Mineral Supplementation in Jade Perch (Scortum barcoo) Aquaponics with Lettuce: A Comparison with Hydroponics and RAS
Metadata
- Cite key: emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: M. Emerenciano, J. Slinger, G. Koster, J. Aland, P. Lima, M. Arsic, C. O’Sullivan
- Affiliation: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Agriculture & Food, Livestock & Aquaculture Program, Bribie Island Research Centre, Woorim, QLD, Australia (Emerenciano, Slinger, Koster, Aland); CSIRO Agriculture & Food, Livestock & Aquaculture Program, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, St Lucia, QLD, Australia (Lima); CSIRO Agriculture & Food, Sustainability Program, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, St Lucia, QLD, Australia (Arsic, O’Sullivan)
- Journal: Animals 15 (2025) 317, Issue 3
- Date: 01/2025
- Date added: 2026-07-15
- DOI: 10.3390/ani15030317
- Funding: CSIRO strategic science internal funding (SIP003/2022 Nutrient Systems)
- URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15030317
- PDF:
Emerenciano et al. - 2025 - Mineral Supplementation in Jade Perch (Scortum barcoo) Aquaponics with Lettuce A Comparison with Hy.pdf
Opinion
A clean 4-arm design (AP, AP+mineral, hydroponics, RAS) with proper replication (n=3) and two sequential crops, which is exactly what lets the paper separate a “mineral supplementation” effect from a “system maturation” effect — a distinction most single-crop aquaponics-vs-hydroponics papers can’t make. The honesty about hydroponics simply winning on yield is refreshing and useful context for the broader review. Weaknesses: several key derived-looking numbers (stocking density, feed totals, weight gain) are never actually stated as such, and Table 1’s presentation in the PDF is visually garbled on export (though the underlying data render cleanly at higher resolution) — worth citing directly from the table image rather than a text-only extraction tool. The plants/m2 vs per-crop-n arithmetic mismatch (see Extraction notes) is a real loose end that would be worth an errata query to the authors before citing that number.
Abstract
The global demand for local and high-quality food sources has increased in recent decades, driven by consumer preferences and a growing population. RAS, hydroponics and a ‘hybrid’ version, aquaponics, are food production techniques that could support such growing demand. The current study evaluated coupled aquaponics (Jade perch and lettuce) with and without mineral supplementation in comparison to standard cultivation methods, i.e., RAS and hydroponics. The mineral supplementation in aquaponics was carried out using a hydroponics commercial blend fertilizer (10% of the dosage utilised in the hydroponics treatment). Fish/plant performance, nutrient dynamics and water quality were evaluated for 9 weeks using twelve experimental units (~720 L in total; fish tank/reservoir + filtration systems/sump + floating raft-based plant tank). After two crops of plants, the results showcased the positive impact of mineral supplementation in aquaponics; however, the hydroponics treatment outperformed the two aquaponics treatments, e.g., with higher total plant wet weight and total plant length (p < 0.05). Fish in aquaponics with and without mineral supplementation presented similar growth performance as compared to RAS (p > 0.05). By comparing these different farming approaches, this study sought to provide insights into optimising aquaponics systems and advancing the integration of Jade perch into aquaculture practices.
Summary
CSIRO researchers ran a 63-day, 4-arm trial (n=3 replicate systems each) comparing coupled aquaponics, coupled aquaponics + 10%-dose commercial mineral fertilizer, plant-only hydroponics, and fish-only RAS, using Jade perch (Scortum barcoo) — an under-studied Australian native species — and butterhead lettuce grown across two sequential crops (24 and 27 days) in floating rafts. Fish performance was statistically identical across aquaponics and RAS (final weight ~106 g, FCR ~1.22, 100% survival, p>0.05 throughout), indicating lettuce co-culture did not compromise Jade perch growth. On the plant side, mineral supplementation improved several metrics in aquaponics (total length, root length) relative to unsupplemented aquaponics, but hydroponics beat both aquaponics treatments on total wet weight and length in both crops, especially crop one, when the aquaponics systems’ nutrient pools (K, S in particular) had not yet built up. Performance gaps between aquaponics and hydroponics narrowed substantially in crop two, which the authors attribute more to system/microbial maturation over time than to the mineral dosing itself. Water-quality monitoring (pH, EC, nitrate, phosphate, sodium, and ICP-measured K/Ca/Mg/S/Na) tracked the nutrient-accumulation story, with pH sitting above the authors’ stated 6.5–7.0 aquaponics ideal in both aquaponics arms, plausibly limiting micronutrient bioavailability.
Experiment data
- Location: Bribie Island Research Centre (BIRC/CSIRO), Bribie Island, QLD, Australia; translucent plastic-covered tunnel house, natural photoperiod
- Design: 4 treatments x 3 replicates (n=3 each): coupled aquaponics (no mineral), coupled aquaponics + mineral supplementation (10% of hydroponics AutoPot dose), hydroponics (plant-only control), RAS (fish-only control); 12 experimental units total, ~720 L system volume each
- Replicates / n: 3 per treatment
- Duration: 63 days of culture (fish, aquaponics/RAS); two sequential lettuce crops of 24 and 27 days (aquaponics/hydroponics); fish stocked 14 days before plants to allow nutrient accumulation
- Organisms: Jade Perch (Scortum barcoo) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), var. butterhead
- Statistics: Kolmogorov-Smirnov + Levene (normality/homogeneity); one-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for fish/plant performance except SPAD; two-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD for SPAD; percentage data arcsine-transformed; software not reported
- Fish weight gain: Final individual weight ~104.8–107.2 g across AP/AP+Mineral/RAS, no significant difference (p=0.523)
- Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): 1.21–1.24 across treatments, ns (p=0.546)
- Plant fresh weight: Total wet weight (aerial+root) crop 1: AP 90.60 g, AP+Mineral 108.15 g, HYD 255.70 g (p<0.001); crop 2: AP 126.20 g, AP+Mineral 128.58 g, HYD 169.14 g (p<0.01)
- Nitrate (NO3): Water column, trial mean: AP 203.41 mg/L, AP+Mineral 242.67 mg/L, RAS 236.40 mg/L, HYD 182.13 mg/L (Table 1; paper labels this “NO3”, ambiguous vs NO3-N, see Extraction notes)
Fish performance (Jade perch)
This paper: Final individual weight, SGR, FCR, productivity and survival were statistically indistinguishable between aquaponics (no mineral), aquaponics+mineral, and RAS across the full 63-day trial (all p>0.05, Table 2, p.8): final weight ~104.8–107.2 g, SGR ~3.14–3.17%/day, FCR 1.21–1.24, survival 100% in all three arms. The authors frame this as evidence that co-culturing lettuce with Jade perch does not compromise fish growth relative to a fish-only RAS control.
Compared with:
- todo Ani et al. 2022 — Nile tilapia (18 g initial)-lettuce coupled aquaponics, 3 stocking densities, 56 days: survival 82–94%, final weight 25–42 g, FCR 1.4–1.9 (secondary comparison in Discussion, p.11)
- todo Pinho et al. 2017 — RAS/biofloc effluent aquaponics with Nile tilapia (70 g initial) and lettuce, 21 days: survival >95%, final weight/FCR 102.31 g/1.87 (biofloc) and 88.12 g/4.02 (RAS) (secondary, p.11)
- todo Baßmann et al. 2020 — plant density effects on African catfish welfare in coupled aquaponics with basil (secondary, p.11)
- todo Villarroel et al. 2022 — commercial fertilizer sustained tilapia performance and improved lettuce growth without welfare cost (secondary, p.11-12)
Plant performance and nutrient dynamics (lettuce)
This paper: Hydroponics outperformed both aquaponics treatments on total wet weight, total length, root length and productivity in both crops (all p<0.05–0.001, Table 3, p.10), most dramatically in crop 1 (e.g., productivity 5.50 kg/m² HYD vs 1.95/2.33 kg/m² AP/AP+Mineral). The gap narrowed in crop 2 as aquaponics nutrient pools (K, Ca, Mg, S per Table 1, p.7) built up; aerial length, leaf count, largest-leaf length and productivity were no longer statistically different among treatments in crop 2 (all NS, p>0.05). Mineral supplementation improved total length and root length in aquaponics relative to unsupplemented aquaponics in both crops, and the authors attribute the crop 1→2 improvement more to overall system/microbial maturation than to the mineral dose itself (Discussion, p.12–13).
Compared with:
- todo Delaide et al. 2016 — “complemented aquaponics solution” (tilapia RAS effluent + high-purity mineral salts matched to hydroponic nutrient concentrations) outperformed both hydroponics and unsupplemented aquaponics (secondary, p.13)
- todo Tsoumalakou et al. 2022 — Fe+K supplementation in tilapia-lettuce aquaponics sustained higher max values across measured parameters vs no supplementation (secondary, p.2-3)
- todo Ayipio et al. 2019 — meta-analysis: aquaponic crop yield lower than hydroponic on average, but not significantly so (secondary, p.13)
- todo Rafiee et al. 2019 — commercial fertilizer improved plant growth in ornamental red tilapia-lettuce aquaponics vs no-fertilizer control (secondary, p.12)
- todo Pinho et al. 2021 — decoupled FLOCponics tilapia-lettuce system, productivity 0.3-0.5 kg/m2 (14/21 days), lower than this paper’s aquaponics yields (secondary, p.14)
Water quality
This paper: Temperature (~26°C) and DO (~7.5 mg/L) were similar across all four treatments (Table 1, p.7). pH was lower in hydroponics (mean 6.86) than in RAS (7.65) and both aquaponics treatments (7.15–7.28); the authors argue in Discussion (p.11) that pH >7.0 in both aquaponics arms likely reduced micronutrient bioavailability relative to hydroponics’ pH <7.0. EC and Na rose over the trial in RAS and both aquaponics treatments (attributed partly to NaHCO3/CaCO3 alkalinity dosing and fish-meal feed) while remaining stable and low in hydroponics. K, Ca, Mg and S all increased with mineral supplementation in aquaponics relative to unsupplemented aquaponics, though hydroponics still had the highest K (~41 mg/L) by a wide margin.
