Effect of Aquaponic vs. Hydroponic Nutrient Solution, LED Light Intensity and Photoperiod on Indoor Plant Growth of Butterhead, Romaine and Kale (L. sativa, B. oleracea)
Metadata
- Cite key: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018
- Item type: Thesis (M.S. Agriculture, BioResource & Agricultural Systems)
- Authors: S. Foster
- Affiliation: BioResource and Agricultural Engineering (BRAE) Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
- Journal: [not applicable — thesis] California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California
- Date: 06/2018
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.15368/theses.2018.128
- Funding: RSCA Grant award, Cal Poly Research and Economic Development (per Acknowledgments, p.v)
- URL: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/1948
- PDF:
Foster - 2018 - Effect of Aquaponic vs. Hydroponic Nutrient Solution, Led Light Intensity and Photoperiod on Indoor.pdf
Opinion
A genuinely well-instrumented undergraduate/master’s-level system (daily pH/DO/EC/temp logging, an independent light-distribution test, FGL third-party water and tissue chemistry, MiniTab ANOVA/Tukey/Dunnett throughout) let down by an unbalanced design the author is admirably candid about: far more fish biomass than the plant load could use (EC drifted from 1.89 to 2.55 mS/cm in the AP loop over 31 days, forcing two ad hoc water exchanges), a photoperiod-vs-intensity confound in the Row A “adjustable LED” arm (PPFD wasn’t actually significantly higher for kale, so the reported kale yield drop there can’t cleanly be attributed to the intended mechanism), and n=6 per cell with correspondingly wide confidence intervals. The single biggest strength is the tissue+water nutrient budget in Ch. 5.1.6, which shows aquaponic nutrient supply was non-proportional to tissue uptake for nearly every micronutrient — a useful cautionary data point against assuming “more supplied = more taken up” in fish-fed systems. Worth citing for its explicit, quantified list of what to fix in a follow-up trial (Section 5.2.2), which reads like a pre-registered checklist for the next paper in this space.
Abstract
Vertical farming has been proposed as a solution for providing food security for an increasing, urbanized human population. Light-emitting diode (LED) technology has become increasingly affordable and efficient, making it an ideal choice as artificial lighting for indoor farms. Still largely undiscovered parameters are the optimal plant varieties and types of production systems for plant growth, profit, and human nutrition. Aquaponics may be able to provide sustainable animal protein for vertical farms, increasing their ability to provide more substantial nutrition to consumers. This research aimed to better understand vertical farming as a food production system, and to determine if aquaponics can be an appropriate and applicable fit for it. The experiment was a randomized, factorial design with three independent variables: (1) LED photoperiod interval (2) LED-plant distance, and (3) nutrient solution, as well as several dependent variables to assess both plant yield and quality. A 4-tiered shelving unit was constructed for nutrient film technique (NFT) plant production, and treatments were assigned to each row: (1) LED experiment: Row A, 12/12hr reduced photoperiod with adjustable LEDs 4in. above plant surface; Row B, 2/1hr altered photoperiod interval relative to the control; Row C (control), 16/8hr “standard” photoperiod. (2) Nutrient experiment: Row C, aquaponic nutrient solution; Row H, hydroponic nutrient solution. Rows C and H had matched photoperiod and light intensity. Kale from Row A had significantly lower fresh and dry plant yield relative to the control, Row C (p<0.05). Hydroponic romaine, Row H, had significantly higher plant yield relative to aquaponics, Row C (p<0.05). Butterhead yields were not significantly different in any treatments (p>0.05). Future research may implement a larger sample size of only one plant variety, harvest plants earlier, limit light intensity variation, effectively “balance” the aquaponics system, and have more measures of plant “quality.”
Summary
Foster built a single four-tier NFT vertical-farm system at Cal Poly: the top three shelves (Rows A, B, C) shared one recirculating aquaponic loop fed by a mixed community of bass, catfish and tilapia (~59 kg biomass, fed ~400 g/day of 41%-protein pellet), while the bottom shelf (Row H) was an independent hydroponic loop fed synthetic GH FloraDuo A&B fertilizer. Three plant varieties — butterhead lettuce, red romaine lettuce, and dwarf Siberian kale — were grown simultaneously in every row (6 measured replicates per variety per row, 72 total experimental units) across a factorial design that crossed nutrient source (Row C aquaponic vs Row H hydroponic, matched light) against LED light treatment (Row A: 12/12hr photoperiod with the LED bar physically moved closer to the plant canopy as it grew; Row B: an unusual 2/1hr repeating photoperiod; Row C: standard 16/8hr fixed-distance control). After 31 days in the system (45 days from seed), the study found that nutrient source mattered for romaine (hydroponic yielded 18-27% more than aquaponic) but not for butterhead or kale, while the light treatments produced morphological effects (leaf length/width, L:W ratio, stem elongation) in every species without a consistent yield story — except kale under Row A’s 12/12hr adjustable-LED regime, which had a significantly lower yield than the 16/8hr control, a result the authors themselves caveat because that treatment’s actual measured light intensity wasn’t significantly higher for kale specifically, confounding “shorter photoperiod” with “intended higher relative intensity.” A parallel water- and leaf-tissue-chemistry survey (via a third-party lab, FGL) found the aquaponic loop under-supplied nearly every macro- and micro-nutrient relative to standard hydroponic targets (Epstein & Bloom, 2005) except potassium and nitrate, yet nutrient uptake into leaf tissue was often not proportional to what was supplied — e.g. aquaponic leaves sometimes had higher zinc despite the hydroponic solution containing 4-6x more of it. The thesis concludes that aquaponics can match hydroponic yields for some but not all leafy-green varieties, and lays out concrete design fixes (larger n, single species, earlier harvest, tighter light-intensity matching, better fish/plant balancing) for a follow-up study.
Experiment data
- Location: Lab 4, Building 8A, BRAE Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA (p.4-5)
- Design: Randomized factorial: (1) nutrient solution (aquaponic Row C vs hydroponic Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod/PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr w/ adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr repeating cycle vs Row C 16/8hr fixed control), all aquaponic. 3 plant varieties (butterhead, red romaine, dwarf Siberian kale) grown simultaneously in every row.
