%” higher biomass; S. neei “73%” lower biomass) rather than absolute point estimates in text or a table. Per the schema rule against reading values off figures, all final absolute growth-parameter cells are NR. This is a template/reporting-style limitation of the source paper, not an extraction gap - a future manual figure-digitization pass could recover approximate values if ever needed, but none is recorded here.
- Fish block is genuinely reported (species, breeding-stock size, feed) but growth-trial-specific columns (FCR, SGR, survival, etc.) are NR rather than NA because a real aquaculture component exists (L. vannamei breeding stock supplying the water) - it was simply not the subject of measurement in this plant-focused study. See “Aquaponic component” statement below.
NEEDS_OCR: Not applicable - PDF has a clean, complete text layer throughout (verified by reading all 7 pages including tables, figure caption, and references).
New tags introduced: Meta/Plant/Sea-Asparagus, Meta/Plant/Celery, Meta/Plant/Seashore-Paspalum (none pre-existed in the vault for these three species; checked via grep before adding). Reused existing Meta/Region/South-America and Meta/Fish/Shrimp (both already used in armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021.md and others).
New wikilink targets introduced: Salicornia neei, Apium graveolens, Paspalum vaginatum, Iron availability limits halophyte growth under neutral-alkaline marine aquaculture water, Foliar micronutrient spraying can be less effective than water-borne supplementation in saline aquaponics, Micronutrient-supplemented aquaponic water should not be recycled to aquaculture stock without a toxicity check - none found existing in the vault at extraction time; candidate canonical forms only, left for review before reuse in future papers.
Water panel excluded from plant.csv (worth flagging per instructions): none - this paper’s water panel (Tables 1 and 2) is entirely water chemistry and was routed to trials.csv (macronutrients into the standard TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N columns; Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/B/Mo - for which no dedicated trials.csv columns exist at all - into the Iron supplemented/Nutrient supplemented paired Details columns, the closest existing fit given the paper’s central topic). Flagging for the user: if this vault accumulates more micronutrient-focused papers, dedicated water-Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/B/Mo columns may be worth adding to the schema rather than continuing to overload the supplementation-flag Details fields.
NO COLUMN items (unhomed data, recorded in Experimental Remarks of every trial row): total suspended solids (104.90+/-0.70 mg/L, global, ns); water salinity (20.66+/-1.57 g NaCl/L, global, ns); feed calcium content (15-30 g/kg); feed Mn/Zn/Cu content (10/75/34 mg/kg respectively - also cross-referenced under the supplementation Details columns since these are literally the paper’s target elements, just on the feed side rather than the water-treatment side); trial-period ambient air temperature (24.6+/-0.5 degC) and daily solar radiation (19.2+/-1.3 MJ/m2/day) from the INMET weather station; all pre-treatment (baseline, day-0) growth values for all three species.
Aquaponic component: Yes, this paper has a real aquaculture component. It is not a pure hydroponic/halophyte-nutrition study: water was sourced from actual one-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) breeding-stock tanks holding live Litopenaeus vannamei shrimp (555 and 520 individuals, ~50 g average, fed twice daily), clarified and piped to a decoupled aquaponic (NFT hydroponic) system. However, the shrimp themselves were not the experimental subject - no shrimp growth trial (FCR, SGR, survival, weight gain) was conducted or reported in this paper; the animals functioned solely as the source of nutrient-bearing water. The fish block in trials.csv is therefore filled with what is stated (species, stocking numbers/weight, feed type/frequency/protein) and marked NR (not NA) for the unreported growth-trial metrics, since an aquaculture system genuinely exists but was not measured for those outcomes.