Compared with:
- todo Beauchamp et al. 2018 — sodium levels only impacted lettuce performance above 400 mg/L Na (1200 mg/L NaCl) when EC exceeded 4332 µS/cm; this study’s sodium/EC stayed below that threshold (secondary, p.14)
- todo Lenz et al. 2017 — low-salinity (3 ppt) tilapia-lettuce aquaponics where elevated sodium impaired plant growth (secondary, p.14)
Linked claims
- Mineral supplementation improves aquaponic plant performance relative to unsupplemented aquaponics
- Hydroponics can outperform aquaponics on plant yield, especially in immature systems
- System maturation time affects aquaponic nutrient availability and plant performance independent of supplementation
- Coupling fish and plant production does not necessarily reduce fish growth performance relative to fish-only RAS
Citations to chase
- todo Ani, J.S. et al. (2022) — Nile tilapia stocking density x lettuce aquaponics, survival/FCR benchmarks
- todo Pinho, S.M. et al. (2017) — biofloc/RAS effluent aquaponics, tilapia + lettuce varieties
- todo Baßmann, B. et al. (2020) — plant density and African catfish welfare in coupled aquaponics
- todo Villarroel, M. et al. (2022) — fertilizer effects on tilapia welfare/lettuce growth in urban aquaponics
- todo Delaide, B. et al. (2016) — complemented aquaponic solution outperforms hydroponics
- todo Tsoumalakou, E. et al. (2022) — Fe/K supplementation, lettuce nutrient limitation time-course
- todo Ayipio, E. et al. (2019) — meta-analysis, aquaponic vs hydroponic crop yields
- todo Rafiee, G.R. et al. (2019) — supplementary nutrients in ornamental red tilapia-lettuce aquaponics
- todo Pinho, S.M. et al. (2021) — decoupled FLOCponics, tilapia protein level reduction
- todo Beauchamp, W.R. et al. (2018) — salt level thresholds in simulated aquaponics, Bibb lettuce
- todo Lenz, G.L. et al. (2017) — low-salinity BFT tilapia effluent, lettuce production (already in vault as lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021? — verify, different paper, same lead author/species pairing, do not conflate)
Extraction notes
⚠️WARN-MATERIAL — Hydroponics pH. Results (p.6, Section 3.1) states “lower values were observed in hydroponics (~6.8)” but a later sentence in the same section (p.6-7, water-quality fluctuation paragraph) states hydroponics “presented continuous levels of <6” compared to “>7 in RAS and both aquaponics.” Table 1 (p.7) gives HYD pH mean 6.86 ± 0.55 (min–max 6.30–7.53) — never below 6.30. Discussion Section 4.1 (p.11) independently states “only hydroponics presented pH < 7.0”, consistent with Table 1 and inconsistent with the “<6” claim. Reconcilable: “<6” is almost certainly a typo for “<7.0”/“<7”, since two other passages (the ~6.8 figure earlier in the same Results section, and the Discussion) both agree on <7.0/6.86. Recorded Aq pH values are taken from Table 1. This paper’s schema has no dedicated hydroponics-pH column (Aq pH covers only the aquaponics loop), so no trials.csv cell is affected — documented for the record only.
⚠️WARN-CHECK — NO3 vs NO3-N. Table 1 and Figure 2C both label the nitrate parameter simply “NO3 (mg L⁻¹)” (measured via API freshwater colorimetry kit and YSI Photometer 9500); the paper never states whether this is NO3 (ion) or NO3-N (nitrogen-equivalent), which differ by a factor of 4.43. Recorded the paper’s stated value as-is in the schema’s NO3-N column (AP 203.41 ± 184.45, AP+Mineral 242.67 ± 196.23 mg/L) since no other water-nitrate column exists; flagged for user verification. Added to REVIEW.md.
⚠️WARN-CHECK — Plants/m². Methods (p.5) gives a single aggregate density “~18.5 plants/m²” while also stating crop-specific seedling counts (n=20 crop 1, n=17 crop 2) “to avoid excessive crowd effect in crop two” — implying the actual per-crop density differed but was never restated per crop. Verification-only arithmetic (not used to alter the recorded value): the plant tank’s 380 L useful volume at “around 1 m height” implies a floor area of ~0.38 m², which would put n=20 at ~52.6 plants/m² and n=17 at ~44.7 plants/m² — both far from ~18.5 plants/m², suggesting either a much larger actual floor area than the volume/height approximation implies, or that ~18.5 plants/m² is computed on a different area basis entirely. Recorded ~18.5 (the only stated figure) for all four trial rows. Added to REVIEW.md.
⚠️WARN-CHECK — Hydroponics experimental duration. Table 1’s footnote (p.7) states “Experimental period in hydroponics: 48 days,” while Table 3 (p.10) states the same hydroponics treatment’s two crops lasted 24 and 27 days (summing to 51 days) — a 3-day mismatch with no explanation of what the 48-day figure specifically measures. Recorded Days Plant after transplant per Table 3’s per-crop values (24, 27), since these map directly onto the schema’s column definition; the 48-day aggregate is noted in trials.csv remarks. Added to REVIEW.md.
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Initial Stock density (kg/m³): paper gives 32 fish/tank = 134 juveniles m⁻³ — a count density, not biomass density; not converted (would require deriving from initial weight × count, which is not stated as a density by the paper).
- Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish weight gain (g/fish): FCR, final weight and final biomass are all given individually, but the paper never states total feed mass, a biomass delta, or a weight-gain figure directly — all left NR per the no-derivation rule; raw inputs preserved in trials.csv remarks.
- Fish Category, Water type, Water classification, Plant Category: the paper describes but does not formally categorise these (e.g., Jade perch is described as an “Australian native, omnivorous” species but not assigned a category label the way lettuce papers sometimes use “leafy vegetables”).
- Water temperature (single trial mean): Table 1 reports separate AM and PM means only, never combined — not a contradiction (different times of day), just insufficient granularity for a single-value column.
- Tissue nitrate AP/HYD: marked
NA— this paper analysed water-column nitrate only; no plant tissue nitrate assay was performed. - FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Lat, Long, Average room Temperature, pH Buffers, Climate control, Iron supplemented: none stated in the paper.
- SPAD numeric values: only presented in Figure 3 (bar chart with error bars); no table or in-text numeric value exists anywhere in the paper, so all SPAD entries in trials.csv and plant.csv are NR with the qualitative significance result recorded instead.
Judgment call — Plant height mapping. The schema’s single Plant height column was populated with this paper’s “Aerial length (cm)” value (the closest equivalent to a conventional shoot-height measurement for lettuce), since the paper actually reports three separate length metrics (Total length = aerial+root, Root length, Aerial length) that don’t fit one column. Total length and Root length are recorded in Experimental Remarks as NO COLUMN items for each trial row.
Judgment call — four trial rows instead of two. This paper ran two sequential, separately-tabulated lettuce crops (24 and 27 days) per aquaponics treatment, each with its own ANOVA/p-values in Table 3 and its own SPAD result in Figure 3 — a stated, deliberate design difference (crop 2’s plant count was even reduced from 20 to 17 “to avoid excessive crowd effect”), not merely a repeated/conflicting measurement of one design. Following SCHEMA.md’s test for a new row (“a stated design … or per-arm results”), this was treated as 4 rows (AP×crop1, AP×crop2, AP+Mineral×crop1, AP+Mineral×crop2) rather than 2, with fish and water-quality data (which are NOT crop-specific — they’re single 63-day aggregates) duplicated across each mineral treatment’s two crop-rows and clearly labelled as such in TRIAL DEFINITION.
RAS (fish-only control) has no dedicated column set. Table 2’s RAS fish-performance data and Table 1’s RAS water-quality data are both recorded as NO COLUMN context in every trial row’s remarks, since RAS is not an aquaponic treatment and this schema has no parallel “RAS” column series the way it has paired HYD columns for the plant side.
New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Jade-Perch (new — no existing Jade perch / Scortum barcoo facet in the vault). Meta/Region/Oceania (new — no existing Australia/Oceania region facet found in the vault; closest precedent, tadesseComprehensiveComparisonLettuce2023, mentions Australia only as one country within a global meta-analysis, not as a dedicated region tag). Meta/Type/Experiment and Meta/Plant/Lettuce reused exactly as spelled in existing vault notes (e.g. akterComparisonIndianSpinach2025, andersonGrowthTissueElemental2017).
No water panel excluded from plant.csv beyond the routine exclusion of Table 1 (water chemistry, correctly routed to trials.csv per SCHEMA.md). Nothing in the water panel seemed too valuable to discard from a plant-analyte perspective — it is all trial-mean water chemistry, which SCHEMA.md is explicit belongs in trials.csv, not plant.csv.