- Replicates / n: 6 measured replicates/variety/row (of 8 planted), 72 total experimental units (p.47-48)
- Duration: 14-day germination + 31-day NFT growth = 45 days total, seed to harvest (1/1/18-2/15/18); a prior 45-day pilot study (Oct-Dec 2017) preceded the main trial (p.4, p.43)
- Organisms: Lactuca sativa (‘Bronze Mignonette’ butterhead, red romaine) / Brassica oleracea (dwarf Siberian kale); mixed bass/channel catfish/tilapia stock (fish not experimentally studied — see Extraction notes)
- Statistics: One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD (nutrient-solution comparison, C vs H) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison, A/B vs C); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model with PPFD as covariate for light trials; 95% CI; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M)
- Plant yield (dry weight): Kale, Row A 12.13 +/- 2.46 g vs Row C control 21.28 +/- 6.65 g (Dunnett p=0.009); Romaine, Row C (AP) 10.68 +/- 1.40 g vs Row H (HYD) 13.56 +/- 2.34 g (Tukey p=0.027); Butterhead ns across all treatments
- Electrical Conductivity (EC): Aquaponic loop 2.27 +/- 0.18 mS/cm (drifted 1.89->2.55 over 31 days) vs hydroponic loop 1.82 +/- 0.17 mS/cm (Table 3.1, p.50)
Nutrient solution treatment (aquaponic Row C vs hydroponic Row H)
This paper: Of three plant varieties grown under matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD (244 vs 246 umol/m2-sec), only red romaine showed a significant yield penalty in aquaponics: 18.4% lower fresh weight and 27.0% lower dry weight than hydroponics (Tukey p=0.024, p=0.027). Butterhead and kale dry/fresh weights were statistically indistinguishable between nutrient sources. Kale, however, produced 125% more root dry mass in aquaponics than hydroponics (p=0.008) and had 15.1% longer leaves (p=0.025) — the opposite direction from its (non-significant) shoot-yield trend, suggesting resource allocation rather than total growth differed by nutrient source for kale. Romaine leaves were narrower (p<0.001) and had a higher length:width ratio (p<0.001) in aquaponics than hydroponics. The aquaponic loop ran at higher, drifting EC (1.89->2.55 mS/cm) than the deliberately maintained hydroponic EC (~1.47->2.17 mS/cm) because fish biomass/feed rate was not matched to plant nutrient demand — an explicitly “unbalanced” system per the paper’s own framing (Fig 2.2, p.20; Discussion 5.1.1, p.66-67).
Compared with:
- todo Author Year — finding (unit). (p. X)
LED photoperiod and light-intensity treatment (Rows A, B vs Row C control, all aquaponic)
This paper: Reducing the photoperiod from the 16/8hr control to a repeating 2/1hr cycle (Row B) produced no significant yield change in any of the three species, but did produce morphological stress signatures: butterhead stems were 26.2% longer (p<0.001, interpreted as stretching/etiolation, with observed bifurcated stems and stunted leaves), and both romaine and kale leaves were significantly shorter (15.6% and 17.1% respectively, both p<0.05) under Row B relative to the control. Bringing the LED bar close to the canopy (3-6in) while cutting the photoperiod to 12/12hr (Row A) was intended to test whether higher relative light intensity could offset a shorter photoperiod without a yield cost; it worked for butterhead and romaine (no significant yield loss, despite butterhead/romaine PPFD being genuinely, significantly higher in Row A per the paper’s own light-distribution test) but kale’s dry and fresh yield fell significantly (p=0.009, p=0.013) even though kale’s own measured PPFD was not significantly different between Row A and the control (Tukey p=0.148) — a genuine confound the authors flag themselves (p.68-69), since it means the kale yield drop cannot be cleanly attributed to the intended “higher relative intensity, shorter photoperiod” mechanism as opposed to simply less total daily light (12.5 vs 14.1 mol/m2/day DLI).
Compared with:
- todo Author Year — finding (unit). (p. X)
Macro- and micronutrient supply vs. tissue uptake
This paper: Both nutrient solutions under-supplied several mineral nutrients relative to Epstein & Bloom’s (2005) standard hydroponic targets — the hydroponic solution only met targets for sulfate, calcium, magnesium, boron and zinc; the aquaponic solution only met targets for potassium, sulfate and magnesium, with essentially no micronutrient meeting target (aquaponic iron, for instance, stayed roughly 5-10x below the hydroponic supply throughout the 31-day trial despite active Fe-EDDHA supplementation). Despite this large supply gap, tissue uptake was frequently non-proportional to supply: aquaponic romaine and kale leaf tissue had higher zinc than their hydroponic counterparts despite the hydroponic solution supplying 4-6x more zinc; aquaponic romaine had higher tissue iron than hydroponic romaine despite ~5-10x less iron supplied in solution. Manganese was the one micronutrient that scaled roughly proportionally with supply (over 6x higher in hydroponic vs aquaponic romaine tissue, mirroring near-non-detectable aquaponic Mn in solution, 0.01-0.02 mg/L). These tissue comparisons are each based on a single, unreplicated sample per treatment x species combination (n=1; FGL Leaf Tissue Analysis, Appendix E.5) — the paper itself states “there are only single data points to represent experimental treatments, so any inferences drawn from the data cannot be backed by statistical evidence” (p.75).
Compared with:
- todo Author Year — finding (unit). (p. X)
Linked claims
- Aquaponics can match hydroponic yield for some plant species but not others
- Fish stocking density unmatched to plant load causes aquaponic EC drift
- LED photoperiod cycling can cause stem etiolation in lettuce
- Nutrient supply in aquaponic solution does not scale proportionally to plant tissue uptake
Citations to chase
- todo Epstein, E. & Bloom, A.J. (2005) — source of the “standard hydroponic” macro/micronutrient concentration targets this paper benchmarks both nutrient solutions against (Table 2.4, p.22; used throughout Discussion 5.1.6)
- todo Rakocy, J.E., Masser, M.P., Losordo, T.M. (2006) — SRAC aquaponics technical bulletin cited repeatedly for RAS/aquaponics design parameters (pH, DO, K/Fe supplementation) that this thesis follows
- todo Kang, J.H. et al. (2013) — source of the multi-cycle photoperiod experiment design (3-cycle 6/2hr) that Foster’s Row B (8-cycle 2/1hr) treatment was extrapolated from
- todo van Iersel, M.W. et al. (2016, 2017) — chlorophyll-fluorescence biofeedback LED control studies cited as the motivating precedent for testing frequent light/dark cycling (Row B) on photosynthetic efficiency
- todo Somerville, C., Cohen, M., Pantanella, E., Stankus, A., Lovatelli, A. (2014) — FAO small-scale aquaponics technical paper, source of the “balanced system” fish:plant:bacteria framework (Fig 2.2) this thesis explicitly diagnoses itself as failing to achieve
Extraction notes
Type classification: experiment — randomized factorial design (nutrient solution x photoperiod x light intensity), n=6 replicates/cell, one-way ANOVA with Tukey/Dunnett post-hoc and a fitted GLM; clearly primary data collected by the author, not a review. This is a Master’s thesis (Cal Poly, BioResource & Agricultural Systems), not a journal article — confirmed via zotero-export.csv (item type “thesis”) and the PDF title page/committee page (p.i-iii).
Metadata source: zotero-export.csv had an exact title match (row 5TH6NQBA), used for title/authors/year/DOI/URL/publisher/place directly rather than re-deriving from the PDF. No journal/volume/issue/pages apply (thesis, not a journal article).
Trial structure (9 rows, not 3): The task brief for this paper suggested “one aquaponic trial row per light/photoperiod combination” (implying 3 rows: A, B, C). I instead produced 9 rows — one per (light/photoperiod treatment) x (plant species) combination — because trials.csv’s Plant/Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter/Leaf count columns are singular per row, three genuinely different species were grown simultaneously in every treatment row with independently significance-tested outcomes (Table 4.2/4.3 give separate Tukey/Dunnett results per species), and the vault’s own precedent (aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023, 8 rows = 4 treatments x 2 crops) splits by species+treatment rather than collapsing species into one row. Collapsing to 3 rows would have forced arbitrary NR/UNCLEAR on every yield-related column or an arbitrary choice of “representative species,” which seemed worse than the explicit species x treatment split. Flagging this judgment call for review since it deviates from the literal instruction wording.
