Quartz 5

Yield of lettuce grown in hydroponic and aquaponic systems using different substrates

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/experiment, meta/region/south-america, meta/fish/tilapia, meta/plant/lettuce

31 min read

Yield of lettuce grown in hydroponic and aquaponic systems using different substrates

Metadata

Opinion

A tidy, small-scale substrate-comparison trial with a genuinely paired aquaponic/hydroponic design (RCBD, 3 substrates x 16 replicates, Tukey test) — methodologically sound for what it set out to do. Its major limitation is that the fish side is almost undocumented: no FCR, no final weight, no survival, no stocking density in kg/m3, and water quality is only shown as an unlabelled two-week line chart with no numeric trial means in the text. The macronutrient panel (Table 2) is a genuine value-add (5 elements x 3 substrates x 2 systems) but has no SD or significance letters, so it reads as raw single means. Would cite for substrate/yield comparison, not for fish performance or water-quality benchmarking.

Abstract

This study had as objective to evaluate the effect of the substrate on the yield of lettuce grown in aquaponic and hydroponic systems. The study was conducted at the Federal University of Grande Dourados, located in Dourados, MS. A randomized complete block design was used, with three treatments and 16 replicates. The cultivation systems were analyzed independently. The substrates analyzed were: coconut shell fiber, phenolic foam and expanded vermiculite. The plants were grown in two systems (aquaponic and hydroponic), using the NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) system. The crop used was lettuce cv. ‘Alcione’. The parameters analyzed were: crop yield and percentage of roots per plant. In addition, macronutrient contents were analyzed in the leaves. The substrate composed of coconut shell fiber was more suitable for lettuce production, since it led to higher yields for both aquaponic (2.88 kg m-2) and hydroponic (2.58 kg m-2) systems. The use of phenolic foam as growing substrate led to lower mean crop yields in both production systems analyzed, 1.94 and 2.15 kg m-2 for aquaponic and hydroponic systems, respectively.

Summary

Researchers at UFGD (Brazil) grew curly lettuce (cv. ‘Alcione’) side by side in an aquaponic NFT system (fed by Nile tilapia wastewater plus biodigester biofertilizer) and a parallel hydroponic NFT system (commercial mineral fertilizer), each split into three substrate treatments — coconut shell fiber, phenolic foam, and expanded vermiculite — in a randomized complete block design with 16 replicates per substrate. Both systems shared the same commercial fertilizer solution until 30 days after sowing (DAS), after which the aquaponic arm switched to fish-system wastewater while the hydroponic arm continued on fresh mineral solution. They measured crop yield (kg m-2), the fresh-weight percentage of roots per plant, and leaf macronutrient content (Ca, Mg, N, P, K) at harvest, plus daily water temperature, pH, EC and dissolved oxygen from 30 DAS onward (reported only as a graph, not as numeric trial means). Coconut shell fiber gave the highest yield in both systems (2.88 kg m-2 aquaponic, 2.58 kg m-2 hydroponic) and the greatest root development, while phenolic foam gave the lowest yield and root development in both systems; expanded vermiculite was intermediate. Leaf tissue showed Ca, Mg and K deficiency relative to reference ranges in both systems and across all three substrates, while N was adequate in the aquaponic system but excessive in the hydroponic system regardless of substrate. The authors conclude coconut shell fiber is the more suitable substrate for both aquaponic and hydroponic NFT lettuce production under these conditions, and recommend future work add small synthetic-fertilizer supplements to aquaponic systems to raise yield without sacrificing the dual fish/plant income structure.

Experiment data

  • Location: UFGD, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias, Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil (22°11’45” S, 54°55’18” W; 446 m altitude)
  • Design: Randomized complete block design, 3 substrate treatments (coconut shell fiber, phenolic foam, expanded vermiculite) x 16 replicates, cultivation systems (aquaponic, hydroponic) analyzed independently
  • Replicates / n: 16 per substrate treatment per system
  • Duration: Grown 24 Feb – 4 Apr 2016 (dates as stated); transplanted at 10 days after sowing (DAS); shared fertilizer until 30 DAS, then aquaponic switched to fish wastewater; last measurement point shown is 40 DAS (Figure 2) — total/harvest day not explicitly restated as a day count
  • Organisms: Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) GIFT strain, juveniles (142 g mean initial weight) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) cv. ‘Alcione’, curly lettuce
  • Statistics: Tukey test (p < 0.05), Sisvar® software (Ferreira, 2011)
  • Crop yield: Coconut shell fiber 2.88 kg m-2 (AP) / 2.58 kg m-2 (HYD) — highest, “a” group; Expanded vermiculite 2.42 kg m-2 (AP) / 2.47 kg m-2 (HYD); Phenolic foam 1.94 kg m-2 (AP) / 2.15 kg m-2 (HYD) — lowest, “c”/“b” group (Table 1)
  • Root percentage: Coconut shell fiber 17.7% (AP) / 15.5% (HYD); Phenolic foam 13.8% (AP) / 9.3% (HYD); expanded vermiculite [not reported]

Substrate effect on yield

This paper: Coconut shell fiber produced the highest crop yield in both aquaponic (2.88 kg m-2) and hydroponic (2.58 kg m-2) systems; phenolic foam the lowest (1.94 / 2.15 kg m-2); expanded vermiculite intermediate (2.42 / 2.47 kg m-2). Aquaponic and hydroponic yields for coconut shell fiber did not differ statistically (both “a”); other substrates showed a slight aquaponic-vs-hydroponic split within their own letter groups (Table 1).