Source: Emerenciano et al. - 2025 - Mineral Supplementation in Jade Perch (Scortum barcoo) Aquaponics with Lettuce A Comparison with Hy.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
emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo), juveniles |
| Fish Category | Native Australian freshwater fish species, omnivorous (p.3) |
| FCR | 1.24 +/- 0.02 (SE, Table 2) |
| SGR | 3.14 +/- 0.02 (SE, Table 2) |
| Protein | 45 |
| % of body weight | 5.5 to 2.4 (%/day, decreasing over trial, p.4) |
| Fish size initial | 14.51 +/- 0.92 |
| Fish size final | 104.77 +/- 0.90 (SE, Table 2) |
| Feed routine | Three times per day; feeding rate decreased over the trial |
| Feed regime | Commercial native fish diet (2 mm and 3 mm pellets), Ridley Aquafeeds, Narangba QLD; 45% crude protein, 10% lipid; fed at 5.5% to 2.4% body weight/day (high at start, decreasing over time), targeting a fish-feed:plant nutrient ratio of ~2-3 g fish feed/plant/day (p.4-5) |
| Fish survival rate | 100.00 +/- 0.00 (SE, Table 2) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 63 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4 L/min (set-point flow rate, stated as applying to all treatments, p.4) |
| Water volume in the system | ~720 (total per experimental unit: fish tank 240 L + plant tank 380 L + clarifier 60 L + biofilter 40 L = 720 L; same total volume maintained in hydroponics via retained but plant-less fish tank, p.4) |
| Aq pH | 7.28 +/- 0.47 (Table 1) |
| pHOptimal | 6.5-7.0 (authors’ stated ideal pH range for nutrient uptake in coupled aquaponics, Discussion p.11; not an operational setpoint used during the trial) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.25 +/- 0.66 (Table 1) |
| EC | 1922.04 +/- 727.59 (Table 1) |
| Water temperature | NR (see remarks: AM/PM means only) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.26 +/- 1.29 (Table 1) |
| NO2-N | 0.30 +/- 0.24 (Table 1) |
| NO3-N | 203.41 +/- 184.45 (Table 1; paper labels this ‘NO3’, see WARN-CHECK) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa, var. butterhead) |
| Details | Two sequential crops harvested from the same floating-raft plant tanks; wet weight/productivity = aerial + roots combined (Table 3 footnote); harvest measurements: total wet weight, total length, root length, aerial length, leaf count, length of largest leaf, productivity, SPAD (p.5-10) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plants/m2 | ~18.5 (see WARN-CHECK) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (figure only, Fig. 3; see plant.csv) |
| Plant height | 23.83 +/- 0.69 C (Aerial length used as Plant height, see remarks) |
| Leaf count | 31.67 +/- 2.37 |
| Plant fresh weight | 90.60 +/- 5.51 B g/plant |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Coupled aquaponics (traditional/coupled); floating raft (DWC-style) plant tank (p.2-4) |
| Media Details | Floating raft; seedlings held in 60x55 mm clear net pots with ~20 mm gravel; rectangular fiberglass plant tank ~1 m height, 380 L useful volume (p.4-5) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Each biological filter (40 L, ~0.02 m3 of C1 plastic media) was newly set up and matured for 90 days using daily NH4Cl dosing prior to fish/plant stocking (p.4)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Rectangular airstones (~50x10 mm) connected to the BIRC radial-blower main supply line, supplied to the fish tank (n=2), plant tank (n=2) and biofilter (n=1) (p.4)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Alkalinity maintained >100 mg/L: RAS dosed with NaHCO3 only; aquaponics (both treatments) dosed with a mixture of NaHCO3 (62.5%) and CaCO3 (37.5%), added once or twice weekly as needed; no alkalinity agents added to hydroponics (p.4)) |
| Artificial Lighting | N (Natural photoperiod under a translucent plastic-covered tunnel house; no additional shade-cloth used (p.4)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (None (this is the no-mineral-supplementation aquaponics treatment; paired hydroponics received full-dose AutoPot Part A+B fertilizer, p.5)) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (45 W, 2200 L/h) for recirculation; flow-control valve (set point 4 L/min); YSI ProDSS multiparameter probe (temperature, DO, EC, salinity, pH, turbidity); API freshwater colorimetry kits (TAN, NO2, NO3, alkalinity - daily husbandry checks only); YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official TAN/NO2/NO3/alkalinity/PO4); ICP-MS (K, Ca, Mg, Na, S on DOC 15, 37, 43, 64); SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); commercial heat pumps (quarantine RAS only) (p.4-6) |
| Control Parameters | Quarantine RAS targets: temp ~26C, DO >8 mg/L, salinity ~5 ppt, pH ~7.5, TAN <0.5 ppm, NO2 <0.5 ppm, NO3 <80 mg/L, alkalinity >100 mg/L (p.5). Experimental units: flow set point 4 L/min; heaters ~0.8 W/L; hydroponics fertigation targeted EC 1.2 (p.4) |
| Combination | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo) and butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa); 4-treatment comparison: coupled aquaponics, coupled aquaponics + 10%-dose mineral supplementation, hydroponics (plant-only control), RAS (fish-only control); floating raft plant tanks; n=3 replicate units/treatment |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Oceania |
| Country | Australia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g/plant (total wet weight, aerial+root); kg/m2 (productivity, aerial+root); cm (lengths); n (leaf count); SPAD units (leaf greenness, figure only) |
| Statistic Details | Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests for normality/homogeneity; one-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for fish and plant performance (except SPAD); two-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for SPAD (leaf age x production technique); percentage data arcsine-transformed for analysis, original values presented; software NR (p.6) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 1.95 +/- 0.22 B kg/m2 |
| HYD | 5.50 +/- 0.09 A kg/m2 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Treatment = Aquaponics, no mineral supplementation; Crop 1 of two sequential lettuce crops (24 days, plant seedlings n=20/tank at ~18.5 plants/m2 nominal). Paired control = Hydroponics (plant-only), same-crop data from Table 3 (Total wet weight 255.70 +/- 10.17 A g; Total length 76.97 +/- 1.88 A cm; Root length 40.57 +/- 1.62 A cm; Aerial length 36.40 +/- 0.86 A; Productivity 5.50 +/- 0.09 A kg/m2). Fish data (Table 2) reflects the single continuous 63-day fish culture shared with T2 (Crop 2, same treatment) (tanks/fish not separated by crop) - not crop-specific. Water quality (Table 1) is a single 63-day aggregate for the whole trial, also shared with T2 (Crop 2, same treatment), not split by crop. This treatment’s own crop 1 plant results: Total wet weight 90.60 +/- 5.51 B g; Total length 50.58 +/- 1.41 C cm; Root length 26.75 +/- 1.00 C cm; Aerial length 23.83 +/- 0.69 C; Leaf count 31.67 +/- 2.37; Length of largest leaf 15.84 +/- 0.57 cm; Productivity 1.95 +/- 0.22 B kg/m2 (Table 3, p.10). | WARN-MATERIAL Hydroponics pH. Results section 3.1 (p.6): ‘lower values were observed in hydroponics (~6.8)’ immediately followed on p.6-7 by the water-quality narrative stating hydroponics ‘presented continuous levels of <6’ (compared to ‘>7 in RAS and both aquaponics’, p.8, Section 3.1 fluctuation paragraph). Table 1 (p.7) states HYD pH mean 6.86 +/- 0.55 (min-max 6.30-7.53) - never below 6.30. Discussion Section 4.1 (p.11) independently states ‘only hydroponics presented pH < 7.0’, consistent with Table 1 and inconsistent with the earlier ‘<6’ claim. Reconcilable: the ‘<6’ statement is very likely a typo for ‘<7.0’ (or ‘<7’), since Table 1 and the Discussion agree at 6.86 mean / <7.0, and no aquaponics/RAS pH value is anywhere near 6. Recorded Aq pH values are taken from Table 1 (AP 7.28+/-0.47, AP+Mineral 7.15+/-0.48); the erroneous ‘<6’ HYD figure does not enter any trials.csv cell because this schema has no dedicated hydroponics-pH column (Aq pH covers only the aquaponics loop). Documented here for the record; no downstream cell affected. | WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N. Table 1 (p.7) and Figure 2C (p.8) both label the nitrate parameter simply ‘NO3 (mg L-1)’, measured via API freshwater colorimetry kit (daily husbandry) and YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official readings) - the paper never states whether these instruments report NO3 (ion) or NO3-N (nitrogen-equivalent), which differ by a factor of 4.43. Not reconcilable from the text alone. Recorded the paper’s own stated value as-is (labelled ‘NO3’ by the paper) in the schema’s NO3-N column, since that is the only water-nitrate column available: AP 203.41+/-184.45, AP+Mineral 242.67+/-196.23 mg/L (Table 1). Flagged for user verification - added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Plants/m2. Methods p.5: ‘Each plant tank…was stocked at a density of ~18.5 plants/m2 (crop one, n=20 and crop two, n=17, to avoid excessive crowd effect in crop two)’ - a single aggregate density figure is given even though the parenthetical explicitly states different plant counts per crop (20 vs 17), implying the actual per-crop density differed. Verification note only (not used to alter the recorded value): plant tank useful volume is 380 L at ‘around 1 m height’ (p.4), implying a floor area of roughly 0.38 m2; at that area, n=20 would give ~52.6 plants/m2 and n=17 would give ~44.7 plants/m2, both far from the stated ~18.5 plants/m2 - suggesting the tank’s actual floor area is considerably larger than the volume/height approximation implies (e.g., a shallow water column over a wide tray), OR that ~18.5 plants/m2 is computed against total system footprint rather than plant-tank floor area alone. The paper does not clarify. Recorded ~18.5 (the only stated value) for all rows; both crop counts (20, 17) noted here. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Hydroponics experimental duration. Table 1 footnote (p.7): ‘*Experimental period in hydroponics: 48 days.’ Table 3 (p.10) states ‘Crop one lasted 24 days and crop two lasted 27 days’ for the SAME hydroponics treatment, summing to 51 days, a 3-day mismatch with the Table 1 footnote. The paper does not explain whether the 48-day figure covers a different window (e.g., water-quality monitoring only, excluding a harvest/replant turnover gap) than the 24+27-day plant-growth crop durations. Not reconcilable from the text. Recorded ‘Days Plant after transplant’ per Table 3’s stated per-crop values (24 for crop 1, 27 for crop 2), since that maps directly to the schema column definition (harvest day counted from transplant); the 48-day aggregate figure is noted here for the record. Added to REVIEW.md. | Water temperature: NR in the single trial-mean column - Table 1 (p.7) reports separate AM and PM means, not a combined single mean: AP Temp AM 25.77+/-0.94C / Temp PM 26.25+/-1.38C; AP+Mineral Temp AM 26.11+/-0.78C / Temp PM 26.58+/-1.41C; HYD Temp AM 26.10+/-2.26C / Temp PM 26.45+/-1.43C; RAS Temp AM 25.73+/-0.76C / Temp PM 26.14+/-1.46C. This is not a contradiction (two different times of day, not the same measurement), simply no single combined mean is stated, so the dedicated single-value column is left NR per the no-derivation rule. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 32 fish/tank = 134 juveniles m-3, a COUNT density, not kg/m3; initial biomass could be computed as 32 x 14.51 g = 464.32 g in 240 L = ~1.93 kg/m3 but this is not stated by the paper as a density and is not entered); Total Feed (kg) (FCR and weight gain given but no total feed mass stated); Fish biomass created (kg) (only Final biomass given, no stated initial-final delta; see NO COLUMN note); Fish weight gain (g/fish) (initial 14.51 g and final 104.77/105.45 g given separately, gain not stated directly). | NO COLUMN: RAS (fish-only control, Table 2, no paired plant arm, no dedicated trials.csv column set): Final ind. weight 107.24 +/- 1.08 g (SE); SGR 3.17 +/- 0.01 %/day (SE); Final biomass 3.40 +/- 0.04 kg/tank (SE); Productivity 14.15 +/- 0.16 kg/m3 (SE); Survival 100.00 +/- 0.00%; FCR 1.21 +/- 0.01 (SE); all p>0.05 vs aquaponics treatments (Table 2, p.8). RAS water quality (Table 1, p.7): DO 7.35+/-0.69, pH 7.65+/-0.32, EC 2229.95+/-893.07, TAN 1.34+/-1.72, NO2 0.69+/-0.40, NO3 236.40+/-185.63, alkalinity 103.91+/-54.65, K 9.68+/-5.47, Ca 17.96+/-1.39, Mg 11.58+/-0.70, S 21.04+/-5.29, Na 256.65+/-115.41 (mg/L unless noted) - no dedicated RAS column exists in this schema. | NO COLUMN: Final biomass (kg/tank, Table 2, distinct from ‘Fish biomass created’ which the paper does not state as a delta): AP 3.25 +/- 0.08 (SE); AP+Mineral 3.37 +/- 0.02 (SE). Productivity (kg/m3, Table 2, no dedicated column): AP 13.53+/-0.33; AP+Mineral 14.06+/-0.10 (both SE). | NO COLUMN: Length of the largest leaf (cm, Table 3): AP 15.84+/-0.57, AP+Mineral 17.08+/-0.73, HYD 23.25+/-0.95, p<0.001 (crop 1). No dedicated column for this metric. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required (all values used in native reported units). | Plant height column populated from Aerial length (cm), the closest match to a standard shoot-height measure; Total length (aerial+root) and Root length routed to remarks (NO COLUMN) since the schema’s single ‘Plant height’ field cannot hold three separate length metrics. | SPAD (Figure 3 only, no numeric table/text value): significant treatment effect in crop 1 (higher in hydroponics, p<0.05; ns between AP and AP+Mineral, p>0.05) - see plant.csv for NR rows with this qualitative context. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD marked NA: this paper measured water-column nitrate only, no plant tissue nitrate analysis was performed. | Fish Category and Water type/classification NR - paper does not formally categorise these.
emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo), juveniles |
| Fish Category | Native Australian freshwater fish species, omnivorous (p.3) |
| FCR | 1.24 +/- 0.02 (SE, Table 2) |
| SGR | 3.14 +/- 0.02 (SE, Table 2) |
| Protein | 45 |
| % of body weight | 5.5 to 2.4 (%/day, decreasing over trial, p.4) |
| Fish size initial | 14.51 +/- 0.92 |
| Fish size final | 104.77 +/- 0.90 (SE, Table 2) |
| Feed routine | Three times per day; feeding rate decreased over the trial |
| Feed regime | Commercial native fish diet (2 mm and 3 mm pellets), Ridley Aquafeeds, Narangba QLD; 45% crude protein, 10% lipid; fed at 5.5% to 2.4% body weight/day (high at start, decreasing over time), targeting a fish-feed:plant nutrient ratio of ~2-3 g fish feed/plant/day (p.4-5) |
| Fish survival rate | 100.00 +/- 0.00 (SE, Table 2) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 63 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4 L/min (set-point flow rate, stated as applying to all treatments, p.4) |
| Water volume in the system | ~720 (total per experimental unit: fish tank 240 L + plant tank 380 L + clarifier 60 L + biofilter 40 L = 720 L; same total volume maintained in hydroponics via retained but plant-less fish tank, p.4) |
| Aq pH | 7.28 +/- 0.47 (Table 1) |
| pHOptimal | 6.5-7.0 (authors’ stated ideal pH range for nutrient uptake in coupled aquaponics, Discussion p.11; not an operational setpoint used during the trial) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.25 +/- 0.66 (Table 1) |
| EC | 1922.04 +/- 727.59 (Table 1) |
| Water temperature | NR (see remarks: AM/PM means only) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.26 +/- 1.29 (Table 1) |
| NO2-N | 0.30 +/- 0.24 (Table 1) |
| NO3-N | 203.41 +/- 184.45 (Table 1; paper labels this ‘NO3’, see WARN-CHECK) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa, var. butterhead) |
| Details | Two sequential crops harvested from the same floating-raft plant tanks; wet weight/productivity = aerial + roots combined (Table 3 footnote); harvest measurements: total wet weight, total length, root length, aerial length, leaf count, length of largest leaf, productivity, SPAD (p.5-10) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 27 |
| Plants/m2 | ~18.5 (see WARN-CHECK) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (figure only, Fig. 3; see plant.csv) |
| Plant height | 23.58 +/- 0.84 (NS) (Aerial length used as Plant height, see remarks) |
| Leaf count | 29.50 +/- 2.11 (NS) |
| Plant fresh weight | 126.20 +/- 10.55 B g/plant |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Coupled aquaponics (traditional/coupled); floating raft (DWC-style) plant tank (p.2-4) |
| Media Details | Floating raft; seedlings held in 60x55 mm clear net pots with ~20 mm gravel; rectangular fiberglass plant tank ~1 m height, 380 L useful volume (p.4-5) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Each biological filter (40 L, ~0.02 m3 of C1 plastic media) was newly set up and matured for 90 days using daily NH4Cl dosing prior to fish/plant stocking (p.4)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Rectangular airstones (~50x10 mm) connected to the BIRC radial-blower main supply line, supplied to the fish tank (n=2), plant tank (n=2) and biofilter (n=1) (p.4)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Alkalinity maintained >100 mg/L: RAS dosed with NaHCO3 only; aquaponics (both treatments) dosed with a mixture of NaHCO3 (62.5%) and CaCO3 (37.5%), added once or twice weekly as needed; no alkalinity agents added to hydroponics (p.4)) |
| Artificial Lighting | N (Natural photoperiod under a translucent plastic-covered tunnel house; no additional shade-cloth used (p.4)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (None (this is the no-mineral-supplementation aquaponics treatment; paired hydroponics received a top-up 150 mL AutoPot Part A+B before crop 2, p.5)) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (45 W, 2200 L/h) for recirculation; flow-control valve (set point 4 L/min); YSI ProDSS multiparameter probe (temperature, DO, EC, salinity, pH, turbidity); API freshwater colorimetry kits (TAN, NO2, NO3, alkalinity - daily husbandry checks only); YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official TAN/NO2/NO3/alkalinity/PO4); ICP-MS (K, Ca, Mg, Na, S on DOC 15, 37, 43, 64); SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); commercial heat pumps (quarantine RAS only) (p.4-6) |