Fish tagging (judgment call, no Meta/Fish/ tag applied): Bass, channel catfish and tilapia were stocked together (~59 kg total biomass, 0.6 kg avg/fish, weighed once on 1/9/18) purely as an ammonia/nutrient source for the aquaponic loop. No fish growth, survival, FCR, or final weight was ever measured — species-level fish outcomes are entirely absent from the paper, consistent with several other notes in this vault (e.g. caloneImprovingWaterManagement2019, debroyModelBasedPredictive2024) that withhold Meta/Fish/ tags when fish are infrastructure rather than a studied organism. Meta/Plant/Kale is a new leaf (no existing Kale/Brassica-oleracea facet in the vault; checked against existing Meta/Plant/Lettuce, Chicory, Rocket, Mustard-Green, Water-Spinach). Meta/Plant/Lettuce reused as-is (both butterhead and romaine are L. sativa, matching the vault’s existing generic Lettuce leaf used for other lettuce-variety papers, e.g. andersonGrowthTissueElemental2017). Meta/Region/North-America reused from existing vault entries (e.g. abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022).
⚠️CHECK — PPFD reported at two aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific), affecting the kale/Row-A yield result. Table 3.3 (p.51) gives one pooled PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), averaging all 3 species’ individual light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead breaks the same light-test data down per species within each row, and the two levels disagree on statistical significance: at the row-pooled level Row A “looks” brighter than Row C across the board, but at the species level the Row A vs Row C PPFD difference is significant for butterhead (Tukey p=0.041) and romaine (p=0.012) but explicitly not significant for kale (p=0.148). Since kale is the one species with a significant yield drop under Row A (Abstract headline result), this aggregation-level choice materially affects how that result should be read — the paper’s own Discussion (p.68-69) flags exactly this caution. I recorded both the row-level (Table 3.3) and species-level (Appendix G) PPFD values in each trial’s Artificial LightingDetails/remarks fields rather than picking one, per the CHECK-severity instruction to record the clearest-basis value with all candidates shown. This paper should be added to REVIEW.md for this item at the next vault rebuild.
⚠️MINOR — two internal day-count/day-label inconsistencies, neither affecting an extracted cell. (1) Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sampling rounds “Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)” with explicit calendar “Sampled On” dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — actually 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions for the same 4 rounds instead say “Day 15, 25, 35, 45.” I resolved which real sampling event was which using the explicit calendar dates in Appendix E (unambiguous), not the inconsistent day-count labels, so no cell is affected — this is a labelling defect in the source thesis, not a data conflict. (2) Methods (p.39) states a constant “400 grams daily” feed rate; the actual daily log (Appendix C, p.90) shows 600 g on three days (1/13 pre-trial, 1/18, 1/19 within-trial) against ~400 g on all other days — minor deviation, doesn’t change the recorded Feed regime cell.
No ⚠️BLOCK or ⚠️MATERIAL contradictions found. Quality tally: 0 BLOCK, 0 MATERIAL, 1 CHECK, 2 MINOR -> quality: ok.
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish performance: Fish Category, FCR, SGR, N/P/K (feed composition beyond stated 41% protein), % of body weight (daily ration, only the theoretical 590g/1% target is stated, not the actual 400g rate as a %), Fish size final, Feed routine (frequency), Total Feed (kg, cumulative — a full daily log exists in Appendix C but summing it would be derivation), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration. The paper never re-weighs or tracks fish after the single 1/9/18 pre-trial weighing — fish are infrastructure, not a studied outcome.
- Water quality (aquaponic-side schema columns): pHOptimal, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N all not reported (ammonia/nitrite were never systematically monitored; only sporadic NH3-N spot-readings exist in Appendix A, insufficient for a trial mean). NO3-N recorded as a range only (99-171 mg/L, unit-converted from FGL’s reported NO3- by /4.43), not a trial mean, since only 4 time-point lab samples exist with no stated summary statistic.
- Design/derivable-but-not-stated: Initial Stock density, Plants/m2, Lat/Long, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate (only two discrete exchange events logged, not a rate), Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (the paper measured leaf %N via Kjeldahl/combustion, not nitrate ion concentration specifically — a different metric, correctly not the same as this schema column), SPAD, Plant height (only leaf length/width and stem length were measured, not overall canopy height).
[unclear] fields: None — every field that could be populated was either filled with a specific value or is genuinely absent from the paper (NR), rather than ambiguous.
No fish tag / no water-panel routing to plant.csv: see judgment calls above.
Source: Foster - 2018 - Effect of Aquaponic vs. Hydroponic Nutrient Solution, Led Light Intensity and Photoperiod on Indoor.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
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Butterhead lettuce (L. sativa cv. ‘Bronze Mignonette’) |
| Details | ’Bronze Mignonette’ butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Sensitive’, threshold EC 1.4 mS/cm (L. sativa, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 46.33 +/- 1.86 |
| Plant fresh weight | 178.4 +/- 32.5 |
| Plant dry matter | 7.91 +/- 3.13 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row A’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row A: 12/12hr photoperiod, adjustable LED kept 3-6in above plant surface throughout growth (vs. fixed 12in for B/C/H). Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 289 +/- 13 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 284.83 +/- 8.95 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Butterhead lettuce x 12/12hr photoperiod, adjustable LED kept 3-6in above plant surface throughout growth (Row A, PPFD 289 +/- 13 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 24.0 +/- 3.0 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 178.4 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T1 = aquaponic, Row A, 12/12hr photoperiod w/ adjustable LED (3-6in from plant surface), butterhead lettuce. Paired control (Dunnett) = Row C (T7, same species, 16/8hr fixed-LED aquaponic control). No hydroponic pair tested for this light condition -> HYD = NA. Root dry weight: 1.594 +/- 0.458 g (Row A) vs 1.502 +/- 1.059 g (Row C control), Dunnett ns (p=0.972). Leaf length: 188.29 +/- 70.19 mm (n=117 individual leaves pooled across 6 plants) vs Row C 161.16 +/- 62.02mm (n=119 leaves) — SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER in Row A (Dunnett p=0.002). Leaf width: 115.19 +/- 41.97mm vs Row C 97.91 +/- 47.37mm — SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER in Row A (Dunnett p=0.003). Leaf L:W ratio: 1.6606 +/- 0.2890 vs Row C 1.8519 +/- 0.8554 — SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER in Row A i.e. rounder leaves (Dunnett p=0.022). Stem length: 60.00 +/- 6.66mm vs Row C 82.67 +/- 13.06mm, ns at alpha=0.05 in the 3-way Dunnett family but close (butterhead stem length ANOVA overall Dunnett/Tukey table shows A-vs-C not flagged significant; B-vs-C is the significant stem-length contrast for butterhead, see T4). Deformed leaves/plant: 9.00 +/- 2.65 (n=3 plants scored, not all 6) vs Row C 19.00 +/- 5.57 (n=3), Dunnett p=0.064 (marginal, ns at 0.05). Leaf count: 46.33 +/- 1.86 vs Row C 53.17 +/- 8.54, ns (Dunnett p=0.605). Yield (fresh/dry weight) NOT significantly different from control (Dunnett p=0.996 fresh, p=0.702 dry) — butterhead was the plant type LEAST sensitive to this