Aquaponics using saline groundwater: Effect of adding microelements to fish wastewater on the growth of Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla)
Metadata
- Cite key: kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: E. Kaburagi, M. Yamada, T. Baba, H. Fujiyama, B. Murillo-Amador, S. Yamada
- Affiliation: Faculty of Agriculture, Tottori University, Japan (corresponding author E. Kaburagi); The National University Corporation Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Japan; Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, La Paz, BCS, Mexico
- Journal: Agricultural Water Management 227 (2020) 105851
- Date: 01/2020
- Date added: 2021-02-04
- DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105851
- Funding: Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) / Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS) program; also supported by the project “maximum use and efficiency model of saline water coupled to a one-way aquaponics-agriculture system” (CONACYT-PN-2017-I, grant number 4631, project supported by FOINS)
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105851
- PDF:
Kaburagi et al. - 2020 - Aquaponics using saline groundwater Effect of add.pdf
Opinion
A tightly designed, well-replicated (n=4) five-arm dose-response experiment with a sound rationale (dryland saline groundwater reuse via a non-circulating aquaculture-hydroponics-field pipeline) and a genuinely useful practical finding (50% microelement dosing is enough). The major weakness for a data-extraction perspective is that almost every core result (leaf FW per harvest, total yield, SPAD, and all four leaf micronutrient time series) is reported only as bar charts with letter-based significance groups — the running text gives relative comparisons (“70% of control”, “less than 50%”) rather than point values, so very little of the actual outcome data could be captured into structured columns without reading it off a figure, which the extraction rules here forbid. Worth citing for the water-chemistry design (Table 1/2) and the Mn/Zn deficiency-threshold discussion more than for portable numeric results.
Abstract
Saline soil and saline groundwater reduce agricultural productivity on drylands. We are developing a new aquaponics system to improve food productivity on such lands while effectively utilizing saline groundwater. In this study, cultivation of Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla cv. Seiyou Shirokuki) was carried out using fish wastewater with a high salt concentration (1150 mg L−1 NaCl). The levels of microelements (e.g., Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) in the fish wastewater were very low, so we added microelements at 100% (W100), 50% (W50), 25% (W25), and 0% (W0) of the levels in the standard hydroponics solution to the fish wastewater and investigated the effects on growth of Swiss chard. At the first harvest, yields in all wastewater treatments were as high or higher than in the control. At the second harvest, yields in W100, W50, and W25 were not significantly different from the control, while in W0 the yield was significantly lower and chlorosis was evident. At the third harvest, the yield in all wastewater treatments was less than in the control, and chlorosis symptoms were observed in W25 and W0. Since leaf Mn and Zn concentrations in W25 and W0 had decreased to below the critical values for those microelements, Mn and Zn deficiency might have contributed to the observed chlorosis and yield loss. For the cultivation of Swiss chard with fish wastewater, sufficient yield (i.e., comparable to or better than the control) without chlorosis was obtained when microelements were added at 50% of the level of the control solution. In addition, since sufficient yield was obtained even in W0 at the first harvest, it is suggested that longer-term cultivation and higher yield could be achieved by applying 50% microelements after the first harvest.
Summary
Researchers grew tilapia in a closed-recirculating tank using groundwater adjusted to a high salt level (1150 mg/L NaCl, chosen to mimic saline dryland groundwater in Baja California Sur, Mexico), then used the resulting fish wastewater — which was rich in nitrate but very poor in Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu compared to a standard hydroponic recipe — to grow Swiss chard hydroponically. Four wastewater treatments supplemented the missing microelements back in at 100%, 50%, 25%, or 0% of the standard recipe’s level, against a groundwater + standard-nutrient-solution control, with four replicate 30-L containers per treatment (6 plants each) harvested three times over 48 days. Yield was equal to or better than the control at the first harvest in every wastewater treatment, but declined progressively at later harvests as microelement supplementation dropped, with the unsupplemented treatment (W0) becoming significantly worse than the control by the second harvest and all wastewater treatments falling below the control by the third. Leaf manganese and zinc (but not iron or copper) tracked the supplementation gradient and fell to literature deficiency thresholds in the lowest-supplementation treatments by the point chlorosis appeared, while leaf nitrate stayed under the UK’s regulatory limit for spinach throughout. The authors conclude 50% microelement supplementation is sufficient for at least two harvests, and that fish wastewater alone supplies enough phosphorus for short-term (two-harvest) cultivation despite starting at half the standard solution’s P level.