Compared with:

  • todo Jordan et al. 2018 (aquaponic substrates) — a companion study by an overlapping author group (same journal, v.22 n.1, p.27-31) comparing coconut shell fiber + crushed stone nº 3 vs. phenolic foam in an aquaponic-only system, reporting higher absolute yields (3.99 vs 2.08 kg m-2) than the present paper’s aquaponic arm. This is a different paper, not a restated result of the present one — do not conflate. (p.527, Results and Discussion)
  • todo Martins et al. 2010 — maximum hydroponic lettuce yield of 5.11 kg m-2 cited as context. [secondary] (p.527)
  • todo Peixoto Filho et al. 2013 — conventional soil-grown lettuce yields 0.58–3.6 kg m-2. [secondary] (p.527)

Leaf macronutrient content

This paper: Ca, Mg and K were below recommended reference ranges (Raij et al., 1996) in all three substrates, in both aquaponic and hydroponic systems. N was within the adequate range (30-50 g kg-1) for all three substrates in the aquaponic system, but above range in the hydroponic system for expanded vermiculite (54.08 g kg-1) and coconut shell fiber (55.83 g kg-1). P was within the adequate range (4-7 g kg-1) in the aquaponic system but below range in the hydroponic system for all three substrates. Full values in Table 2 of the paper (see out/jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018.plant.csv). No SD or significance letters accompany Table 2.

Compared with:

  • todo Almeida et al. 2011 — hydroponic lettuce Ca 3.6-12.1 g kg-1 and K 3.2-58.9 g kg-1, cited as consistent with this paper’s low Ca/K findings. [secondary] (p.528)
  • todo Kano et al. 2012 — conventional soil-grown lettuce Mg 3.1-3.6 g kg-1, cited as consistent. [secondary] (p.528)

Water quality

This paper: Water temperature, pH, EC and dissolved oxygen were measured daily in both systems from 30 DAS onward, but reported only as a two-panel line chart (Figure 2) spanning 30-40 DAS — no numeric trial means or table is given in the text. Two specific text-only anomalies are called out narratively (not as trial means): water temperature “changed from 23 °C at 35 DAS to 27.5 °C at 40 DAS,” described as occurring “especially in the hydroponic cultivation” (system attribution for temperature is explicit); and water pH “was close to 4 in the last three days of experiment” — the system this pH reading applies to is not stated in the sentence, though Figure 2’s plotted “pH - Hydroponics” line is visually the one that drops sharply near the end, consistent with (but not confirming) a hydroponic reading.

⚠️ Water panel excluded from trials.csv/plant.csv: per SCHEMA.md, water quality columns take a trial mean, and figures may not be read for precise values. Since this paper gives no numeric water-quality summary anywhere in the text, Aq pH / Water temperature / EC / Dissolved Oxygen are all recorded [not reported] in trials.csv, with the two narrative snippets above preserved in Experimental Remarks as NO COLUMN items rather than forced into a trial-mean cell.

Citations to chase

  • todo Jordan et al. 2018 (Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambiental v.22 n.1 p.27-31) — “Yield of lettuce grown in aquaponic system using different substrates,” a companion/precursor study by an overlapping author group with different substrates (coconut shell fiber + crushed stone nº 3) and higher yields (3.99 kg m-2); check vault for a separate note before assuming duplication with this paper
  • todo Geisenhoff et al. 2016 — “Effect of different substrates in aquaponic lettuce production associated with intensive tilapia farming with water recirculation systems,” cited repeatedly for the same research group/system design and for substrate degradation effects; not found in vault under this search
  • todo Almeida et al. 2011 — hydroponic lettuce macronutrient reference values (Ca, K)
  • todo Kano et al. 2012 — soil-grown lettuce Mg reference values
  • todo Martins et al. 2010 — maximum hydroponic lettuce yield benchmark (5.11 kg m-2)
  • todo Peixoto Filho et al. 2013 — conventional soil lettuce yield range (0.58-3.6 kg m-2)
  • todo Raij et al. 1996 — reference nutrient sufficiency ranges (Ca, Mg, N, P, K) used throughout the Discussion

Extraction notes

[not reported] fields (trials.csv):

  • Fish: Fish Category, FCR, SGR, N/P/K (feed composition beyond protein %), % of body weight, Fish size final, Total Feed (kg, cumulative), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days, as an explicit day count)
  • Water: Water recycle (L/min), Water volume in the system (total, no summed figure given), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate (%), Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature (trial mean — see Water quality section above), TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N (not measured — only pH/EC/DO/temp were measured)
  • Plant: Plant Category, Days Plant after transplant (paper reports DAS, not DAT — see below), Plants/m2 (would require deriving from stated spacing, not permitted), SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight (g/plant — only area yield kg/m2 given), Plant dry matter (%), Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no tissue nitrate assay performed), root percentage for expanded vermiculite specifically (only coconut shell fiber and phenolic foam root % are stated in text)
  • Site/other: Average room Temperature, Remineralization, pH Buffers, Climate control, Artificial Lighting, Air supplement

[unclear] fields: none requiring this tag — see Water quality section for the one narrative pH snippet without explicit system attribution (handled as a NO COLUMN note rather than a forced cell value).