light treatment on yield, though its leaf morphology (length/width/ratio) did respond. NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell. WARN-MINOR feed regime: Methods (p.39) states fish were fed a constant ‘400 grams daily’; the daily log (Appendix C, p.90) shows 400 g on most days but 600 g on 1/13 (pre-trial), 1/18 and 1/19/18 (within the 31-day trial). Minor day-to-day deviation from the stated constant rate; does not change Feed regime cell, noted for completeness. Initial Stock density = NR (not stated as a density; raw inputs given instead): 59 kg total fish biomass (bass+catfish+tilapia combined), 0.6 kg avg. weight/fish, weighed once on 1/9/18 pre-trial, in a 300-gallon (~1136 L) tank (p.39). Not derived here per no-derivation rule. Plants/m2 = NR (not stated; raw inputs given instead): 8 in. x 7 in. staggered plant spacing, 8 ft x 3 ft shelving unit per row, 24 plants planted per row (6 replicates/species x 3 species + 2 spare/species x 3 species) of which 6/species were randomly selected for growth-data collection (p.41, p.46-47). Not derived here per no-derivation rule. Total Feed (kg) = NR: paper states a target daily feed rate (~400 g/day, see Feed regime) and gives a full daily log (Appendix C, p.90) but never sums it into a stated cumulative total; summing the ~30 daily log entries into one number would be a derived value not stated by the authors, so left NR per no-derivation rule. Log is available in Appendix C if a future consistent-methods pass wants to compute it. NO COLUMN: hydroponic system water volume — ‘30-gallon water reservoir (sump)’ stated explicitly (~114 L, UNIT CONVERSION ONLY) but this excludes water held in the NFT columns/piping; no total HYD system volume given (p.42). Water recycle: Aquaponics ~19.7 L/min UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (from 5.20 gpm total across 5 NFT columns, Appendix H Test 3, p.108; ~1 gpm/column, matched to circulate the ~300-gal system roughly once per hour per biofilter manufacturer spec, p.54). NO COLUMN: Hydroponics flow ~20.5 L/min UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (5.41 gpm total, Appendix H Test 2, p.108) — no HYD-side column in schema for this. Daily Water exchange rate = NR: no daily % exchange rate is stated for either system. Two discrete aquaponic exchange EVENTS are logged instead: ~10% (~30 gal) on 1/27/18 and ~25% (~100 gal) on 2/2/18, done to bring down rising EC (Appendix C, p.90; discussion p.67). No exchange events logged for hydroponics beyond routine top-offs (Appendix D). NO COLUMN: leaf tissue Total Nitrogen (%), P (%), K (%), Ca (%), Mg (%), Na (%) and micronutrients (Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, B, ppm) measured on a single Day-45 harvest sample per treatment x species combination (FGL Leaf Tissue Analysis, Appendix E.5, p.101-103; Fig 4.8-4.9, p.65) — routed to plant_measurements.csv as mineral-category rows, one row per analyte. These are % / ppm tissue mineral concentrations, NOT the ‘Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (mg/kg fw)’ schema column, which specifically wants nitrate ion concentration in fresh tissue — the paper never measured nitrate (NO3-) in leaf tissue, only nitrogen speciated as %TN (Kjeldahl/combustion, not NO3- specific). ‘Tissue nitrate AP/HYD’ therefore correctly = NR, not the %TN value.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Red romaine lettuce (L. sativa) |
| Details | Red romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Sensitive’, threshold EC 1.4 mS/cm (L. sativa, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 49.00 +/- 4.20 |
| Plant fresh weight | 278.7 +/- 53.3 |
| Plant dry matter | 9.51 +/- 3.04 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row A’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row A: 12/12hr photoperiod, adjustable LED kept 3-6in above plant surface throughout growth (vs. fixed 12in for B/C/H). Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 289 +/- 13 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 291.00 +/- 15.27 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Red romaine lettuce x 12/12hr photoperiod, adjustable LED kept 3-6in above plant surface throughout growth (Row A, PPFD 289 +/- 13 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 24.0 +/- 3.0 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 278.7 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 = aquaponic, Row A, 12/12hr photoperiod w/ adjustable LED (3-6in from plant surface), red romaine lettuce. Paired control (Dunnett) = Row C (T8, same species). No hydroponic pair -> HYD = NA. Root dry weight: 1.971 +/- 0.986 g vs Row C 1.051 +/- 0.536 g, marginal (Dunnett p=0.066, ns at 0.05 but close — root yield nearly doubled under Row A treatment). Leaf length: 217.32 +/- 90.64mm (n=159 leaves) vs Row C 227.02 +/- 77.71mm (n=138), ns (Dunnett p=0.476). Leaf width: 91.43 +/- 42.89mm vs Row C 94.59 +/- 41.03mm, ns (p=0.735). L:W ratio: 2.5037 +/- 0.6461 vs Row C 2.5727 +/- 0.6039, ns (p=0.551). Stem length: 105.33 +/- 13.41mm vs Row C 99.17 +/- 18.00mm, ns (p=0.785 per romaine Dunnett; see Table M.6.2). Deformed leaves/plant: 24.50 +/- 9.26 (n=4) vs Row C 18.33 +/- 3.21 (n=3), ns (p=0.773). Leaf count: 49.00 +/- 4.20 vs Row C 56.83 +/- 8.47, ns (p=0.202). Yield (fresh/dry) NOT significantly different from control (Dunnett p=0.599 fresh, p=0.610 dry). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell. WARN-MINOR feed regime: Methods (p.39) states fish were fed a constant ‘400 grams daily’; the daily log (Appendix C, p.90) shows 400 g on most days but 600 g on 1/13 (pre-trial), 1/18 and 1/19/18 (within the 31-day trial). Minor day-to-day deviation from the stated constant rate; does not change Feed regime cell, noted for completeness.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Dwarf Siberian kale (B. oleracea) |
| Details | Dwarf Siberian kale (Brassica oleracea), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Moderately sensitive’, threshold EC 3.0 mS/cm (B. oleracea, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 14.17 +/- 2.79 |
| Plant fresh weight | 220.4 +/- 50.9 |
| Plant dry matter | 12.13 +/- 2.46 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row A’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row A: 12/12hr photoperiod, adjustable LED kept 3-6in above plant surface throughout growth (vs. fixed 12in for B/C/H). Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 289 +/- 13 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 291.50 +/- 15.32 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Dwarf Siberian kale x 12/12hr photoperiod, adjustable LED kept 3-6in above plant surface throughout growth (Row A, PPFD 289 +/- 13 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 24.0 +/- 3.0 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 220.4 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 = aquaponic, Row A, 12/12hr photoperiod w/ adjustable LED (3-6in from plant surface), dwarf Siberian kale. Paired control (Dunnett) = Row C (T9, same species). No hydroponic pair -> HYD = NA. HEADLINE RESULT (Abstract, p.iv): kale fresh and dry yield SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER in Row A vs Row C control — dry weight 12.13 +/- 2.46g vs 21.28 +/- 6.65g (Dunnett p=0.009, -65.2% wait see remark below on % direction), fresh weight 220.4 +/- 50.9g vs 364.2 +/- 108.1g (Dunnett p=0.013). Results text (4.4.3) states Row C yields were ‘65.2% and 74.4% greater’ than Row A for fresh and dry weight respectively. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. Applied specifically here: kale’s own PPFD was NOT significantly different between Row A (291.50 +/- 15.32) and Row C (259.0 +/- 32.4) per species-level test (Tukey p=0.148, Appendix G.3), unlike butterhead (p=0.041) and romaine (p=0.012) where Row A truly delivered more light. The paper’s own Discussion (p.68-69) explicitly cautions that the kale yield drop in Row A ‘should be taken with caution because PPFD was not statistically higher between these treatments’ — i.e. the yield loss may reflect the shortened 12/12hr photoperiod (lower daily light integral: 12.5 vs 14.1 mol/m2/day, Table 3.3) rather than the adjustable-lighting/intensity mechanism the treatment was designed to test. Root dry weight: 3.157 +/- 0.723g vs Row C 3.852 +/- 1.425g, ns (Dunnett p=0.565). Leaf length: 309.3 +/- 138.2mm (n=39) vs Row C 336.7 +/- 133.1mm (n=90), ns (p=0.460). Leaf width: 111.44 +/- 50.43mm vs Row C 116.49 +/- 62.60mm, ns (p=0.868). L:W ratio: 2.921 +/- 0.932 vs Row C 3.324 +/- 1.354, ns (p=0.111, marginal). Stem length: 64.7 +/- 35.5mm vs Row C 66.7 +/- 28.8mm, ns (p=0.990). Deformed leaves/plant: 2.00 +/- 3.46 (n=3) vs Row C 6.50 +/- 3.00 (n=4), ns (p=0.152). Leaf count: 14.17 +/- 2.79 vs Row C 25.33 +/- 11.24, marginal ns (p=0.079). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Butterhead lettuce (L. sativa cv. ‘Bronze Mignonette’) |