Source: Doncato and Costa - 2021 - Micronutrient supplementation needs for halophytes.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
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.09 +/- 0.03 |
| NO2-N | 0.20 +/- 0.02 |
| NO3-N | 88.71 +/- 19.40 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Salicornia neei Lag. (BTH2 lineage) [syn. Salicornia gaudichaudiana; Sarcocornia ambigua] |
| Details | Control. Baseline (day 0) values common to all three S. neei treatments: shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg (Section 3.2, p.4; no treatment differences at baseline, p>0.05). At day 30, T1 was statistically indistinguishable from T2 for all growth parameters and shoot biomass, and both were significantly higher than T3 (Fig. 1A-B; F/p given under T3). n=22 plants (p.2). |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Amaranthaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Control - no micronutrient supplementation (p.2); water Fe remained at background 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L (Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Control, no supplementation (p.2)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Salicornia neei; T1 (control, no micronutrient supplementation) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height, longest branch, foliar index (cm); branch number (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 22 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Salicornia neei under T1 (control, no micronutrient supplementation). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.06 +/- 0.02 |
| NO2-N | 0.16 +/- 0.02 |
| NO3-N | 84.86 +/- 22.01 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Salicornia neei Lag. (BTH2 lineage) [syn. Salicornia gaudichaudiana; Sarcocornia ambigua] |
| Details | Water-supplemented. No significant difference from T1 (control) in shoot height, foliar index, branch number, longest branch, or shoot dry biomass (Results 3.3, p.4: ‘Micronutrient addition to the water (T2) had no effect on S. neei’). The extra Fe/Mn/Mo in the water (see Iron/Nutrient supplementedDetails) did not benefit this species; Discussion attributes this to the water already meeting S. neei’s micronutrient needs, likely because of its high nitrate content (p.4). n=22. |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Amaranthaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Full-strength Fe (other micronutrients at 1/4 Hoagland strength) in a 1.0 L solution added to the 450 L reservoir weekly during water exchange (p.2); measured water Fe rose to 1072.75 +/- 197.90 ug/L vs 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L in control, a 152-fold increase (F=162.38, p<0.001, Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (1/4-strength Hoagland micronutrients (Mn, Zn, Cu, B, Mo, plus full-strength Fe) added to the water reservoir weekly (p.2). Table 2 (p.3), mean +/- SE ug/L: Mn 56.00+/-17.61 vs control 3.00+/-0.41 (18-fold, F=20.09, p<0.001); Mo 10.50+/-1.19 vs 3.75+/-0.48 (2-fold, F=22.59, p<0.001); Zn 125.25+/-29.04 vs 90.00+/-19.13 (ns); Cu 9.75+/-2.06 vs 8.50+/-1.50 (ns); B 1803.75+/-303.31 vs 1716.25+/-285.31 (ns)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Salicornia neei; T2 (micronutrient addition directly in the water) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height, longest branch, foliar index (cm); branch number (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 22 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Salicornia neei under T2 (micronutrient addition directly in the water). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.07 +/- 0.01 |
| NO2-N | 0.23 +/- 0.05 |
| NO3-N | 89.43 +/- 20.40 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Salicornia neei Lag. (BTH2 lineage) [syn. Salicornia gaudichaudiana; Sarcocornia ambigua] |
| Details | Foliar-sprayed. Significantly WORSE than T1 and T2: shorter shoot height (F=7.43, p<0.01), reduced foliar index (F=4.11, p<0.05), fewer/shorter branches (branch number F=3.98, p<0.05; longest branch F=3.73, p<0.05), and 73% lighter shoot dry biomass (F=5.29, p<0.01) (Results 3.3, Fig. 1A-B, p.4). Authors could not explain the inhibition from the low Mo dose applied and suggest the 0.1% Tween 20 surfactant itself may be responsible, noting this contradicts Lv et al. 2015’s finding of no surfactant effect in S. europaea (Discussion 4.2, p.6). n=22. |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Amaranthaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Same micronutrient solution as T2 (incl. full-strength Fe) applied as foliar spray (100 mL, 2x/week, 0.1% Tween 20 surfactant) directly to leaves, not added to the water (p.2); water Fe unaffected (11.00 +/- 3.54 ug/L, not significantly different from control, Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Same micronutrient solution as T2 applied as foliar spray only (100 mL, 2x/week, 0.1% Tween 20), not added to the water; water Mn/Zn/Cu/B/Mo not significantly different from control (Table 2, p.3)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Salicornia neei; T3 (micronutrient addition by foliar spraying) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height, longest branch, foliar index (cm); branch number (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 22 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Salicornia neei under T3 (micronutrient addition by foliar spraying). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.09 +/- 0.03 |