NOT DERIVED, left NR (per “no derivation” rule):

  • Fish trial duration / plant total cultivation length: paper states dates “February 24 to April 4, 2016” and separately mentions “40 DAS” as the last monitored day in Figure 2/text, but never explicitly states a total day count or explicit harvest DAS — computing 40 days from the date range, or treating 40 DAS as the harvest day, would be derivation.
  • Days Plant after transplant: transplant explicitly stated at 10 DAS; harvest day not explicitly restated in DAT terms. Paper’s day-counting convention throughout is DAS (days after sowing), not DAT — flagged as a WARN-CHECK-adjacent definitional mismatch (schema field asks for DAT, paper reports DAS); recording NR rather than computing 40-10=30, which would be derivation.
  • Plants/m2: NFT spacing explicitly given as 20 cm between plants and 20 cm between profiles, 12 plants per 3-m profile — density is computable from this but not explicitly stated as a per-m2 figure, so left NR; raw spacing preserved below as NO COLUMN.
  • Total Feed (kg): only a daily feeding rate (500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% protein) is given; no cumulative total or explicit per-tank/per-fish rate; multiplying by duration would be derivation, and duration itself is NR (see above).
  • Initial Stock density (kg/m3): paper states “100 fish m-3” (a count-based density, not a mass-based one) and mean fish weight 142 g — combining these into kg/m3 would be derivation; schema explicitly requires the paper to state density as a mass unit.

NO COLUMN items (Experimental Remarks in trials.csv):

  • Root percentage per plant (coconut shell fiber 17.7% AP / 15.5% HYD; phenolic foam 13.8% AP / 9.3% HYD; vermiculite not reported) — does not fit any plant.csv analyte category (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate) or a dedicated trials.csv column
  • Raw NFT spacing (20 cm x 20 cm, 12 plants per 3-m profile, 3% slope) — inputs for a Plants/m2 figure a downstream user could compute
  • Narrative water-quality endpoint snippets: “water temperature … changed from 23 °C at 35 DAS to 27.5 °C at 40 DAS” (explicitly hydroponic); “water pH was close to 4 in the last three days of experiment” (system not stated in the sentence)
  • System component volumes given individually but never summed to a system total: 2 rearing tanks x 1000 L, 500-L fiberglass nutrient-solution tank, 50-L biodigesters; decanter, heating/pumping tank and biological filter volumes not stated
  • Fish feed rate as stated: 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% protein, fed twice daily
  • Substrate physical properties: coconut shell fiber apparent dry density 150 kg m-3, volume 80 cm3/plant (perforated plastic cups); phenolic foam 2x2x2 cm cells, apparent density 10-12 kg m-3, volume 8 cm3/plant (washed before use); expanded vermiculite apparent density 155 kg m-3, volume 80 cm3/plant, “thin” texture (no numeric particle size given)
  • Hydroponic fertilizer kit composition: Hidrogood Fert® — N 10%, P 9%, K 28%, Mg 3.3%, S 4.3%, B 0.06%, Cu 0.01%, Mo 0.07%, Mn 0.05%, Zn 0.02%, plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA added; used for both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic only

UNIT CONVERSION ONLY:

  • Coordinates 22°11’45” S, 54°55’18” W → decimal -22.1958, -54.9217 (South and West negative; both DMS values valid, minutes/seconds < 60)

Contradictions: none rising to WARN-BLOCK/MATERIAL/CHECK severity were found — this paper’s own reported numbers (Abstract vs. Table 1 vs. Results text) are internally consistent throughout. One WARN-MINOR-level observation, noted for completeness but with no effect on any extracted cell: the Discussion narrates hydroponic leaf N as “high” (outside the 30-50 g kg-1 reference range) only for expanded vermiculite and coconut shell fiber, while Table 2’s own phenolic-foam hydroponic value (50.58 g kg-1) is also marginally outside that range; Table 2’s numbers are recorded as printed regardless of which substrates the Discussion chooses to call out.

Judgment calls:

  • Fish Category and Plant Category recorded NR — the paper names species/cultivar (Nile tilapia GIFT strain; curly lettuce cv. ‘Alcione’) but does not apply a categorical label (e.g. “Leafy vegetables”) of the kind SCHEMA.md asks for in this field.
  • Biological system already in use = Y — Figure 1’s system schematic explicitly includes a labelled “Biological filter” (C) as one of the four core components, though no strain/species of nitrifying bacteria or filter media is given.
  • Iron supplemented = Y — Fe-EDDHA (25 g) was part of the shared commercial fertilizer kit used by both systems until 30 DAS; only the hydroponic arm continued receiving it afterward.
  • Root-percentage and macronutrient values (Table 2) have no companion SD or significance letters, unlike Table 1’s yield data (Tukey letters). Recorded as printed; Significance = NR in plant.csv for all mineral rows.