| Details | ’Bronze Mignonette’ butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Sensitive’, threshold EC 1.4 mS/cm (L. sativa, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 66.67 +/- 22.07 |
| Plant fresh weight | 212.6 +/- 71.8 |
| Plant dry matter | 8.01 +/- 2.92 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row B’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row B: 2/1hr (i.e. 16 total on/8 total off per day, in repeated 2hr-on/1hr-off cycles) photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base. Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 268 +/- 29 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 277.50 +/- 23.86 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Butterhead lettuce x 2/1hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base (Row B, PPFD 268 +/- 29 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 25.0 +/- 2.8 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 212.6 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 = aquaponic, Row B, 2/1hr photoperiod (repeated cycling, 16hr total light/day) w/ fixed LED 12in above column, butterhead lettuce. Paired control (Dunnett) = Row C (T7, same species). No hydroponic pair -> HYD = NA. Yield NOT significantly different from control (Dunnett p=0.888 fresh, p=0.796… actually dry-weight Dunnett B-C p=0.794 per M.1.4/M.2.2 tables; both ns). NOTABLE QUALITY EFFECT: stem length 153.5 +/- 35.1mm SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER than Row C control’s 82.67 +/- 13.06mm (Dunnett p<0.001, ‘26.2% greater’ per Results 4.4.4/Discussion 5.1.5) — interpreted by the authors as a stretching/etiolation stress response to the frequent 2/1hr light/dark cycling; several Row B butterhead plants also showed bifurcated stems with stunted leaves (p.73, Fig 5.1 shows a related fungal/bifurcation sample from harvest). L:W ratio 1.6168 +/- 0.4181 SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Row C’s 1.8519 +/- 0.8554 (Dunnett p=0.005, i.e. rounder leaves under Row B). Leaf length 165.87 +/- 53.59mm (n=107) vs Row C 161.16 +/- 62.02mm (n=119), ns (p=0.796). Leaf width 104.96 +/- 33.11mm vs Row C 97.91 +/- 47.37mm, ns (p=0.338). Root dry weight 1.768 +/- 0.790g vs Row C 1.502 +/- 1.059g, ns (p=0.794). Leaf count 66.67 +/- 22.07 vs Row C 53.17 +/- 8.54, ns (p=0.186). Deformed leaves/plant 19.00 +/- 5.00 (n=3) vs Row C 19.00 +/- 5.57 (n=3) — means numerically identical, Dunnett diff=0.00, p=1.000. NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T5
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Red romaine lettuce (L. sativa) |
| Details | Red romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Sensitive’, threshold EC 1.4 mS/cm (L. sativa, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 58.33 +/- 10.58 |
| Plant fresh weight | 284.6 +/- 44.0 |
| Plant dry matter | 10.76 +/- 2.39 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row B’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row B: 2/1hr (i.e. 16 total on/8 total off per day, in repeated 2hr-on/1hr-off cycles) photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base. Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 268 +/- 29 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 259.3 +/- 32.7 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Red romaine lettuce x 2/1hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base (Row B, PPFD 268 +/- 29 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 25.0 +/- 2.8 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 284.6 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T5 = aquaponic, Row B, 2/1hr photoperiod w/ fixed LED 12in above column, red romaine lettuce. Paired control (Dunnett) = Row C (T8, same species). No hydroponic pair -> HYD = NA. Yield NOT significantly different from control (Dunnett p=0.751 fresh, p=0.930 dry). NOTABLE QUALITY EFFECT: leaf length 196.35 +/- 76.76mm (n=218 leaves) SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER than Row C control’s 227.02 +/- 77.71mm (n=138) (Dunnett p=0.001, ‘15.6% shorter’ per Results 4.4.4/5.1.5) — the 2/1hr photoperiod produced measurably smaller leaves in romaine despite unchanged total biomass. Leaf width 84.74 +/- 42.75mm vs Row C 94.59 +/- 41.03mm, marginal ns (Dunnett p=0.058). L:W ratio 2.5357 +/- 0.6845 vs Row C 2.5727 +/- 0.6039, ns (p=0.814). Root dry weight 2.69 +/- 3.22g (very high variance, one outlier plant at 9.25g) vs Row C 1.051 +/- 0.536g, ns (Dunnett p=0.656). Stem length 122.00 +/- 22.12mm vs Row C 99.17 +/- 18.00mm, marginal ns (p=0.082). Leaf count 58.33 +/- 10.58 vs Row C 56.83 +/- 8.47, ns (p=0.930). Deformed leaves/plant 27.40 +/- 18.72 (n=5) vs Row C 18.33 +/- 3.21 (n=3), ns (p=0.568). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Dwarf Siberian kale (B. oleracea) |
| Details | Dwarf Siberian kale (Brassica oleracea), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Moderately sensitive’, threshold EC 3.0 mS/cm (B. oleracea, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 29.33 +/- 9.91 |
| Plant fresh weight | 319.1 +/- 69.4 |
| Plant dry matter | 17.38 +/- 4.37 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row B’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row B: 2/1hr (i.e. 16 total on/8 total off per day, in repeated 2hr-on/1hr-off cycles) photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base. Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 268 +/- 29 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 268.0 +/- 32.4 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Dwarf Siberian kale x 2/1hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base (Row B, PPFD 268 +/- 29 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 25.0 +/- 2.8 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 319.1 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 = aquaponic, Row B, 2/1hr photoperiod w/ fixed LED 12in above column, dwarf Siberian kale. Paired control (Dunnett) = Row C (T9, same species). No hydroponic pair -> HYD = NA. Yield NOT significantly different from control (Dunnett p=0.529 fresh, p=0.300 dry). NOTABLE QUALITY EFFECTS: leaf length 287.5 +/- 122.4mm (n=64 leaves) SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER than Row C control’s 336.7 +/- 133.1mm (n=90) (Dunnett p=0.043, ‘17.1% shorter’ per Results 4.4.4/5.1.5). L:W ratio 2.6348 +/- 0.7674 SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Row C’s 3.324 +/- 1.354 (Dunnett p<0.001 per M.5.2 kale table). Leaf width 115.88 +/- 54.12mm vs Row C 116.49 +/- 62.60mm, ns (p=0.997). Root dry weight 3.829 +/- 1.588g vs Row C 3.852 +/- 1.425g, ns (p=0.999). Stem length 54.00 +/- 22.82mm vs Row C 66.7 +/- 28.8mm, ns (p=0.684). Leaf count 29.33 +/- 9.91 vs Row C 25.33 +/- 11.24, ns (p=0.655). Deformed leaves/plant 3.33 +/- 2.31 (n=3) vs Row C 6.50 +/- 3.00 (n=4), ns (p=0.337). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Butterhead lettuce (L. sativa cv. ‘Bronze Mignonette’) |
| Details | ’Bronze Mignonette’ butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Sensitive’, threshold EC 1.4 mS/cm (L. sativa, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 53.17 +/- 8.54 |
| Plant fresh weight | 180.5 +/- 34.6 |