| NO2-N | 0.20 +/- 0.02 |
| NO3-N | 88.71 +/- 19.40 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Apium graveolens L. (wild celery, southern Brazil salt-marsh accession) |
| Details | Control. Baseline shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21 (Section 3.2, p.4, pooled, no treatment difference). Growth was poor overall and similar among all 3 treatments throughout (Results 3.3, Fig. 1C-D, p.4); plants in T1 and T2 began bolting (inflorescence stem growth) between days 17-27, but T3 plants did not flower (Results 3.3, p.4). Poor growth attributed to heat stress (~30 degC on half the trial days) and summer-induced bolting in seedlings transferred during the natural flowering period (Discussion 4.2, p.4-6); authors state the response of this species to micronutrient additions COULD NOT BE EVALUATED (Abstract, Conclusions). n=12 plants (p.2, fewer than the other species due to seedling availability). |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Apiaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Control - no micronutrient supplementation (p.2); water Fe remained at background 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L (Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Control, no supplementation (p.2)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Apium graveolens; T1 (control, no micronutrient supplementation) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height (cm); leaf area (cm2); number of petioles and leaves (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Apium graveolens under T1 (control, no micronutrient supplementation). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study. | WARN-MATERIAL Statistically analysed for A. graveolens: ANOVA was run (Section 2.6, p.3) and found no significant treatment differences (Fig. 1C-D), but the authors explicitly state the poor, heat/bolting-confounded growth means ‘the experimental result was not conclusive about the micronutritional requirements of A. graveolens’ (Discussion 4.2, p.6) and that ‘the response of this species to micronutrient additions could not be evaluated’ (Abstract/Conclusions). A formal test was performed and is not in conflict with itself, but its interpretability is explicitly undermined by the authors themselves; recorded ‘Statistically analysed’ as UNCLEAR to flag that a non-significant ANOVA here reflects a confounded/underpowered trial rather than a clean null result. This is a defensible-single-value judgement call (not two conflicting paper values), so tallied as MATERIAL rather than BLOCK/CHECK.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T5
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.06 +/- 0.02 |
| NO2-N | 0.16 +/- 0.02 |
| NO3-N | 84.86 +/- 22.01 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Apium graveolens L. (wild celery, southern Brazil salt-marsh accession) |
| Details | Water-supplemented. No significant difference from T1 or T3 (Fig. 1C-D); see T1 Details for the shared confound (heat stress, bolting) that the authors say prevented evaluation of micronutrient response in this species. n=12. |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Apiaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Full-strength Fe (other micronutrients at 1/4 Hoagland strength) in a 1.0 L solution added to the 450 L reservoir weekly during water exchange (p.2); measured water Fe rose to 1072.75 +/- 197.90 ug/L vs 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L in control, a 152-fold increase (F=162.38, p<0.001, Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (1/4-strength Hoagland micronutrients (Mn, Zn, Cu, B, Mo, plus full-strength Fe) added to the water reservoir weekly (p.2). Table 2 (p.3), mean +/- SE ug/L: Mn 56.00+/-17.61 vs control 3.00+/-0.41 (18-fold, F=20.09, p<0.001); Mo 10.50+/-1.19 vs 3.75+/-0.48 (2-fold, F=22.59, p<0.001); Zn 125.25+/-29.04 vs 90.00+/-19.13 (ns); Cu 9.75+/-2.06 vs 8.50+/-1.50 (ns); B 1803.75+/-303.31 vs 1716.25+/-285.31 (ns)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Apium graveolens; T2 (micronutrient addition directly in the water) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height (cm); leaf area (cm2); number of petioles and leaves (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Apium graveolens under T2 (micronutrient addition directly in the water). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study. | WARN-MATERIAL Statistically analysed for A. graveolens: ANOVA was run (Section 2.6, p.3) and found no significant treatment differences (Fig. 1C-D), but the authors explicitly state the poor, heat/bolting-confounded growth means ‘the experimental result was not conclusive about the micronutritional requirements of A. graveolens’ (Discussion 4.2, p.6) and that ‘the response of this species to micronutrient additions could not be evaluated’ (Abstract/Conclusions). A formal test was performed and is not in conflict with itself, but its interpretability is explicitly undermined by the authors themselves; recorded ‘Statistically analysed’ as UNCLEAR to flag that a non-significant ANOVA here reflects a confounded/underpowered trial rather than a clean null result. This is a defensible-single-value judgement call (not two conflicting paper values), so tallied as MATERIAL rather than BLOCK/CHECK.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T6
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.07 +/- 0.01 |
| NO2-N | 0.23 +/- 0.05 |
| NO3-N | 89.43 +/- 20.40 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Apium graveolens L. (wild celery, southern Brazil salt-marsh accession) |
| Details | Foliar-sprayed. No significant difference from T1 or T2 (Fig. 1C-D); notably this was the only treatment in which A. graveolens plants did NOT bolt during the trial (Results 3.3, p.4). n=12. |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Apiaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Same micronutrient solution as T2 (incl. full-strength Fe) applied as foliar spray (100 mL, 2x/week, 0.1% Tween 20 surfactant) directly to leaves, not added to the water (p.2); water Fe unaffected (11.00 +/- 3.54 ug/L, not significantly different from control, Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Same micronutrient solution as T2 applied as foliar spray only (100 mL, 2x/week, 0.1% Tween 20), not added to the water; water Mn/Zn/Cu/B/Mo not significantly different from control (Table 2, p.3)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Apium graveolens; T3 (micronutrient addition by foliar spraying) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height (cm); leaf area (cm2); number of petioles and leaves (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Apium graveolens under T3 (micronutrient addition by foliar spraying). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study. | WARN-MATERIAL Statistically analysed for A. graveolens: ANOVA was run (Section 2.6, p.3) and found no significant treatment differences (Fig. 1C-D), but the authors explicitly state the poor, heat/bolting-confounded growth means ‘the experimental result was not conclusive about the micronutritional requirements of A. graveolens’ (Discussion 4.2, p.6) and that ‘the response of this species to micronutrient additions could not be evaluated’ (Abstract/Conclusions). A formal test was performed and is not in conflict with itself, but its interpretability is explicitly undermined by the authors themselves; recorded ‘Statistically analysed’ as UNCLEAR to flag that a non-significant ANOVA here reflects a confounded/underpowered trial rather than a clean null result. This is a defensible-single-value judgement call (not two conflicting paper values), so tallied as MATERIAL rather than BLOCK/CHECK.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T7
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.09 +/- 0.03 |
| NO2-N | 0.20 +/- 0.02 |
| NO3-N | 88.71 +/- 19.40 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Paspalum vaginatum Sw. (seashore paspalum, northeastern Brazil accession) |
| Details | Control. IMPORTANT BASELINE IMBALANCE (not a contradiction, but a confound worth flagging): at day 0, P. vaginatum shoot height was significantly TALLER in T1 (15.56+/-1.67 cm) than T2 (10.74+/-1.28 cm) and T3 (10.21+/-1.03 cm) (F=4.77, p<0.05, Section 3.2, p.4) - the only baseline parameter that differed significantly among the future treatment groups for any of the 3 species. Other baseline values (shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm) were pooled/not different among groups. Because T1 started taller yet finished no better than T2 (see T2 Details), this baseline gap does not change the direction of the reported treatment effect, but it should be kept in mind when comparing absolute magnitudes. n=22 plants (p.2). |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Poaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Control - no micronutrient supplementation (p.2); water Fe remained at background 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L (Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Control, no supplementation (p.2)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Paspalum vaginatum; T1 (control, no micronutrient supplementation) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height, longest leaf (cm); number of tillers and leaves (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 22 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Paspalum vaginatum under T1 (control, no micronutrient supplementation). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T8