| Control Parameters | Quarantine RAS targets: temp ~26C, DO >8 mg/L, salinity ~5 ppt, pH ~7.5, TAN <0.5 ppm, NO2 <0.5 ppm, NO3 <80 mg/L, alkalinity >100 mg/L (p.5). Experimental units: flow set point 4 L/min; heaters ~0.8 W/L; hydroponics fertigation targeted EC 1.2 (p.4) |
| Combination | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo) and butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa); 4-treatment comparison: coupled aquaponics, coupled aquaponics + 10%-dose mineral supplementation, hydroponics (plant-only control), RAS (fish-only control); floating raft plant tanks; n=3 replicate units/treatment |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Oceania |
| Country | Australia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g/plant (total wet weight, aerial+root); kg/m2 (productivity, aerial+root); cm (lengths); n (leaf count); SPAD units (leaf greenness, figure only) |
| Statistic Details | Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests for normality/homogeneity; one-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for fish and plant performance (except SPAD); two-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for SPAD (leaf age x production technique); percentage data arcsine-transformed for analysis, original values presented; software NR (p.6) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 2.31 +/- 0.13 (NS) kg/m2 |
| HYD | 3.09 +/- 0.17 (NS) kg/m2 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Treatment = Aquaponics, no mineral supplementation; Crop 2 of two sequential lettuce crops (27 days, plant seedlings n=17/tank at ~18.5 plants/m2 nominal). Paired control = Hydroponics (plant-only), same-crop data from Table 3 (Total wet weight 169.14 +/- 8.28 A g; Total length 66.11 +/- 1.54 A cm; Root length 40.00 +/- 1.20 A cm; Aerial length 26.11 +/- 0.96 (NS); Productivity 3.09 +/- 0.17 (NS) kg/m2). Fish data (Table 2) reflects the single continuous 63-day fish culture shared with T1 (Crop 1, same treatment) (tanks/fish not separated by crop) - not crop-specific. Water quality (Table 1) is a single 63-day aggregate for the whole trial, also shared with T1 (Crop 1, same treatment), not split by crop. This treatment’s own crop 2 plant results: Total wet weight 126.20 +/- 10.55 B g; Total length 54.92 +/- 2.15 C cm; Root length 31.34 +/- 1.80 B cm; Aerial length 23.58 +/- 0.84 (NS); Leaf count 29.50 +/- 2.11 (NS); Length of largest leaf 19.83 +/- 0.66 (NS) cm; Productivity 2.31 +/- 0.13 (NS) kg/m2 (Table 3, p.10). | WARN-MATERIAL Hydroponics pH. Results section 3.1 (p.6): ‘lower values were observed in hydroponics (~6.8)’ immediately followed on p.6-7 by the water-quality narrative stating hydroponics ‘presented continuous levels of <6’ (compared to ‘>7 in RAS and both aquaponics’, p.8, Section 3.1 fluctuation paragraph). Table 1 (p.7) states HYD pH mean 6.86 +/- 0.55 (min-max 6.30-7.53) - never below 6.30. Discussion Section 4.1 (p.11) independently states ‘only hydroponics presented pH < 7.0’, consistent with Table 1 and inconsistent with the earlier ‘<6’ claim. Reconcilable: the ‘<6’ statement is very likely a typo for ‘<7.0’ (or ‘<7’), since Table 1 and the Discussion agree at 6.86 mean / <7.0, and no aquaponics/RAS pH value is anywhere near 6. Recorded Aq pH values are taken from Table 1 (AP 7.28+/-0.47, AP+Mineral 7.15+/-0.48); the erroneous ‘<6’ HYD figure does not enter any trials.csv cell because this schema has no dedicated hydroponics-pH column (Aq pH covers only the aquaponics loop). Documented here for the record; no downstream cell affected. | WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N. Table 1 (p.7) and Figure 2C (p.8) both label the nitrate parameter simply ‘NO3 (mg L-1)’, measured via API freshwater colorimetry kit (daily husbandry) and YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official readings) - the paper never states whether these instruments report NO3 (ion) or NO3-N (nitrogen-equivalent), which differ by a factor of 4.43. Not reconcilable from the text alone. Recorded the paper’s own stated value as-is (labelled ‘NO3’ by the paper) in the schema’s NO3-N column, since that is the only water-nitrate column available: AP 203.41+/-184.45, AP+Mineral 242.67+/-196.23 mg/L (Table 1). Flagged for user verification - added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Plants/m2. Methods p.5: ‘Each plant tank…was stocked at a density of ~18.5 plants/m2 (crop one, n=20 and crop two, n=17, to avoid excessive crowd effect in crop two)’ - a single aggregate density figure is given even though the parenthetical explicitly states different plant counts per crop (20 vs 17), implying the actual per-crop density differed. Verification note only (not used to alter the recorded value): plant tank useful volume is 380 L at ‘around 1 m height’ (p.4), implying a floor area of roughly 0.38 m2; at that area, n=20 would give ~52.6 plants/m2 and n=17 would give ~44.7 plants/m2, both far from the stated ~18.5 plants/m2 - suggesting the tank’s actual floor area is considerably larger than the volume/height approximation implies (e.g., a shallow water column over a wide tray), OR that ~18.5 plants/m2 is computed against total system footprint rather than plant-tank floor area alone. The paper does not clarify. Recorded ~18.5 (the only stated value) for all rows; both crop counts (20, 17) noted here. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Hydroponics experimental duration. Table 1 footnote (p.7): ‘*Experimental period in hydroponics: 48 days.’ Table 3 (p.10) states ‘Crop one lasted 24 days and crop two lasted 27 days’ for the SAME hydroponics treatment, summing to 51 days, a 3-day mismatch with the Table 1 footnote. The paper does not explain whether the 48-day figure covers a different window (e.g., water-quality monitoring only, excluding a harvest/replant turnover gap) than the 24+27-day plant-growth crop durations. Not reconcilable from the text. Recorded ‘Days Plant after transplant’ per Table 3’s stated per-crop values (24 for crop 1, 27 for crop 2), since that maps directly to the schema column definition (harvest day counted from transplant); the 48-day aggregate figure is noted here for the record. Added to REVIEW.md. | Water temperature: NR in the single trial-mean column - Table 1 (p.7) reports separate AM and PM means, not a combined single mean: AP Temp AM 25.77+/-0.94C / Temp PM 26.25+/-1.38C; AP+Mineral Temp AM 26.11+/-0.78C / Temp PM 26.58+/-1.41C; HYD Temp AM 26.10+/-2.26C / Temp PM 26.45+/-1.43C; RAS Temp AM 25.73+/-0.76C / Temp PM 26.14+/-1.46C. This is not a contradiction (two different times of day, not the same measurement), simply no single combined mean is stated, so the dedicated single-value column is left NR per the no-derivation rule. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 32 fish/tank = 134 juveniles m-3, a COUNT density, not kg/m3; initial biomass could be computed as 32 x 14.51 g = 464.32 g in 240 L = ~1.93 kg/m3 but this is not stated by the paper as a density and is not entered); Total Feed (kg) (FCR and weight gain given but no total feed mass stated); Fish biomass created (kg) (only Final biomass given, no stated initial-final delta; see NO COLUMN note); Fish weight gain (g/fish) (initial 14.51 g and final 104.77/105.45 g given separately, gain not stated directly). | NO COLUMN: RAS (fish-only control, Table 2, no paired plant arm, no dedicated trials.csv column set): Final ind. weight 107.24 +/- 1.08 g (SE); SGR 3.17 +/- 0.01 %/day (SE); Final biomass 3.40 +/- 0.04 kg/tank (SE); Productivity 14.15 +/- 0.16 kg/m3 (SE); Survival 100.00 +/- 0.00%; FCR 1.21 +/- 0.01 (SE); all p>0.05 vs aquaponics treatments (Table 2, p.8). RAS water quality (Table 1, p.7): DO 7.35+/-0.69, pH 7.65+/-0.32, EC 2229.95+/-893.07, TAN 1.34+/-1.72, NO2 0.69+/-0.40, NO3 236.40+/-185.63, alkalinity 103.91+/-54.65, K 9.68+/-5.47, Ca 17.96+/-1.39, Mg 11.58+/-0.70, S 21.04+/-5.29, Na 256.65+/-115.41 (mg/L unless noted) - no dedicated RAS column exists in this schema. | NO COLUMN: Final biomass (kg/tank, Table 2, distinct from ‘Fish biomass created’ which the paper does not state as a delta): AP 3.25 +/- 0.08 (SE); AP+Mineral 3.37 +/- 0.02 (SE). Productivity (kg/m3, Table 2, no dedicated column): AP 13.53+/-0.33; AP+Mineral 14.06+/-0.10 (both SE). | NO COLUMN: Length of the largest leaf (cm, Table 3): AP 19.83+/-0.66, AP+Mineral 19.80+/-0.68, HYD 21.02+/-0.81, NS (crop 2, p=0.644). No dedicated column for this metric. | Plant height column populated from Aerial length (cm); Total length and Root length routed to remarks (NO COLUMN), same convention as T1. | SPAD (Figure 3 only): no significant treatment/interaction differences detected in crop 2 (p>0.05) - see plant.csv for NR rows. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD marked NA: no plant tissue nitrate analysis in this paper. | Fish Category and Water type/classification NR - paper does not formally categorise these.
emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo), juveniles |
| Fish Category | Native Australian freshwater fish species, omnivorous (p.3) |
| FCR | 1.23 +/- 0.01 (SE, Table 2) |
| SGR | 3.15 +/- 0.01 (SE, Table 2) |
| Protein | 45 |
| % of body weight | 5.5 to 2.4 (%/day, decreasing over trial, p.4) |
| Fish size initial | 14.51 +/- 0.92 |
| Fish size final | 105.45 +/- 1.13 (SE, Table 2) |
| Feed routine | Three times per day; feeding rate decreased over the trial |
| Feed regime | Commercial native fish diet (2 mm and 3 mm pellets), Ridley Aquafeeds, Narangba QLD; 45% crude protein, 10% lipid; fed at 5.5% to 2.4% body weight/day (high at start, decreasing over time), targeting a fish-feed:plant nutrient ratio of ~2-3 g fish feed/plant/day (p.4-5) |
| Fish survival rate | 100.00 +/- 0.00 (SE, Table 2) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 63 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4 L/min (set-point flow rate, stated as applying to all treatments, p.4) |
| Water volume in the system | ~720 (total per experimental unit: fish tank 240 L + plant tank 380 L + clarifier 60 L + biofilter 40 L = 720 L; same total volume maintained in hydroponics via retained but plant-less fish tank, p.4) |
| Aq pH | 7.15 +/- 0.48 (Table 1) |
| pHOptimal | 6.5-7.0 (authors’ stated ideal pH range for nutrient uptake in coupled aquaponics, Discussion p.11; not an operational setpoint used during the trial) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.37 +/- 0.26 (Table 1) |
| EC | 2234.83 +/- 833.27 (Table 1) |
| Water temperature | NR (see remarks: AM/PM means only) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.63 +/- 1.32 (Table 1) |
| NO2-N | 0.28 +/- 0.25 (Table 1) |
| NO3-N | 242.67 +/- 196.23 (Table 1; paper labels this ‘NO3’, see WARN-CHECK) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa, var. butterhead) |
| Details | Two sequential crops harvested from the same floating-raft plant tanks; wet weight/productivity = aerial + roots combined (Table 3 footnote); harvest measurements: total wet weight, total length, root length, aerial length, leaf count, length of largest leaf, productivity, SPAD (p.5-10) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plants/m2 | ~18.5 (see WARN-CHECK) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (figure only, Fig. 3; see plant.csv) |
| Plant height | 26.50 +/- 0.79 B (Aerial length used as Plant height, see remarks) |
| Leaf count | 36.03 +/- 2.83 |
| Plant fresh weight | 108.15 +/- 5.69 B g/plant |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Coupled aquaponics (traditional/coupled); floating raft (DWC-style) plant tank (p.2-4) |
| Media Details | Floating raft; seedlings held in 60x55 mm clear net pots with ~20 mm gravel; rectangular fiberglass plant tank ~1 m height, 380 L useful volume (p.4-5) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Each biological filter (40 L, ~0.02 m3 of C1 plastic media) was newly set up and matured for 90 days using daily NH4Cl dosing prior to fish/plant stocking (p.4)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Rectangular airstones (~50x10 mm) connected to the BIRC radial-blower main supply line, supplied to the fish tank (n=2), plant tank (n=2) and biofilter (n=1) (p.4)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Alkalinity maintained >100 mg/L: RAS dosed with NaHCO3 only; aquaponics (both treatments) dosed with a mixture of NaHCO3 (62.5%) and CaCO3 (37.5%), added once or twice weekly as needed; no alkalinity agents added to hydroponics (p.4)) |
| Artificial Lighting | N (Natural photoperiod under a translucent plastic-covered tunnel house; no additional shade-cloth used (p.4)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Commercial hydroponic fertilizer (AutoPot Part A + Part B, Braeside VIC) at 10% of the hydroponics dose: 92 mL Part A + 92 mL Part B added one day before crop 1 stocking (p.5)) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (45 W, 2200 L/h) for recirculation; flow-control valve (set point 4 L/min); YSI ProDSS multiparameter probe (temperature, DO, EC, salinity, pH, turbidity); API freshwater colorimetry kits (TAN, NO2, NO3, alkalinity - daily husbandry checks only); YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official TAN/NO2/NO3/alkalinity/PO4); ICP-MS (K, Ca, Mg, Na, S on DOC 15, 37, 43, 64); SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); commercial heat pumps (quarantine RAS only) (p.4-6) |
| Control Parameters | Quarantine RAS targets: temp ~26C, DO >8 mg/L, salinity ~5 ppt, pH ~7.5, TAN <0.5 ppm, NO2 <0.5 ppm, NO3 <80 mg/L, alkalinity >100 mg/L (p.5). Experimental units: flow set point 4 L/min; heaters ~0.8 W/L; hydroponics fertigation targeted EC 1.2 (p.4) |
| Combination | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo) and butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa); 4-treatment comparison: coupled aquaponics, coupled aquaponics + 10%-dose mineral supplementation, hydroponics (plant-only control), RAS (fish-only control); floating raft plant tanks; n=3 replicate units/treatment |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Oceania |
| Country | Australia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g/plant (total wet weight, aerial+root); kg/m2 (productivity, aerial+root); cm (lengths); n (leaf count); SPAD units (leaf greenness, figure only) |
| Statistic Details | Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests for normality/homogeneity; one-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for fish and plant performance (except SPAD); two-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for SPAD (leaf age x production technique); percentage data arcsine-transformed for analysis, original values presented; software NR (p.6) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 2.33 +/- 0.19 B kg/m2 |
| HYD | 5.50 +/- 0.09 A kg/m2 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Treatment = Aquaponics + Mineral supplementation (10% of the hydroponics AutoPot dose); Crop 1 of two sequential lettuce crops (24 days, plant seedlings n=20/tank at ~18.5 plants/m2 nominal). Paired control = Hydroponics (plant-only), same-crop data from Table 3 (Total wet weight 255.70 +/- 10.17 A g; Total length 76.97 +/- 1.88 A cm; Root length 40.57 +/- 1.62 A cm; Aerial length 36.40 +/- 0.86 A; Productivity 5.50 +/- 0.09 A kg/m2). Fish data (Table 2) reflects the single continuous 63-day fish culture shared with T2 (Crop 2, same treatment) (tanks/fish not separated by crop) - not crop-specific. Water quality (Table 1) is a single 63-day aggregate for the whole trial, also shared with T2 (Crop 2, same treatment), not split by crop. This treatment’s own crop 1 plant results: Total wet weight 108.15 +/- 5.69 B g; Total length 60.03 +/- 1.94 B cm; Root length 33.53 +/- 1.56 B cm; Aerial length 26.50 +/- 0.79 B; Leaf count 36.03 +/- 2.83; Length of largest leaf 17.08 +/- 0.73 cm; Productivity 2.33 +/- 0.19 B kg/m2 (Table 3, p.10). | WARN-MATERIAL Hydroponics pH. Results section 3.1 (p.6): ‘lower values were observed in hydroponics (~6.8)’ immediately followed on p.6-7 by the water-quality narrative stating hydroponics ‘presented continuous levels of <6’ (compared to ‘>7 in RAS and both aquaponics’, p.8, Section 3.1 fluctuation paragraph). Table 1 (p.7) states HYD pH mean 6.86 +/- 0.55 (min-max 6.30-7.53) - never below 6.30. Discussion Section 4.1 (p.11) independently states ‘only hydroponics presented pH < 7.0’, consistent with Table 1 and inconsistent with the earlier ‘<6’ claim. Reconcilable: the ‘<6’ statement is very likely a typo for ‘<7.0’ (or ‘<7’), since Table 1 and the Discussion agree at 6.86 mean / <7.0, and no aquaponics/RAS pH value is anywhere near 6. Recorded Aq pH values are taken from Table 1 (AP 7.28+/-0.47, AP+Mineral 7.15+/-0.48); the erroneous ‘<6’ HYD figure does not enter any trials.csv cell because this schema has no dedicated hydroponics-pH column (Aq pH covers only the aquaponics loop). Documented here for the record; no downstream cell affected. | WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N. Table 1 (p.7) and Figure 2C (p.8) both label the nitrate parameter simply ‘NO3 (mg L-1)’, measured via API freshwater colorimetry kit (daily husbandry) and YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official readings) - the paper never states whether these instruments report NO3 (ion) or NO3-N (nitrogen-equivalent), which differ by a factor of 4.43. Not reconcilable from the text alone. Recorded the paper’s own stated value as-is (labelled ‘NO3’ by the paper) in the schema’s NO3-N column, since that is the only water-nitrate column available: AP 203.41+/-184.45, AP+Mineral 242.67+/-196.23 mg/L (Table 1). Flagged for user verification - added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Plants/m2. Methods p.5: ‘Each plant tank…was stocked at a density of ~18.5 plants/m2 (crop one, n=20 and crop two, n=17, to avoid excessive crowd effect in crop two)’ - a single aggregate density figure is given even though the parenthetical explicitly states different plant counts per crop (20 vs 17), implying the actual per-crop density differed. Verification note only (not used to alter the recorded value): plant tank useful volume is 380 L at ‘around 1 m height’ (p.4), implying a floor area of roughly 0.38 m2; at that area, n=20 would give ~52.6 plants/m2 and n=17 would give ~44.7 plants/m2, both far from the stated ~18.5 plants/m2 - suggesting the tank’s actual floor area is considerably larger than the volume/height approximation implies (e.g., a shallow water column over a wide tray), OR that ~18.5 plants/m2 is computed against total system footprint rather than plant-tank floor area alone. The paper does not clarify. Recorded ~18.5 (the only stated value) for all rows; both crop counts (20, 17) noted here. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Hydroponics experimental duration. Table 1 footnote (p.7): ‘*Experimental period in hydroponics: 48 days.’ Table 3 (p.10) states ‘Crop one lasted 24 days and crop two lasted 27 days’ for the SAME hydroponics treatment, summing to 51 days, a 3-day mismatch with the Table 1 footnote. The paper does not explain whether the 48-day figure covers a different window (e.g., water-quality monitoring only, excluding a harvest/replant turnover gap) than the 24+27-day plant-growth crop durations. Not reconcilable from the text. Recorded ‘Days Plant after transplant’ per Table 3’s stated per-crop values (24 for crop 1, 27 for crop 2), since that maps directly to the schema column definition (harvest day counted from transplant); the 48-day aggregate figure is noted here for the record. Added to REVIEW.md. | Water temperature: NR in the single trial-mean column - Table 1 (p.7) reports separate AM and PM means, not a combined single mean: AP Temp AM 25.77+/-0.94C / Temp PM 26.25+/-1.38C; AP+Mineral Temp AM 26.11+/-0.78C / Temp PM 26.58+/-1.41C; HYD Temp AM 26.10+/-2.26C / Temp PM 26.45+/-1.43C; RAS Temp AM 25.73+/-0.76C / Temp PM 26.14+/-1.46C. This is not a contradiction (two different times of day, not the same measurement), simply no single combined mean is stated, so the dedicated single-value column is left NR per the no-derivation rule. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 32 fish/tank = 134 juveniles m-3, a COUNT density, not kg/m3; initial biomass could be computed as 32 x 14.51 g = 464.32 g in 240 L = ~1.93 kg/m3 but this is not stated by the paper as a density and is not entered); Total Feed (kg) (FCR and weight gain given but no total feed mass stated); Fish biomass created (kg) (only Final biomass given, no stated initial-final delta; see NO COLUMN note); Fish weight gain (g/fish) (initial 14.51 g and final 104.77/105.45 g given separately, gain not stated directly). | NO COLUMN: RAS (fish-only control, Table 2, no paired plant arm, no dedicated trials.csv column set): Final ind. weight 107.24 +/- 1.08 g (SE); SGR 3.17 +/- 0.01 %/day (SE); Final biomass 3.40 +/- 0.04 kg/tank (SE); Productivity 14.15 +/- 0.16 kg/m3 (SE); Survival 100.00 +/- 0.00%; FCR 1.21 +/- 0.01 (SE); all p>0.05 vs aquaponics treatments (Table 2, p.8). RAS water quality (Table 1, p.7): DO 7.35+/-0.69, pH 7.65+/-0.32, EC 2229.95+/-893.07, TAN 1.34+/-1.72, NO2 0.69+/-0.40, NO3 236.40+/-185.63, alkalinity 103.91+/-54.65, K 9.68+/-5.47, Ca 17.96+/-1.39, Mg 11.58+/-0.70, S 21.04+/-5.29, Na 256.65+/-115.41 (mg/L unless noted) - no dedicated RAS column exists in this schema. | NO COLUMN: Final biomass (kg/tank, Table 2, distinct from ‘Fish biomass created’ which the paper does not state as a delta): AP 3.25 +/- 0.08 (SE); AP+Mineral 3.37 +/- 0.02 (SE). Productivity (kg/m3, Table 2, no dedicated column): AP 13.53+/-0.33; AP+Mineral 14.06+/-0.10 (both SE). | NO COLUMN: Length of the largest leaf (cm, Table 3): AP 15.84+/-0.57, AP+Mineral 17.08+/-0.73, HYD 23.25+/-0.95, p<0.001 (crop 1). | Plant height column populated from Aerial length (cm); Total length and Root length routed to remarks (NO COLUMN). | SPAD (Figure 3 only): significant treatment effect in crop 1 (higher in hydroponics, p<0.05; ns between AP and AP+Mineral, p>0.05) - see plant.csv. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD marked NA: no plant tissue nitrate analysis in this paper. | Fish Category and Water type/classification NR - paper does not formally categorise these.
emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo), juveniles |
| Fish Category | Native Australian freshwater fish species, omnivorous (p.3) |
| FCR | 1.23 +/- 0.01 (SE, Table 2) |
| SGR | 3.15 +/- 0.01 (SE, Table 2) |
| Protein | 45 |
| % of body weight | 5.5 to 2.4 (%/day, decreasing over trial, p.4) |
| Fish size initial | 14.51 +/- 0.92 |
| Fish size final | 105.45 +/- 1.13 (SE, Table 2) |
| Feed routine | Three times per day; feeding rate decreased over the trial |
| Feed regime | Commercial native fish diet (2 mm and 3 mm pellets), Ridley Aquafeeds, Narangba QLD; 45% crude protein, 10% lipid; fed at 5.5% to 2.4% body weight/day (high at start, decreasing over time), targeting a fish-feed:plant nutrient ratio of ~2-3 g fish feed/plant/day (p.4-5) |
| Fish survival rate | 100.00 +/- 0.00 (SE, Table 2) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 63 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4 L/min (set-point flow rate, stated as applying to all treatments, p.4) |
| Water volume in the system | ~720 (total per experimental unit: fish tank 240 L + plant tank 380 L + clarifier 60 L + biofilter 40 L = 720 L; same total volume maintained in hydroponics via retained but plant-less fish tank, p.4) |
| Aq pH | 7.15 +/- 0.48 (Table 1) |
| pHOptimal | 6.5-7.0 (authors’ stated ideal pH range for nutrient uptake in coupled aquaponics, Discussion p.11; not an operational setpoint used during the trial) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.37 +/- 0.26 (Table 1) |
| EC | 2234.83 +/- 833.27 (Table 1) |
| Water temperature | NR (see remarks: AM/PM means only) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.63 +/- 1.32 (Table 1) |
| NO2-N | 0.28 +/- 0.25 (Table 1) |
| NO3-N | 242.67 +/- 196.23 (Table 1; paper labels this ‘NO3’, see WARN-CHECK) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa, var. butterhead) |
| Details | Two sequential crops harvested from the same floating-raft plant tanks; wet weight/productivity = aerial + roots combined (Table 3 footnote); harvest measurements: total wet weight, total length, root length, aerial length, leaf count, length of largest leaf, productivity, SPAD (p.5-10) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 27 |
| Plants/m2 | ~18.5 (see WARN-CHECK) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (figure only, Fig. 3; see plant.csv) |
| Plant height | 23.78 +/- 0.62 (NS) (Aerial length used as Plant height, see remarks) |
| Leaf count | 30.37 +/- 1.96 (NS) |
| Plant fresh weight | 128.58 +/- 9.25 B g/plant |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Coupled aquaponics (traditional/coupled); floating raft (DWC-style) plant tank (p.2-4) |
| Media Details | Floating raft; seedlings held in 60x55 mm clear net pots with ~20 mm gravel; rectangular fiberglass plant tank ~1 m height, 380 L useful volume (p.4-5) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Each biological filter (40 L, ~0.02 m3 of C1 plastic media) was newly set up and matured for 90 days using daily NH4Cl dosing prior to fish/plant stocking (p.4)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Rectangular airstones (~50x10 mm) connected to the BIRC radial-blower main supply line, supplied to the fish tank (n=2), plant tank (n=2) and biofilter (n=1) (p.4)) |
| Remineralization | Y (Alkalinity maintained >100 mg/L: RAS dosed with NaHCO3 only; aquaponics (both treatments) dosed with a mixture of NaHCO3 (62.5%) and CaCO3 (37.5%), added once or twice weekly as needed; no alkalinity agents added to hydroponics (p.4)) |
| Artificial Lighting | N (Natural photoperiod under a translucent plastic-covered tunnel house; no additional shade-cloth used (p.4)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Commercial hydroponic fertilizer (AutoPot Part A + Part B): 10% dose (15 mL Part A + 15 mL Part B) added one day before crop 2 stocking, matching a 150 mL/150 mL Part A/B top-up given to hydroponics at the same time (p.5)) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (45 W, 2200 L/h) for recirculation; flow-control valve (set point 4 L/min); YSI ProDSS multiparameter probe (temperature, DO, EC, salinity, pH, turbidity); API freshwater colorimetry kits (TAN, NO2, NO3, alkalinity - daily husbandry checks only); YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official TAN/NO2/NO3/alkalinity/PO4); ICP-MS (K, Ca, Mg, Na, S on DOC 15, 37, 43, 64); SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); commercial heat pumps (quarantine RAS only) (p.4-6) |
| Control Parameters | Quarantine RAS targets: temp ~26C, DO >8 mg/L, salinity ~5 ppt, pH ~7.5, TAN <0.5 ppm, NO2 <0.5 ppm, NO3 <80 mg/L, alkalinity >100 mg/L (p.5). Experimental units: flow set point 4 L/min; heaters ~0.8 W/L; hydroponics fertigation targeted EC 1.2 (p.4) |
| Combination | Jade perch (Scortum barcoo) and butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa); 4-treatment comparison: coupled aquaponics, coupled aquaponics + 10%-dose mineral supplementation, hydroponics (plant-only control), RAS (fish-only control); floating raft plant tanks; n=3 replicate units/treatment |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Oceania |
| Country | Australia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g/plant (total wet weight, aerial+root); kg/m2 (productivity, aerial+root); cm (lengths); n (leaf count); SPAD units (leaf greenness, figure only) |