New tags introduced: none — Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/South-America, Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Lettuce all reused exactly as already spelled in existing vault notes (e.g. barbosaPerformanceNileTilapia2020, lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021 for South-America; albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018 and others for Tilapia; biroloEffectsStockingDensity2020 and others for Lettuce).

Source: Jordan et al. - 2018 - Yield of lettuce grown in hydroponic and aquaponic.pdf

Data Tables

Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's trials.csv / plant_measurements.csv datasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).

Trial Parameters

jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1

Fish

FieldValue
FishNile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), GIFT strain, juveniles
Protein45
Fish size initial142
Feed routineTwice daily
Feed regime500 g/d total extruded feed, 45% crude protein, fed to two 1000-L tilapia rearing tanks (100 fish/m3 each)

Plant

FieldValue
PlantLettuce (Lactuca sativa), curly, cv. ‘Alcione’
DetailsSubstrate: coconut shell fiber, apparent dry density 150 kg/m3, in perforated plastic cups (80 cm3/plant)

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeNFT (Nutrient Film Technique)
Media DetailsCoconut shell fiber, apparent dry density 150 kg/m3, placed in perforated plastic cups of 80 cm3 volume
Biological system already in useY (Biological filter (component C in Figure 1 system schematic) plus decanter -> 50-L biodigester -> biofertilizer process (biofertilizer mixed with wastewater at 100:6 volumetric ratio); no bacterial strain/species or filter media specified)
Iron supplementedY (Fe-EDDHA (25 g) included in commercial Hidrogood Fert kit used by both systems until 30 DAS; hydroponic arm continued receiving it after 30 DAS, aquaponic arm switched to fish wastewater without added Fe)
Nutrient supplementedY (Commercial fertilizer kit Hidrogood Fert (N10%,P9%,K28%,Mg3.3%,S4.3%,B0.06%,Cu0.01%,Mo0.07%,Mn0.05%,Zn0.02%) plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA, supplied via potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, boric acid, copper sulfate, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate; used in both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic system only)
EquipmentPortable multiparameter meter (Instruterm-Orp); 3-m NFT metal structure, 3% slope; 500-L fiberglass nutrient tank; 50-L biodigesters; decanter; biological filter; 2x 1000-L rearing tanks
Control ParametersWater temperature, pH, EC, dissolved oxygen (measured daily from 30 DAS on, in nutrient solution before entering plant grow bed)
CombinationNile tilapia and lettuce; paired aquaponic vs hydroponic NFT systems; substrate comparison (coconut shell fiber vs phenolic foam vs expanded vermiculite)

Site

FieldValue
RegionSouth America
CountryBrazil
Lat-22.1958
Long-54.9217

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg fw/m2 (crop yield, Table 1); % (root fresh matter/total fresh matter, root percentage per plant); g/kg (leaf macronutrient content, Table 2)
Statistic DetailsRandomized complete block design (RCBD), 3 substrate treatments x 16 replicates; aquaponic and hydroponic systems analyzed independently; Tukey test (p<0.05); Sisvar software (Ferreira, 2011)
Statistically analysedY
Replicates (n)16
AP2.88
HYD2.58