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.06 +/- 0.02 |
| NO2-N | 0.16 +/- 0.02 |
| NO3-N | 84.86 +/- 22.01 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Paspalum vaginatum Sw. (seashore paspalum, northeastern Brazil accession) |
| Details | Water-supplemented. Significantly BETTER than T1 and T3 at day 30: greater shoot height (F=8.71, p<0.001), more leaves (F=7.67, p<0.001), and higher shoot dry biomass (F=8.58, p<0.001) (Results 3.3, Fig. 1E-F, p.4), despite starting from a significantly SHORTER baseline shoot height than T1 (see T1 Details). No difference (p>0.05) for tiller number or longest leaf. Abstract states this as a ‘20-30%’ growth/biomass increase vs non-supplemented plants, attributed most likely to iron (Abstract, Conclusions, Discussion 4.2/4.3, p.4-6: P. vaginatum is described as iron-demanding and sensitive to the low Fe availability typical of neutral-alkaline marine aquaculture water). n=22. |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Poaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Full-strength Fe (other micronutrients at 1/4 Hoagland strength) in a 1.0 L solution added to the 450 L reservoir weekly during water exchange (p.2); measured water Fe rose to 1072.75 +/- 197.90 ug/L vs 7.00 +/- 1.00 ug/L in control, a 152-fold increase (F=162.38, p<0.001, Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (1/4-strength Hoagland micronutrients (Mn, Zn, Cu, B, Mo, plus full-strength Fe) added to the water reservoir weekly (p.2). Table 2 (p.3), mean +/- SE ug/L: Mn 56.00+/-17.61 vs control 3.00+/-0.41 (18-fold, F=20.09, p<0.001); Mo 10.50+/-1.19 vs 3.75+/-0.48 (2-fold, F=22.59, p<0.001); Zn 125.25+/-29.04 vs 90.00+/-19.13 (ns); Cu 9.75+/-2.06 vs 8.50+/-1.50 (ns); B 1803.75+/-303.31 vs 1716.25+/-285.31 (ns)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Paspalum vaginatum; T2 (micronutrient addition directly in the water) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height, longest leaf (cm); number of tillers and leaves (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 22 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Paspalum vaginatum under T2 (micronutrient addition directly in the water). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study.
doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T9
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp), breeding stock |
| Fish Category | Breeding stock (p.2) |
| Protein | 35 |
| P | >=1.5 |
| Fish size initial | 50 |
| Feed routine | Twice per day (morning and afternoon) (p.2) |
| Feed regime | 300 g of commercial extruded feed per tank per feeding (Poti Evolution 35 Guabi, 1.6 mm) (p.2) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 13.1 |
| Water volume in the system | 450 |
| Water type | Saline (BFT-derived, marine) (p.1-2) |
| Water classification | Biofloc technology (BFT) system water, one-year-old, clarified; ~20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3) |
| Aq pH | 7.82 +/- 0.04 |
| Water temperature | 25.12 +/- 0.38 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.07 +/- 0.01 |
| NO2-N | 0.23 +/- 0.05 |
| NO3-N | 89.43 +/- 20.40 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Paspalum vaginatum Sw. (seashore paspalum, northeastern Brazil accession) |
| Details | Foliar-sprayed. Not significantly different from T1 (control) for any growth parameter (Fig. 1E-F, p.4-5); foliar spraying did not replicate the benefit seen with water-borne supplementation (T2). n=22. |
| Plant Category | Halophyte, Poaceae (p.1-2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Decoupled saline aquaponic system; Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic benches, six 10x5 cm PVC pipes 3.0 m long per bench (p.2) |
| Media Details | 150 cm3 plastic net pots filled with small gravel (p.2) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (One-year-old BFT (biofloc technology) system water from L. vannamei breeding stock tanks; Discussion (p.4) states the water was ‘characterized by a nitrifying condition’) |
| Air supplement | Y (2 hp blower with micropore diffuser hose (Aero-Tube Swan) supplied aeration to the shrimp breeding tanks (animal side of the decoupled system, p.2); no aeration is stated for the hydroponic/plant side) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Same micronutrient solution as T2 (incl. full-strength Fe) applied as foliar spray (100 mL, 2x/week, 0.1% Tween 20 surfactant) directly to leaves, not added to the water (p.2); water Fe unaffected (11.00 +/- 3.54 ug/L, not significantly different from control, Table 2, p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Same micronutrient solution as T2 applied as foliar spray only (100 mL, 2x/week, 0.1% Tween 20), not added to the water; water Mn/Zn/Cu/B/Mo not significantly different from control (Table 2, p.3)) |