| Statistic Details | Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests for normality/homogeneity; one-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for fish and plant performance (except SPAD); two-way ANOVA + Tukey HSD (p<0.05) for SPAD (leaf age x production technique); percentage data arcsine-transformed for analysis, original values presented; software NR (p.6) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 2.35 +/- 0.44 (NS) kg/m2 |
| HYD | 3.09 +/- 0.17 (NS) kg/m2 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Treatment = Aquaponics + Mineral supplementation (10% of the hydroponics AutoPot dose); Crop 2 of two sequential lettuce crops (27 days, plant seedlings n=17/tank at ~18.5 plants/m2 nominal). Paired control = Hydroponics (plant-only), same-crop data from Table 3 (Total wet weight 169.14 +/- 8.28 A g; Total length 66.11 +/- 1.54 A cm; Root length 40.00 +/- 1.20 A cm; Aerial length 26.11 +/- 0.96 (NS); Productivity 3.09 +/- 0.17 (NS) kg/m2). Fish data (Table 2) reflects the single continuous 63-day fish culture shared with T1 (Crop 1, same treatment) (tanks/fish not separated by crop) - not crop-specific. Water quality (Table 1) is a single 63-day aggregate for the whole trial, also shared with T1 (Crop 1, same treatment), not split by crop. This treatment’s own crop 2 plant results: Total wet weight 128.58 +/- 9.25 B g; Total length 62.85 +/- 2.31 B cm; Root length 39.07 +/- 2.12 B cm; Aerial length 23.78 +/- 0.62 (NS); Leaf count 30.37 +/- 1.96 (NS); Length of largest leaf 19.80 +/- 0.68 (NS) cm; Productivity 2.35 +/- 0.44 (NS) kg/m2 (Table 3, p.10). | WARN-MATERIAL Hydroponics pH. Results section 3.1 (p.6): ‘lower values were observed in hydroponics (~6.8)’ immediately followed on p.6-7 by the water-quality narrative stating hydroponics ‘presented continuous levels of <6’ (compared to ‘>7 in RAS and both aquaponics’, p.8, Section 3.1 fluctuation paragraph). Table 1 (p.7) states HYD pH mean 6.86 +/- 0.55 (min-max 6.30-7.53) - never below 6.30. Discussion Section 4.1 (p.11) independently states ‘only hydroponics presented pH < 7.0’, consistent with Table 1 and inconsistent with the earlier ‘<6’ claim. Reconcilable: the ‘<6’ statement is very likely a typo for ‘<7.0’ (or ‘<7’), since Table 1 and the Discussion agree at 6.86 mean / <7.0, and no aquaponics/RAS pH value is anywhere near 6. Recorded Aq pH values are taken from Table 1 (AP 7.28+/-0.47, AP+Mineral 7.15+/-0.48); the erroneous ‘<6’ HYD figure does not enter any trials.csv cell because this schema has no dedicated hydroponics-pH column (Aq pH covers only the aquaponics loop). Documented here for the record; no downstream cell affected. | WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N. Table 1 (p.7) and Figure 2C (p.8) both label the nitrate parameter simply ‘NO3 (mg L-1)’, measured via API freshwater colorimetry kit (daily husbandry) and YSI Photometer 9500 (weekly official readings) - the paper never states whether these instruments report NO3 (ion) or NO3-N (nitrogen-equivalent), which differ by a factor of 4.43. Not reconcilable from the text alone. Recorded the paper’s own stated value as-is (labelled ‘NO3’ by the paper) in the schema’s NO3-N column, since that is the only water-nitrate column available: AP 203.41+/-184.45, AP+Mineral 242.67+/-196.23 mg/L (Table 1). Flagged for user verification - added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Plants/m2. Methods p.5: ‘Each plant tank…was stocked at a density of ~18.5 plants/m2 (crop one, n=20 and crop two, n=17, to avoid excessive crowd effect in crop two)’ - a single aggregate density figure is given even though the parenthetical explicitly states different plant counts per crop (20 vs 17), implying the actual per-crop density differed. Verification note only (not used to alter the recorded value): plant tank useful volume is 380 L at ‘around 1 m height’ (p.4), implying a floor area of roughly 0.38 m2; at that area, n=20 would give ~52.6 plants/m2 and n=17 would give ~44.7 plants/m2, both far from the stated ~18.5 plants/m2 - suggesting the tank’s actual floor area is considerably larger than the volume/height approximation implies (e.g., a shallow water column over a wide tray), OR that ~18.5 plants/m2 is computed against total system footprint rather than plant-tank floor area alone. The paper does not clarify. Recorded ~18.5 (the only stated value) for all rows; both crop counts (20, 17) noted here. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Hydroponics experimental duration. Table 1 footnote (p.7): ‘*Experimental period in hydroponics: 48 days.’ Table 3 (p.10) states ‘Crop one lasted 24 days and crop two lasted 27 days’ for the SAME hydroponics treatment, summing to 51 days, a 3-day mismatch with the Table 1 footnote. The paper does not explain whether the 48-day figure covers a different window (e.g., water-quality monitoring only, excluding a harvest/replant turnover gap) than the 24+27-day plant-growth crop durations. Not reconcilable from the text. Recorded ‘Days Plant after transplant’ per Table 3’s stated per-crop values (24 for crop 1, 27 for crop 2), since that maps directly to the schema column definition (harvest day counted from transplant); the 48-day aggregate figure is noted here for the record. Added to REVIEW.md. | Water temperature: NR in the single trial-mean column - Table 1 (p.7) reports separate AM and PM means, not a combined single mean: AP Temp AM 25.77+/-0.94C / Temp PM 26.25+/-1.38C; AP+Mineral Temp AM 26.11+/-0.78C / Temp PM 26.58+/-1.41C; HYD Temp AM 26.10+/-2.26C / Temp PM 26.45+/-1.43C; RAS Temp AM 25.73+/-0.76C / Temp PM 26.14+/-1.46C. This is not a contradiction (two different times of day, not the same measurement), simply no single combined mean is stated, so the dedicated single-value column is left NR per the no-derivation rule. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 32 fish/tank = 134 juveniles m-3, a COUNT density, not kg/m3; initial biomass could be computed as 32 x 14.51 g = 464.32 g in 240 L = ~1.93 kg/m3 but this is not stated by the paper as a density and is not entered); Total Feed (kg) (FCR and weight gain given but no total feed mass stated); Fish biomass created (kg) (only Final biomass given, no stated initial-final delta; see NO COLUMN note); Fish weight gain (g/fish) (initial 14.51 g and final 104.77/105.45 g given separately, gain not stated directly). | NO COLUMN: RAS (fish-only control, Table 2, no paired plant arm, no dedicated trials.csv column set): Final ind. weight 107.24 +/- 1.08 g (SE); SGR 3.17 +/- 0.01 %/day (SE); Final biomass 3.40 +/- 0.04 kg/tank (SE); Productivity 14.15 +/- 0.16 kg/m3 (SE); Survival 100.00 +/- 0.00%; FCR 1.21 +/- 0.01 (SE); all p>0.05 vs aquaponics treatments (Table 2, p.8). RAS water quality (Table 1, p.7): DO 7.35+/-0.69, pH 7.65+/-0.32, EC 2229.95+/-893.07, TAN 1.34+/-1.72, NO2 0.69+/-0.40, NO3 236.40+/-185.63, alkalinity 103.91+/-54.65, K 9.68+/-5.47, Ca 17.96+/-1.39, Mg 11.58+/-0.70, S 21.04+/-5.29, Na 256.65+/-115.41 (mg/L unless noted) - no dedicated RAS column exists in this schema. | NO COLUMN: Final biomass (kg/tank, Table 2, distinct from ‘Fish biomass created’ which the paper does not state as a delta): AP 3.25 +/- 0.08 (SE); AP+Mineral 3.37 +/- 0.02 (SE). Productivity (kg/m3, Table 2, no dedicated column): AP 13.53+/-0.33; AP+Mineral 14.06+/-0.10 (both SE). | NO COLUMN: Length of the largest leaf (cm, Table 3): AP 19.83+/-0.66, AP+Mineral 19.80+/-0.68, HYD 21.02+/-0.81, NS (crop 2, p=0.644). | Plant height column populated from Aerial length (cm); Total length and Root length routed to remarks (NO COLUMN). | SPAD (Figure 3 only): no significant treatment/interaction differences detected in crop 2 (p>0.05) - see plant.csv. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD marked NA: no plant tissue nitrate analysis in this paper. | Fish Category and Water type/classification NR - paper does not formally categorise these.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments); ns AP vs AP+Mineral | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments); ns AP vs AP+Mineral | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T3 | AP+Mineral | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments); ns AP vs AP+Mineral | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T3 | AP+Mineral | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments); ns AP vs AP+Mineral | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T3 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T3 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | p<0.05 (production technique effect, HYD > both AP treatments) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 1) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T4 | AP+Mineral | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T4 | AP+Mineral | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T4 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, old leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |
| emerencianoMineralSupplementationJade2025-T4 | HYD | biochemistry | Leaf greenness (SPAD, young leaves) | NR | SPAD units | ns (p>0.05, no interaction or treatment effect detected) | Fig. 3, p.9 (Crop 2) |