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = coconut shell fiber substrate. Paired control = hydroponic NFT system on the same substrate (coconut shell fiber), recorded in the HYD columns. Root percentage: 17.7% (AP) / 15.5% (HYD) (Results text, p.527-528) — highest root development of the three substrates; no dedicated column, see NO COLUMN note below. Yield (Table 1): AP 2.88 kg/m2 (Tukey group ‘a’), HYD 2.58 kg/m2 (Tukey group ‘a’) — highest yield of the three substrates in both systems. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish trial duration / total plant cultivation length (paper states dates ‘February 24 to April 4, 2016’ and separately mentions ‘40 DAS’ as the last monitored day in Figure 2/text, but never states a total day count or explicit harvest DAS — computing 40 days from the date range, or treating 40 DAS as the harvest day, would be derivation). Days Plant after transplant (transplant explicitly at 10 DAS; harvest not restated in DAT terms — paper’s day-counting convention throughout is DAS, not DAT; 40-10=30 would be derivation, not recorded). Plants/m2 (NFT spacing explicitly given as 20 cm between plants and 20 cm between profiles, 12 plants per 3-m profile — density is computable but not explicitly stated per m2, so left NR; raw spacing given below). Total Feed kg (only a daily rate of 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% protein, is given; no cumulative total; duration itself is NR so multiplying would compound two derivations). Initial Stock density kg/m3 (paper states ‘100 fish m-3’, a count-based density, plus mean fish weight 142 g — combining these into a mass-based kg/m3 figure would be derivation; schema requires the paper to state density as a mass unit). FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain — none stated. | NO COLUMN: Root percentage per plant (coconut shell fiber 17.7% AP / 15.5% HYD; phenolic foam 13.8% AP / 9.3% HYD; expanded vermiculite not reported) — fits no plant.csv analyte category (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate) and no dedicated trials.csv column. Raw NFT spacing (20 cm x 20 cm, 12 plants per 3-m profile, 3% slope) as inputs for a Plants/m2 figure a downstream user could compute. Narrative water-quality endpoint snippets: ‘water temperature … changed from 23 C at 35 DAS to 27.5 C at 40 DAS’ (explicitly the hydroponic system); ‘water pH was close to 4 in the last three days of experiment’ (system not stated in that sentence; Figure 2’s plotted hydroponic pH line is visually the one that drops, but this is not confirmed by the text). System component volumes stated individually but never summed to a system total: 2 rearing tanks x 1000 L, 500-L fiberglass nutrient-solution tank, 50-L biodigesters; decanter, heating/pumping tank and biological filter volumes not stated. Fish feed rate as stated: 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% crude protein, fed twice daily to the two rearing tanks combined. Hydroponic fertilizer kit (Hidrogood Fert): N 10%, P 9%, K 28%, Mg 3.3%, S 4.3%, B 0.06%, Cu 0.01%, Mo 0.07%, Mn 0.05%, Zn 0.02%, plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA; supplied via potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, boric acid, copper sulfate, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate; used in both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic system only. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 22 deg 11’ 45” S, 54 deg 55’ 18” W -> decimal -22.1958, -54.9217 (South and West negative; both DMS values valid, minutes/seconds < 60). | Water quality (Aq pH, Water temperature, EC, Dissolved Oxygen) recorded NR: only presented as a two-panel line chart (Figure 2, days 30-40 DAS) with no numeric trial mean or table in the text anywhere in the paper; per the ‘never read values off a figure’ rule and the water-quality trial-mean requirement, no cell value was extracted from the chart itself. TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N recorded NR (not measured — Methods states only temperature, pH, EC and DO were measured). | Fish Category and Plant Category recorded NR — paper names species/strain/cultivar (Nile tilapia GIFT strain; curly lettuce cv. ‘Alcione’) but applies no categorical label of the kind this field expects. | Biological system already in use = Y: Figure 1’s system schematic explicitly labels a ‘Biological filter’ (component C) as one of four core system components; no bacterial strain, species or filter media specified. | Iron supplemented = Y: Fe-EDDHA (25 g) was part of the shared commercial fertilizer kit (Hidrogood Fert) used by both systems until 30 DAS; only the hydroponic arm continued receiving it afterward, aquaponic arm switched to fish wastewater with no added Fe. | No BLOCK/MATERIAL/CHECK-severity contradictions found in this paper — Abstract, Table 1, and Results text agree exactly on all yield figures. One WARN-MINOR, no cell impact: the Discussion narrates hydroponic leaf N as ‘high’ (outside the 30-50 g/kg reference range) only for expanded vermiculite and coconut shell fiber, while Table 2’s own phenolic-foam hydroponic value (50.58 g/kg) is also marginally outside that range; Table 2 values recorded as printed regardless. | Table 2 macronutrient values and Table 1 root-percentage values carry no SD and no significance letters (unlike Table 1’s yield data, which has Tukey letters) — recorded as printed, plant.csv Significance = NR for all mineral rows.

jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2

Fish

FieldValue
FishNile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), GIFT strain, juveniles
Protein45
Fish size initial142
Feed routineTwice daily
Feed regime500 g/d total extruded feed, 45% crude protein, fed to two 1000-L tilapia rearing tanks (100 fish/m3 each)

Plant

FieldValue
PlantLettuce (Lactuca sativa), curly, cv. ‘Alcione’
DetailsSubstrate: phenolic foam, 2.0x2.0x2.0 cm cells, apparent density 10-12 kg/m3, previously washed, volume 8 cm3/plant

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeNFT (Nutrient Film Technique)
Media DetailsPhenolic foam, 2.0 x 2.0 x 2.0 cm cells, apparent density 10-12 kg/m3, previously washed, volume 8 cm3
Biological system already in useY (Biological filter (component C in Figure 1 system schematic) plus decanter -> 50-L biodigester -> biofertilizer process (biofertilizer mixed with wastewater at 100:6 volumetric ratio); no bacterial strain/species or filter media specified)
Iron supplementedY (Fe-EDDHA (25 g) included in commercial Hidrogood Fert kit used by both systems until 30 DAS; hydroponic arm continued receiving it after 30 DAS, aquaponic arm switched to fish wastewater without added Fe)
Nutrient supplementedY (Commercial fertilizer kit Hidrogood Fert (N10%,P9%,K28%,Mg3.3%,S4.3%,B0.06%,Cu0.01%,Mo0.07%,Mn0.05%,Zn0.02%) plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA, supplied via potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, boric acid, copper sulfate, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate; used in both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic system only)
EquipmentPortable multiparameter meter (Instruterm-Orp); 3-m NFT metal structure, 3% slope; 500-L fiberglass nutrient tank; 50-L biodigesters; decanter; biological filter; 2x 1000-L rearing tanks
Control ParametersWater temperature, pH, EC, dissolved oxygen (measured daily from 30 DAS on, in nutrient solution before entering plant grow bed)
CombinationNile tilapia and lettuce; paired aquaponic vs hydroponic NFT systems; substrate comparison (coconut shell fiber vs phenolic foam vs expanded vermiculite)