| Equipment | FEP20 Mettler Toledo pH meter; HI9835 Hanna conductivity meter (set to NaCl% scale); TDU-300 Unity thermometer; BP-420-50 Pentair filter bags (50 um); Aero-Tube Swan micropore diffuser hose with 2 hp blower (shrimp tanks); hand pressure sprayer (Export Guarani, foliar treatment); precision scale; drying oven (60 degC, 48 h) (p.2-3) |
| Control Parameters | pH, salinity and water temperature measured in situ twice weekly, before/after the weekly water exchange; TSS monitored weekly, clarification (500 L settling tank) triggered when TSS reached 500 mg/L (p.2) |
| Combination | Litopenaeus vannamei (BFT breeding stock, water source only, decoupled) + Paspalum vaginatum; T3 (micronutrient addition by foliar spraying) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -32.0786 |
| Long | -52.1675 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Shoot height, longest leaf (cm); number of tillers and leaves (count); shoot dry biomass (mg dry matter) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA per parameter (p.3); Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene test for homoscedasticity checked first, log10(x) or sqrt(x) transformation applied where needed (p.3); Tukey HSD post-hoc when ANOVA significant; alpha = 0.05 (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 22 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Paspalum vaginatum under T3 (micronutrient addition by foliar spraying). Paper design = 3 treatments (T1 control / T2 water-supplemented / T3 foliar-supplemented) fully crossed with 3 halophyte species, each treatment run as its own decoupled aquaponic system supplied with clarified BFT shrimp-breeding-stock water (p.2). No hydroponic-only control exists in this design (see shared remarks). This row = one species x treatment arm; the paper reports separate F/p statistics per species x treatment cell (Results 3.3, Fig. 1), so each combination is extracted as its own row rather than collapsing species into one treatment row. | WARN-CHECK NO2-N/NO3-N basis: Table 1 (p.3) labels these values ‘Nitrite-NO2’ and ‘Nitrate-NO3’ (mg/L), not stated as N-equivalent, whereas the same table explicitly spells out ‘Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN’ for the TAN column. The paper never states whether the NO2/NO3 figures are expressed as the ion or as NO2-N/NO3-N (a 3.29x / 4.43x difference respectively). Recorded as reported (literal Table 1 mg/L values) in the NO2-N/NO3-N columns since the paper gives no other basis and this is the paper’s own primary water-quality table. Affects: NO2-N and NO3-N cells in every trial row of this paper (same treatment-level water values repeat across the 3 species sharing a treatment). CHECK, not BLOCK: both readings are defensible, only the definition is unstated. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 555/520 shrimp in 40 m3 tanks plus ~50 g mean individual weight, but never states a kg/m3 density - not computed here); FCR; SGR; Fish size final; Fish weight gain; Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish trial duration (days) (the stated ‘one-year’ figure is the water/tank residence time, not a fish growth-trial duration - this study did not run or report a shrimp growth trial); Total Feed (kg) (300 g/tank/feeding x2/day given, never totalled over the 30-d plant trial or the 1-yr tank residence); Daily Water exchange rate (%) (water stated as replaced ‘weekly’, not given as a daily percentage, and converting would require assuming uniform daily depletion); N, feed (%) (only crude protein 35% stated, not a separate N% or protein:N factor); K, feed (%) (not stated); % of body weight (feed ration not tied to tank biomass in the text); EC (only salinity in g NaCl/L given - the HI9835 conductivity meter was explicitly ‘set to NaCl% scale’, so no dS/m reading is available); Dissolved Oxigen (methods 2.4, p.2, list only pH, salinity and temperature as the in-situ parameters measured - DO is not mentioned anywhere in the paper); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Plants/m2; SPAD; AP (no per-m2 or comparable yield metric is stated in text/tables; the only quantified final effects are F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a relative ‘20-30%’ biomass increase, not an absolute yield value in a schema-comparable unit); Average room Temperature (not stated for the 30-d trial itself; only an ‘unheated greenhouse’ is mentioned for the earlier propagation phase, no temperature given); Remineralization; pH Buffers; Climate control; Artificial Lighting (none of these practices are mentioned in the paper). Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter: NR for all three species. Final (day-30) growth values are shown ONLY in Fig. 1’s bar charts; the Results text (3.3) gives only F/p-statistics and, for P. vaginatum, a ‘20-30%’ relative biomass/growth increase - no absolute point-estimate numbers appear in running text or in a table for any species’ final measurements. Per the schema (never read a value off a figure), these are recorded NR with this reason. The only NUMERIC final-stage information in text is: S. neei T3 shoot dry biomass ‘73% reduction’ vs control (Abstract, Results 3.3, Conclusions); P. vaginatum T2 shoot height/leaf number/biomass ‘20-30%’ higher than non-supplemented (Abstract) - both relative, not absolute, and are given as narrative context in this row’s Details column rather than as cell values. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed phosphorus ‘a minimum of 15 g of phosphorus … per kg’ (p.2) -> >=1.5% (P column, minimum stated); INMET weather-station coordinates 32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W (p.2) -> -32.0786, -52.1675 decimal degrees. NO COLUMN: total suspended solids 104.90 +/- 0.70 mg/L (global average, ns among treatments, p.3; reduced to 71% of the pre-clarification breeding-tank level of 360.0 +/- 19.6 mg/L); water salinity 20.66 +/- 1.57 g NaCl/L (global average, ns, p.3); feed calcium content 15-30 g/kg (p.2, no Ca column in this schema); trial-period ambient air temperature 24.6 +/- 0.5 degC and daily solar radiation 19.2 +/- 1.3 MJ/m2/day from the INMET automatic weather station (p.2) - outdoor ambient, distinct from ‘Average room Temperature’ which implies an indoor/greenhouse setpoint that is not stated; feed manganese/zinc/copper content (10, 75 and 34 mg/kg respectively, p.2) - also cross-referenced under Nutrient supplementedDetails/Iron supplementedDetails below as the same trace elements the paper’s whole micronutrient-addition treatment targets, but the FEED-borne amounts fed to the shrimp have no dedicated feed-micronutrient column. Pre-treatment (baseline, ~day 0, Section 3.2, p.4) growth values, pooled across the future treatment groups except where noted: S. neei shoot height 9.40+/-0.63 cm, shoot dry biomass 153.58+/-21.80 mg, foliar index 37.25+/-4.89 cm, branch number 6.50+/-0.81, longest branch 6.10+/-0.56 cm; A. graveolens shoot height 9.34+/-1.05 cm, leaf area 10.69+/-1.30 cm2, petioles 5.14+/-0.68, leaves 24.86+/-3.21; P. vaginatum shoot dry biomass 633.61+/-40.14 mg, tillers 5.20+/-0.34, leaves 32.11+/-1.71, longest leaf 11.19+/-0.30 cm. NOTE: all Table 1/Table 2 dispersion values are explicitly reported by the paper as mean +/- standard error (not SD); recorded as-is (value +/- SE) per the prime directive against relabelling or recomputing reported statistics - treat the ’+/-’ figures in this row’s water-quality cells as SE, not SD. Lat/Long note: no single coordinate is given for the trial site itself (FURG’s Estacao Marinha de Aquacultura, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil, per author affiliations, p.1). The recorded coordinates are those of the INMET automatic weather station the authors themselves cite for trial-period air temperature/solar radiation (32 deg 04’ 43” S, 52 deg 10’ 03” W, p.2) as the closest paper-stated geographic marker; treat as a close proxy for, not a confirmed reading of, the aquaponic system’s own coordinates. This paper’s design has no hydroponic-only control arm at all - all three treatments (T1/T2/T3) use clarified BFT shrimp-derived water and differ only in the micronutrient-supplementation route; HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD and FUE HYD are therefore NA (a hydroponic arm is not part of this design), not NR. Tissue nitrate AP is NR: the paper never analysed plant tissue nitrate at all (not a design gap, a missing measurement). Fish block: L. vannamei were one-year-old established breeding stock (555 and 520 individuals per 40 m3 tank, ~50 g mean individual weight, fed extruded commercial pellets twice daily) used only as the water source for this decoupled aquaponic system (p.2); the paper did not conduct or report a shrimp growth trial (no FCR/SGR/survival/final-weight/biomass-gain data anywhere), hence fish growth-trial fields are NR rather than NA - a real aquaculture component exists, it was simply not the subject of measurement in this study.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T1 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 90.4 ± 0.1 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T2 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 90.4 ± 0.1 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T3 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 90.4 ± 0.1 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T4 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 80.5 ± 1.2 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T5 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 80.5 ± 1.2 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T6 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 80.5 ± 1.2 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T7 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 74.6 ± 1.0 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T8 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 74.6 ± 1.0 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |
| doncatoMicronutrientSupplementationNeeds2021-T9 | AP | proximate | Shoot water content (moisture) | 74.6 ± 1.0 | % | NR | Results 3.3, p.4 |