| Plant dry matter | 6.75 +/- 2.32 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row C’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row C: 16/8hr (standard ‘control’ photoperiod) photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base — matched to Row H’s photoperiod/PPFD for the nutrient-solution comparison. Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 244 +/- 38 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 242.5 +/- 39.6 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Butterhead lettuce x 16/8hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base (light-treatment control, and nutrient-solution AP arm) (Row C, PPFD 244 +/- 38 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 24.8 +/- 3.1 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 180.5 |
| HYD | 185.7 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 = aquaponic, Row C (light-treatment control AND nutrient-solution AP arm), 16/8hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above column, butterhead lettuce. Serves as the Dunnett control for T1/T4 (light comparison) and as the Tukey-paired AP arm against Row H (T7’s HYD columns) for the nutrient-solution comparison. HYD = 7.57 +/- 3.27g dry / 185.7 +/- 71.5g fresh (Row H butterhead, same 16/8hr photoperiod/matched PPFD 246 +/- 27, hydroponic GH FloraDuo A&B nutrient solution). Yield NOT significantly different AP vs HYD (Tukey p=0.628 dry, p=0.877 fresh) — butterhead was the ONE of three plant types with equivalent yield across nutrient sources, per Abstract: ‘Butterhead yields were not significantly different in any treatments (p>0.05)’. NOTABLE QUALITY EFFECT: stem length 82.67 +/- 13.06mm SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER than Row H’s 120.3 +/- 37.2mm (Tukey p=0.041, ‘45.5% greater in hydroponics’ per Results 4.4.2/5.1.5). Root dry weight 1.502 +/- 1.059g vs Row H 1.467 +/- 1.058g, ns (Tukey p=0.956). Leaf length 161.16 +/- 62.02mm (n=119) vs Row H 167.18 +/- 57.35mm (n=153), ns (p=0.407). Leaf width 97.91 +/- 47.37mm vs Row H 106.38 +/- 45.40mm, marginal ns (p=0.134). L:W ratio 1.8519 +/- 0.8554 vs Row H 1.6948 +/- 0.5433, marginal ns (p=0.065). Leaf count 53.17 +/- 8.54 vs Row H 53.17 +/- 12.06 — means numerically identical, Tukey p=1.000. Deformed leaves/plant 19.00 +/- 5.57 (n=3) vs Row H 36.75 +/- 17.73 (n=4), ns despite large mean gap, high variance (Tukey p=0.162). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. NO COLUMN: schema has no paired hydroponic-side water-quality columns (pH/DO/EC/temp/NO3-N are single AP-only columns). Hydroponic Table 3.1 trial means (p.50): pH 5.71+/-0.18, DO 8.65+/-0.39 mg/L, EC 1.82+/-0.17 mS/cm, water temp 23.3+/-1.5 C. Hydroponic NO3- (FGL, UNIT CONVERSION /4.43 to NO3-N): 111.5/142.9/116.9/129.6 mg/L NO3-N across the 4 sampling rounds (range ~111-143, range only, no trial mean reported; Appendix E.1.1/E.2.1/E.3.1/E.4.1, p.92/94/97/99). NO COLUMN: Row H (hydroponic) air temperature = 24.5 +/- 2.1 C (Table 4.1/Fig L.4, p.60/114) — no paired HYD column exists for ‘Average room Temperature’; AP row’s own air temp used in that column instead. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Red romaine lettuce (L. sativa) |
| Details | Red romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Sensitive’, threshold EC 1.4 mS/cm (L. sativa, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 56.83 +/- 8.47 |
| Plant fresh weight | 300.8 +/- 30.9 |
| Plant dry matter | 10.68 +/- 1.40 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row C’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row C: 16/8hr (standard ‘control’ photoperiod) photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base — matched to Row H’s photoperiod/PPFD for the nutrient-solution comparison. Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 244 +/- 38 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 229.8 +/- 41.5 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Red romaine lettuce x 16/8hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base (light-treatment control, and nutrient-solution AP arm) (Row C, PPFD 244 +/- 38 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 24.8 +/- 3.1 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 300.8 |
| HYD | 356.0 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 = aquaponic, Row C, 16/8hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above column, red romaine lettuce. Dunnett control for T2/T5; Tukey-paired AP arm vs Row H (T8’s HYD columns) for nutrient-solution comparison. HYD = 13.56 +/- 2.34g dry / 356.0 +/- 40.6g fresh (Row H romaine). HEADLINE RESULT (Abstract, p.iv): ‘Hydroponic romaine, Row H, had significantly higher plant yield relative to aquaponics, Row C (p<0.05)’ — dry weight Tukey p=0.027 (‘27.0% greater’ in HYD), fresh weight Tukey p=0.024 (‘18.4% greater’ in HYD) (Results 4.4.1). Leaf width 94.59 +/- 41.03mm SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWER than Row H’s 112.72 +/- 38.40mm (Tukey p<0.001, ‘19.2% greater in hydroponics’). L:W ratio 2.5727 +/- 0.6039 SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than Row H’s 2.1770 +/- 0.4437 (Tukey p<0.001, ‘18.2% greater in aquaponics’ — i.e. AP romaine leaves are narrower/longer relative to width than HYD romaine). Root dry weight 1.051 +/- 0.536g vs Row H 0.9347 +/- 0.1991g, ns (p=0.628). Leaf length 227.02 +/- 77.71mm (n=138) vs Row H 240.66 +/- 84.36mm (n=183), ns (p=0.138). Stem length 99.17 +/- 18.00mm vs Row H 118.2 +/- 41.6mm, ns (p=0.328). Leaf count 56.83 +/- 8.47 vs Row H 52.67 +/- 9.42, ns (p=0.439). Deformed leaves/plant 18.33 +/- 3.21 (n=3) vs Row H 10.80 +/- 8.87 (n=5), ns (p=0.217). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. NO COLUMN: schema has no paired hydroponic-side water-quality columns (pH/DO/EC/temp/NO3-N are single AP-only columns). Hydroponic Table 3.1 trial means (p.50): pH 5.71+/-0.18, DO 8.65+/-0.39 mg/L, EC 1.82+/-0.17 mS/cm, water temp 23.3+/-1.5 C. Hydroponic NO3- (FGL, UNIT CONVERSION /4.43 to NO3-N): 111.5/142.9/116.9/129.6 mg/L NO3-N across the 4 sampling rounds (range ~111-143, range only, no trial mean reported; Appendix E.1.1/E.2.1/E.3.1/E.4.1, p.92/94/97/99). NO COLUMN: Row H (hydroponic) air temperature = 24.5 +/- 2.1 C (Table 4.1/Fig L.4, p.60/114) — no paired HYD column exists for ‘Average room Temperature’; AP row’s own air temp used in that column instead. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Bass, channel catfish, and tilapia (mixed stock, three species combined in one tank, individual species proportions not specified; p.39) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Fish size initial | 600 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.6 kg avg/fish, p.39) |
| Feed regime | ~400 g/day of 41% protein commercial pellet (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500) to shared fish tank; occasional 600 g days logged (see remarks) (p.39, Appendix C) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 19.7 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 5.20 gpm, Appendix H Test 3, p.108) |
| Water volume in the system | ~1136 L (~300 gal fish tank; total system volume incl. NFT columns/biofilter not stated) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: from ‘300-gallon fish tank’ / ‘system was roughly 300 gallons’ (p.38, p.54) |
| Water type | Tap water (municipal; dechlorination not stated) |
| Aq pH | 6.67 +/- 0.13 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.41 +/- 1.00 |
| EC | 2.27 +/- 0.18 |
| Water temperature | 22.9 +/- 1.3 |
| NO3-N | 99-171 (range only, no trial mean reported; mg/L NO3-N) UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: FGL ‘Nitrate’ (NO3-) values 440/591/727/759 mg/L on Day1/10/20/30 post-transplant (Appendix E.1.2/E.2.2/E.3.2/E.4.2, p.93/96/98/100), divided by 4.43 to estimate NO3-N |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Dwarf Siberian kale (B. oleracea) |
| Details | Dwarf Siberian kale (Brassica oleracea), heirloom non-GMO seed (Isla’s Garden Seeds); germinated 14 days (rockwool cubes, 28C grow mat), transplanted to 3in. Hydroton cups; 6 randomly-selected replicates/treatment measured at Day-45 harvest (of 8 planted/treatment) (p.45-47). |