Site

FieldValue
RegionSouth America
CountryBrazil
Lat-22.1958
Long-54.9217

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg fw/m2 (crop yield, Table 1); % (root fresh matter/total fresh matter, root percentage per plant); g/kg (leaf macronutrient content, Table 2)
Statistic DetailsRandomized complete block design (RCBD), 3 substrate treatments x 16 replicates; aquaponic and hydroponic systems analyzed independently; Tukey test (p<0.05); Sisvar software (Ferreira, 2011)
Statistically analysedY
Replicates (n)16
AP1.94
HYD2.15

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = phenolic foam substrate. Paired control = hydroponic NFT system on the same substrate (phenolic foam), recorded in the HYD columns. Root percentage: 13.8% (AP) / 9.3% (HYD) (Results text, p.528) — lowest root development of the three substrates; no dedicated column, see NO COLUMN note below. Yield (Table 1): AP 1.94 kg/m2 (Tukey group ‘c’), HYD 2.15 kg/m2 (Tukey group ‘b’) — lowest yield of the three substrates in both systems, attributed by the authors to substrate degradation during cultivation reducing nutrient retention time (Discussion, p.527, citing Geisenhoff et al. 2016). NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish trial duration / total plant cultivation length (paper states dates ‘February 24 to April 4, 2016’ and separately mentions ‘40 DAS’ as the last monitored day in Figure 2/text, but never states a total day count or explicit harvest DAS — computing 40 days from the date range, or treating 40 DAS as the harvest day, would be derivation). Days Plant after transplant (transplant explicitly at 10 DAS; harvest not restated in DAT terms — paper’s day-counting convention throughout is DAS, not DAT; 40-10=30 would be derivation, not recorded). Plants/m2 (NFT spacing explicitly given as 20 cm between plants and 20 cm between profiles, 12 plants per 3-m profile — density is computable but not explicitly stated per m2, so left NR; raw spacing given below). Total Feed kg (only a daily rate of 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% protein, is given; no cumulative total; duration itself is NR so multiplying would compound two derivations). Initial Stock density kg/m3 (paper states ‘100 fish m-3’, a count-based density, plus mean fish weight 142 g — combining these into a mass-based kg/m3 figure would be derivation; schema requires the paper to state density as a mass unit). FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain — none stated. | NO COLUMN: Root percentage per plant (coconut shell fiber 17.7% AP / 15.5% HYD; phenolic foam 13.8% AP / 9.3% HYD; expanded vermiculite not reported) — fits no plant.csv analyte category (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate) and no dedicated trials.csv column. Raw NFT spacing (20 cm x 20 cm, 12 plants per 3-m profile, 3% slope) as inputs for a Plants/m2 figure a downstream user could compute. Narrative water-quality endpoint snippets: ‘water temperature … changed from 23 C at 35 DAS to 27.5 C at 40 DAS’ (explicitly the hydroponic system); ‘water pH was close to 4 in the last three days of experiment’ (system not stated in that sentence; Figure 2’s plotted hydroponic pH line is visually the one that drops, but this is not confirmed by the text). System component volumes stated individually but never summed to a system total: 2 rearing tanks x 1000 L, 500-L fiberglass nutrient-solution tank, 50-L biodigesters; decanter, heating/pumping tank and biological filter volumes not stated. Fish feed rate as stated: 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% crude protein, fed twice daily to the two rearing tanks combined. Hydroponic fertilizer kit (Hidrogood Fert): N 10%, P 9%, K 28%, Mg 3.3%, S 4.3%, B 0.06%, Cu 0.01%, Mo 0.07%, Mn 0.05%, Zn 0.02%, plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA; supplied via potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, boric acid, copper sulfate, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate; used in both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic system only. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 22 deg 11’ 45” S, 54 deg 55’ 18” W -> decimal -22.1958, -54.9217 (South and West negative; both DMS values valid, minutes/seconds < 60). | Water quality (Aq pH, Water temperature, EC, Dissolved Oxygen) recorded NR: only presented as a two-panel line chart (Figure 2, days 30-40 DAS) with no numeric trial mean or table in the text anywhere in the paper; per the ‘never read values off a figure’ rule and the water-quality trial-mean requirement, no cell value was extracted from the chart itself. TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N recorded NR (not measured — Methods states only temperature, pH, EC and DO were measured). | Fish Category and Plant Category recorded NR — paper names species/strain/cultivar (Nile tilapia GIFT strain; curly lettuce cv. ‘Alcione’) but applies no categorical label of the kind this field expects. | Biological system already in use = Y: Figure 1’s system schematic explicitly labels a ‘Biological filter’ (component C) as one of four core system components; no bacterial strain, species or filter media specified. | Iron supplemented = Y: Fe-EDDHA (25 g) was part of the shared commercial fertilizer kit (Hidrogood Fert) used by both systems until 30 DAS; only the hydroponic arm continued receiving it afterward, aquaponic arm switched to fish wastewater with no added Fe. | No BLOCK/MATERIAL/CHECK-severity contradictions found in this paper — Abstract, Table 1, and Results text agree exactly on all yield figures. One WARN-MINOR, no cell impact: the Discussion narrates hydroponic leaf N as ‘high’ (outside the 30-50 g/kg reference range) only for expanded vermiculite and coconut shell fiber, while Table 2’s own phenolic-foam hydroponic value (50.58 g/kg) is also marginally outside that range; Table 2 values recorded as printed regardless. | Table 2 macronutrient values and Table 1 root-percentage values carry no SD and no significance letters (unlike Table 1’s yield data, which has Tukey letters) — recorded as printed, plant.csv Significance = NR for all mineral rows.

jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3

Fish

FieldValue
FishNile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), GIFT strain, juveniles
Protein45
Fish size initial142
Feed routineTwice daily
Feed regime500 g/d total extruded feed, 45% crude protein, fed to two 1000-L tilapia rearing tanks (100 fish/m3 each)

Plant

FieldValue
PlantLettuce (Lactuca sativa), curly, cv. ‘Alcione’
DetailsSubstrate: expanded vermiculite, thin, apparent density 155 kg/m3, in perforated plastic cups (80 cm3/plant)

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeNFT (Nutrient Film Technique)
Media DetailsExpanded vermiculite, thin, apparent density 155 kg/m3, placed in perforated plastic cups of 80 cm3 volume
Biological system already in useY (Biological filter (component C in Figure 1 system schematic) plus decanter -> 50-L biodigester -> biofertilizer process (biofertilizer mixed with wastewater at 100:6 volumetric ratio); no bacterial strain/species or filter media specified)
Iron supplementedY (Fe-EDDHA (25 g) included in commercial Hidrogood Fert kit used by both systems until 30 DAS; hydroponic arm continued receiving it after 30 DAS, aquaponic arm switched to fish wastewater without added Fe)
Nutrient supplementedY (Commercial fertilizer kit Hidrogood Fert (N10%,P9%,K28%,Mg3.3%,S4.3%,B0.06%,Cu0.01%,Mo0.07%,Mn0.05%,Zn0.02%) plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA, supplied via potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, boric acid, copper sulfate, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate; used in both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic system only)
EquipmentPortable multiparameter meter (Instruterm-Orp); 3-m NFT metal structure, 3% slope; 500-L fiberglass nutrient tank; 50-L biodigesters; decanter; biological filter; 2x 1000-L rearing tanks
Control ParametersWater temperature, pH, EC, dissolved oxygen (measured daily from 30 DAS on, in nutrient solution before entering plant grow bed)
CombinationNile tilapia and lettuce; paired aquaponic vs hydroponic NFT systems; substrate comparison (coconut shell fiber vs phenolic foam vs expanded vermiculite)

Site

FieldValue
RegionSouth America
CountryBrazil
Lat-22.1958
Long-54.9217

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg fw/m2 (crop yield, Table 1); % (root fresh matter/total fresh matter, root percentage per plant); g/kg (leaf macronutrient content, Table 2)
Statistic DetailsRandomized complete block design (RCBD), 3 substrate treatments x 16 replicates; aquaponic and hydroponic systems analyzed independently; Tukey test (p<0.05); Sisvar software (Ferreira, 2011)
Statistically analysedY
Replicates (n)16
AP2.42
HYD2.47