| Plant Category | Salinity group ‘Moderately sensitive’, threshold EC 3.0 mS/cm (B. oleracea, Table 2.5, p.24) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 31 |
| Leaf count | 25.33 +/- 11.24 |
| Plant fresh weight | 364.2 +/- 108.1 |
| Plant dry matter | 21.28 +/- 6.65 g (absolute dry wt.; % dry matter not calculated) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Nutrient film technique (NFT) |
| Media Details | 3 in. diameter plastic plant cups filled with Hydroton clay pebble media (p.47) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (System (aquaponics loop) had already been run for a 45-day pilot study Oct-Dec 2017 with plants and fish present before winter-break redesign and the main Jan-Feb 2018 trial; biofilter would carry an established nitrifying bacterial community from pilot use, not a freshly seeded one (p.4, p.43).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Aquaponics: 3 aeration sources — compressed air tank, Eco-Plus 951 GPH air pump, and Invacare Platinum XL oxygen concentrator (94% O2, 4 LPM) via air stones (p.48). Hydroponics: single air stone via 5W aquarium air pump (p.49).) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: Fe-EDDHA (6% chelated iron) dosed periodically, ~0.72 g total Fe over the 31-day trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: iron supplied as part of complete GH FloraDuo A&B two-part synthetic nutrient solution, not separately dosed (p.49).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Aquaponics: KHCO3, K2CO3 and CaCO3 added periodically to buffer/raise pH, totals ~490 g KHCO3, 230 g K2CO3, 455 g CaCO3 over trial (Appendix C, p.90). Hydroponics: KHCO3 (10.5 g total) and CaCO3 (5 g total) added when pH fell below 5.6 (Appendix D, p.91).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Aquaponics: carbonates (see Remineralization) used to raise pH when it reached <=6.6. Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘pH Down’ (phosphoric acid), 275 mL total over trial, used to lower pH to target 5.7 (Appendix D, p.49, p.91).) |
| Climate control | N (Lab 4 (Building 8A, BRAE dept.) had no HVAC/climate control system (p.5); air temp. and RH were monitored only, not actively regulated. 200W coiled water heaters maintained water temperature in each system, but not ambient air (p.48-49).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars, 65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K full-spectrum, 8ft length, 5 bars above Row C’s NFT columns (Table 3.2, p.50). Row C: 16/8hr (standard ‘control’ photoperiod) photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base — matched to Row H’s photoperiod/PPFD for the nutrient-solution comparison. Row-level PPFD (Table 3.3, p.51): 244 +/- 38 umol/m2-sec. Species-level PPFD for this trial’s plant type (Appendix G, p.105-107): 259.0 +/- 32.4 umol/m2-sec (see WARN-CHECK below).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Aquaponics: fish feed (Purina Aquamax Sport Fish 500, 41% protein) as primary nutrient source, supplemented with KHCO3/K2CO3/CaCO3 (K, Ca) and Fe-EDDHA (p.48, Appendix C). Hydroponics: General Hydroponics ‘FloraDuo’ A&B 2-part synthetic nutrient solution (2:1 A:B ratio), plus H3PO4, KHCO3, CaCO3 as needed (p.49, Appendix D).) |
| Equipment | 300-gallon fish tank; AST Endurance nitrifying biofilter/solids separator; Pondmaster 1200GPH pump (AP) and 950GPH pump (HYD); 4-in. PVC NFT columns (5/row, 8 ft length, 8x7in staggered plant spacing); 3-in. plastic plant cups w/ Hydroton media; 20x T8 integrated V-shaped LED light bars (65W, 100 lm/W, 6000-6500K, full-spectrum); Hach Pocket Pro pH meters; Hach HQ40D Portable Multi Meter (DO/EC/temp); Apogee MQ-501 quantum sensor (PPFD); Onset HOBO Pendant air-temp loggers; Elitech GSP-6 RH logger; FGL (Fruit Grower’s Laboratory) water/tissue analyses (p.38-55). |
| Control Parameters | Randomized factorial design; 2 sub-experiments sharing a shared control (Row C): (1) nutrient solution (AP Row C vs HYD Row H, matched 16/8hr photoperiod and PPFD); (2) LED photoperiod/intensity (Row A 12/12hr adjustable-distance LED vs Row B 2/1hr fixed LED vs Row C 16/8hr fixed LED control). 3 plant varieties (butterhead, romaine, kale) x 6 replicates/treatment, 72 total experimental units. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD (nutrient comparison) or Dunnett’s test vs. Row C control (light comparison), 95% CI; Levene’s test for equal variance; GLM with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Combination | Aquaponic (mixed fish stock) x Dwarf Siberian kale x 16/8hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above NFT column base (light-treatment control, and nutrient-solution AP arm) (Row C, PPFD 244 +/- 38 umol/m2-sec, Table 3.3 p.51) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
| Average room Temperature | 24.8 +/- 3.1 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (fresh/dry weight per plant, root dry weight); count (leaves, deformed leaves); mm (leaf length, leaf width, stem length — NO COLUMN, see remarks); dimensionless (leaf L:W ratio — NO COLUMN, see remarks) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons (95% CI) for nutrient-solution trials (Row C vs Row H); Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (95% CI) vs. Row C control for light trials (Row A, Row B); Levene’s test for equal variance; General Linear Model fitted with PPFD as covariate for light treatments; MiniTab software (p.56, Appendix M). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 6 |
| AP | 364.2 |
| HYD | 371.3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 = aquaponic, Row C, 16/8hr photoperiod, fixed LED 12in above column, dwarf Siberian kale. Dunnett control for T3/T6; Tukey-paired AP arm vs Row H (T9’s HYD columns) for nutrient-solution comparison. HYD = 21.24 +/- 5.94g dry / 371.3 +/- 123.9g fresh (Row H kale). Yield virtually identical AP vs HYD, ns (Tukey p=0.993 dry, p=0.918 fresh) — kale was the second plant type (with butterhead) showing no yield penalty from aquaponic nutrient solution. NOTABLE QUALITY EFFECTS: root dry weight 3.852 +/- 1.425g SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER than Row H’s 1.705 +/- 0.696g (Tukey p=0.008, ‘125% greater in aquaponics’ per Results 4.4.2/5.1.5). Leaf length 336.7 +/- 133.1mm (n=90) SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER than Row H’s 292.5 +/- 118.5mm (n=79) (Tukey p=0.025, ‘15.1% greater in aquaponics’). Leaf width 116.49 +/- 62.60mm vs Row H 109.29 +/- 66.82mm, ns (p=0.471). L:W ratio 3.324 +/- 1.354 vs Row H 3.352 +/- 1.747, ns (p=0.905). Stem length 66.7 +/- 28.8mm vs Row H 68.00 +/- 17.36mm, ns (p=0.925). Leaf count 25.33 +/- 11.24 vs Row H 24.50 +/- 5.79, ns (p=0.875). Deformed leaves/plant 6.50 +/- 3.00 (n=4) vs Row H 10.00 +/- 4.36 (n=3), ns (p=0.260). NO COLUMN: root dry weight, leaf length, leaf width, leaf L:W ratio, stem length, deformed-leaf count — all measured by the paper but with no dedicated trials.csv column beyond Leaf count/Plant fresh+dry weight; see per-trial figures below. ‘Plant height’ column = NR because the paper never measured an overall canopy/plant height — only per-leaf length/width and stem length, which are distinct metrics, kept out of the Plant height cell per the prime directive. WARN-CHECK PPFD aggregation level: Table 3.3 (p.51) reports one aggregate PPFD +/- SD per row (Row A 289+/-13, Row B 268+/-29, Row C 244+/-38, Row H 246+/-27 umol/m2-sec), pooling all 3 plant species’ light-test readings together. Appendix G (p.105-107) instead reports separate per-species PPFD means/SD within each row (e.g. Row A: butterhead 284.83+/-8.95, romaine 291.00+/-15.27, kale 291.50+/-15.32; Row C: butterhead 242.5+/-39.6, romaine 229.8+/-41.5, kale 259.0+/-32.4). Neither is wrong — they are the same light-test data at two different aggregation levels (row-wide vs species-specific). This trial’s Combination/Artificial LightingDetails fields use the Table 3.3 row-level PPFD as the reported value; the matching Appendix