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = expanded vermiculite substrate. Paired control = hydroponic NFT system on the same substrate (expanded vermiculite), recorded in the HYD columns. Root percentage: not reported for this substrate — Results text (p.527-528) gives explicit root percentage values only for coconut shell fiber and phenolic foam, not vermiculite; left [not reported] rather than inferring an intermediate value. Yield (Table 1): AP 2.42 kg/m2 (Tukey group ‘b’), HYD 2.47 kg/m2 (Tukey group ‘ab’) — intermediate yield of the three substrates in both systems. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish trial duration / total plant cultivation length (paper states dates ‘February 24 to April 4, 2016’ and separately mentions ‘40 DAS’ as the last monitored day in Figure 2/text, but never states a total day count or explicit harvest DAS — computing 40 days from the date range, or treating 40 DAS as the harvest day, would be derivation). Days Plant after transplant (transplant explicitly at 10 DAS; harvest not restated in DAT terms — paper’s day-counting convention throughout is DAS, not DAT; 40-10=30 would be derivation, not recorded). Plants/m2 (NFT spacing explicitly given as 20 cm between plants and 20 cm between profiles, 12 plants per 3-m profile — density is computable but not explicitly stated per m2, so left NR; raw spacing given below). Total Feed kg (only a daily rate of 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% protein, is given; no cumulative total; duration itself is NR so multiplying would compound two derivations). Initial Stock density kg/m3 (paper states ‘100 fish m-3’, a count-based density, plus mean fish weight 142 g — combining these into a mass-based kg/m3 figure would be derivation; schema requires the paper to state density as a mass unit). FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain — none stated. | NO COLUMN: Root percentage per plant (coconut shell fiber 17.7% AP / 15.5% HYD; phenolic foam 13.8% AP / 9.3% HYD; expanded vermiculite not reported) — fits no plant.csv analyte category (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate) and no dedicated trials.csv column. Raw NFT spacing (20 cm x 20 cm, 12 plants per 3-m profile, 3% slope) as inputs for a Plants/m2 figure a downstream user could compute. Narrative water-quality endpoint snippets: ‘water temperature … changed from 23 C at 35 DAS to 27.5 C at 40 DAS’ (explicitly the hydroponic system); ‘water pH was close to 4 in the last three days of experiment’ (system not stated in that sentence; Figure 2’s plotted hydroponic pH line is visually the one that drops, but this is not confirmed by the text). System component volumes stated individually but never summed to a system total: 2 rearing tanks x 1000 L, 500-L fiberglass nutrient-solution tank, 50-L biodigesters; decanter, heating/pumping tank and biological filter volumes not stated. Fish feed rate as stated: 500 g d-1 total extruded feed, 45% crude protein, fed twice daily to the two rearing tanks combined. Hydroponic fertilizer kit (Hidrogood Fert): N 10%, P 9%, K 28%, Mg 3.3%, S 4.3%, B 0.06%, Cu 0.01%, Mo 0.07%, Mn 0.05%, Zn 0.02%, plus 25 g Fe-EDDHA; supplied via potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, boric acid, copper sulfate, sodium molybdate, zinc sulfate; used in both systems until 30 DAS, then hydroponic system only. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 22 deg 11’ 45” S, 54 deg 55’ 18” W -> decimal -22.1958, -54.9217 (South and West negative; both DMS values valid, minutes/seconds < 60). | Water quality (Aq pH, Water temperature, EC, Dissolved Oxygen) recorded NR: only presented as a two-panel line chart (Figure 2, days 30-40 DAS) with no numeric trial mean or table in the text anywhere in the paper; per the ‘never read values off a figure’ rule and the water-quality trial-mean requirement, no cell value was extracted from the chart itself. TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N recorded NR (not measured — Methods states only temperature, pH, EC and DO were measured). | Fish Category and Plant Category recorded NR — paper names species/strain/cultivar (Nile tilapia GIFT strain; curly lettuce cv. ‘Alcione’) but applies no categorical label of the kind this field expects. | Biological system already in use = Y: Figure 1’s system schematic explicitly labels a ‘Biological filter’ (component C) as one of four core system components; no bacterial strain, species or filter media specified. | Iron supplemented = Y: Fe-EDDHA (25 g) was part of the shared commercial fertilizer kit (Hidrogood Fert) used by both systems until 30 DAS; only the hydroponic arm continued receiving it afterward, aquaponic arm switched to fish wastewater with no added Fe. | No BLOCK/MATERIAL/CHECK-severity contradictions found in this paper — Abstract, Table 1, and Results text agree exactly on all yield figures. One WARN-MINOR, no cell impact: the Discussion narrates hydroponic leaf N as ‘high’ (outside the 30-50 g/kg reference range) only for expanded vermiculite and coconut shell fiber, while Table 2’s own phenolic-foam hydroponic value (50.58 g/kg) is also marginally outside that range; Table 2 values recorded as printed regardless. | Table 2 macronutrient values and Table 1 root-percentage values carry no SD and no significance letters (unlike Table 1’s yield data, which has Tukey letters) — recorded as printed, plant.csv Significance = NR for all mineral rows.

Plant Measurements

TrialSystemCategoryAnalyteValueUnitSig.Location
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1APmineralCa8.40g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1HYDmineralCa4.81g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1APmineralMg3.64g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1HYDmineralMg3.67g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1APmineralN44.80g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1HYDmineralN55.83g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1APmineralP5.99g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1HYDmineralP3.35g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1APmineralK20.63g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T1HYDmineralK16.75g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2APmineralCa9.90g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2HYDmineralCa8.27g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2APmineralMg3.45g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2HYDmineralMg3.97g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2APmineralN46.20g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2HYDmineralN50.58g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2APmineralP6.56g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2HYDmineralP2.89g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2APmineralK20.63g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T2HYDmineralK26.57g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3APmineralCa8.78g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3HYDmineralCa5.98g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3APmineralMg3.11g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3HYDmineralMg3.42g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3APmineralN46.55g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3HYDmineralN54.08g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3APmineralP7.35g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3HYDmineralP2.82g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3APmineralK18.38g/kgNRTable 2
jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018-T3HYDmineralK22.75g/kgNRTable 2

Graph View

Backlinks