G per-species PPFD for this trial’s plant type is given as the alternate candidate. Statistical significance of the A-vs-C PPFD difference itself varies by species (significant for butterhead p=0.041 and romaine p=0.012, NOT significant for kale p=0.148, per Appendix G) — this materially affects interpretation of the kale yield result in Row A (see below), and the paper’s own Discussion (p.68) flags this. Added to REVIEW.md worklist at next vault rebuild. NO COLUMN: schema has no paired hydroponic-side water-quality columns (pH/DO/EC/temp/NO3-N are single AP-only columns). Hydroponic Table 3.1 trial means (p.50): pH 5.71+/-0.18, DO 8.65+/-0.39 mg/L, EC 1.82+/-0.17 mS/cm, water temp 23.3+/-1.5 C. Hydroponic NO3- (FGL, UNIT CONVERSION /4.43 to NO3-N): 111.5/142.9/116.9/129.6 mg/L NO3-N across the 4 sampling rounds (range ~111-143, range only, no trial mean reported; Appendix E.1.1/E.2.1/E.3.1/E.4.1, p.92/94/97/99). NO COLUMN: Row H (hydroponic) air temperature = 24.5 +/- 2.1 C (Table 4.1/Fig L.4, p.60/114) — no paired HYD column exists for ‘Average room Temperature’; AP row’s own air temp used in that column instead. WARN-MINOR day-labelling: Appendix E section headers label the 4 water-sample rounds ‘Day 1, 10, 20, 30 (Post-transplant)’ with explicit ‘Sampled On’ calendar dates (1/16, 1/24, 2/3, 2/13/18 — 2/10/20/30 days after the 1/14/18 transplant), while Figure 4.6-4.9 captions instead label the same 4 rounds ‘Day 15, 25, 35, 45’. The two labelling schemes are inconsistent with each other and neither maps cleanly onto the stated 31-day (transplant-to-harvest) or 45-day (seed-to-harvest) trial length. Values themselves are unambiguous (tied to explicit calendar dates in Appendix E), so NO3-N/EC/etc. figures are not blocked, only the paper’s own day-count labels are internally inconsistent. Does not change any recorded cell.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.52 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.54 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 7.86 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.53 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.49 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 94.6 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 30 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 66 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 11 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 75.8 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T4 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.502 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 6.14 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.62 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 9.48 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.75 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.56 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 100 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 39 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 65 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 8 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 59.6 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T7 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.808 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.53 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.87 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 9.01 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.03 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.3 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 69.5 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 32 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 71 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 7 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 29.7 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.435 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.57 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.8 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 8.73 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.2 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.33 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 72.8 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 38 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 133 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 7 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 33.7 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.583 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.73 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.74 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 9.36 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.16 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.46 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 59.5 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 200 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 116 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 8 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 40.1 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T8 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.158 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 6.56 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.63 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 7.36 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 2.69 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.37 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 89.5 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 22 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 48 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 5 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 52.8 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.716 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.95 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.67 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 6.03 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 2.37 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.37 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 106 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 31 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 62 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 5 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 44.7 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T6 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.618 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.05 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.66 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 5.62 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.71 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.32 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 93.3 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 26 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 43 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 4 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 36.7 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | AP | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.603 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Total Nitrogen | 5.98 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Phosphorus | 0.74 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Potassium | 6.1 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Calcium | 1.91 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Magnesium | 0.35 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Zinc | 67.2 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Manganese | 94 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Iron | 69 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Copper | 12 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Boron | 48.2 | ppm | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |
| fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018-T9 | HYD | mineral | Leaf tissue Sodium | 0.13 | % | NR | Appendix E.5 (p.101-103); Fig 4.8-4.9 (p.65) |