Experiment data
- Location: Greenhouse, Tottori University, Japan (fish reared in a 1500-L closed recirculating tank using groundwater adjusted to 1150 mg L⁻¹ NaCl to mimic Los Planes, Baja California Sur, Mexico groundwater); March–May 2016
- Design: 5 treatments — Control (groundwater + standard hydroponic nutrient solution), W100/W50/W25/W0 (fish wastewater + 100%/50%/25%/0% of the control’s microelement level) — one-way ANOVA per harvest with Bonferroni multiple-comparison test
- Replicates / n: 4 containers (experimental units) per treatment; 6 plants/container, leaves from 6 plants weighed per harvest
- Duration: 48 days total plant cultivation (harvests at 27, 37, and 48 days after transplanting)
- Organisms: Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris) cv. Seiyou Shirokuki
- Statistics: One-way ANOVA (P<0.05), Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison test, GraphPad Prism 7.0b; mean ± SE
- Microelement supplementation: Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu added to fish wastewater at 100%/50%/25%/0% of the control solution’s level (Table 2) — the sole experimental variable
- Leaf fresh weight: significantly higher than control in all wastewater treatments at 1st harvest; W100/W50/W25 not significantly different from control at 2nd harvest, W0 significantly lower; all wastewater treatments <50% of control at 3rd harvest (Fig. 1a — no point values in text, figure only)
- Total yield: W100/W50/W25 not significantly different from control across all 3 harvests combined; W0 significantly lower at 70% of control (Fig. 1b — relative % only, no absolute value stated in text)
Microelement gradient and leaf micronutrient status
This paper: The fish wastewater used contained roughly 1/2 the P, 1/5 the Zn, 1/20–1/25 the Mn, and ~1/90–1/100 the Fe of the standard nutrient solution (Table 1, p.2). Leaf Mn and Zn (but not Fe or Cu) declined with the supplementation gradient across all three harvests (Fig. 3, p.4, described only graphically). Leaf Mn in W0 fell to ~40 mg kg⁻¹ DW by the first harvest and to 1 mg kg⁻¹ DW by the second harvest, coinciding with chlorosis onset (p.5); by the third harvest, W0 and W25 leaf Mn was “10 mg kg⁻¹ or less” and leaf Zn was “less than 15 mg kg⁻¹” — both at or below literature-cited deficiency thresholds (Mengel and Kirkby, 2001; Barker and Pilbeam, 2015).
Compared with:
- #todo Roosta and Hamidpour 2011 — foliar macro-/micronutrient application effects on tomato in aquaponic vs. hydroponic systems (p.2, cited as evidence fish wastewater commonly lacks microelements)
- #todo Graber and Junge 2009 — aquaponic nutrient recycling from fish wastewater, general microelement shortfall (p.2)
- #todo Mengel and Kirkby 2001 — Mn deficiency threshold (10–20 mg kg⁻¹ DW) and P sufficiency/deficiency ranges (2000–4000 / 1000–2000 mg kg⁻¹ DW) used as this paper’s benchmark, not measured by these authors (p.5) [secondary, cites Mengel and Kirkby 2001]
- #todo Farley and Draycott 1973 — Mn deficiency symptoms in sugar beet (same family, Amaranthaceae, as Swiss chard) (p.5) [secondary, cites Farley and Draycott 1973]
Phosphorus and nitrate food-safety
This paper: Leaf P in all wastewater treatments was significantly lower than control at every harvest and reached deficiency level (per literature threshold) by the third harvest; the authors state fish wastewater alone was adequate for at least two harvests without added P (p.5). Leaf NO3 (FW basis) stayed below the UK’s 3500 mg kg⁻¹ FW regulatory limit for spinach (same family as Swiss chard) throughout, though it rose sharply and approached that limit by the third harvest (Fig. 4, p.4-6 — no exact point values given in text, described only relative to the limit).
Compared with:
- #todo Red Tractor Farm Assurance 2016 — UK regulated NO3 limit for spinach (3500 mg kg⁻¹ FW), used here only as a comparison benchmark, not this paper’s own measured limit (p.6) [secondary, cites Red Tractor Farm Assurance 2016]
Citations to chase
- #todo Roosta and Hamidpour (2011) — foliar macro-/micronutrient application on tomato, aquaponic vs. hydroponic
- #todo Graber and Junge (2009) — aquaponic nutrient recycling from fish wastewater
- #todo Mengel and Kirkby (2001) — Principles of Plant Nutrition, Mn/P deficiency thresholds
- #todo Farley and Draycott (1973) — Mn deficiency of sugar beet in organic soil
- #todo Red Tractor Farm Assurance (2016) — Crop Module: Spinach, NO3 regulatory limit
Extraction notes
Type judgement: experiment — five labelled, replicated (n=4) treatments with a stated statistical test (one-way ANOVA + Bonferroni) on original data the authors collected themselves. Not a review or modelling paper despite extensive comparison to literature deficiency thresholds in the Discussion.
⚠️MATERIAL — Control solution nitrogen/NO3-N concentration. Table 2 (p.2, “Mineral concentrations in the treatment solutions at the start of cultivation”) states Control NO3-N = 44.1 mg L⁻¹. Running text, Section 2.2 (p.3): “The nitrogen concentration in the control solution was 56 mg L⁻¹, which was 1/5 of the wastewater.” These are two different figures for what appears to be the same quantity, with no reconciling statement (e.g. pre- vs post-weekly-renewal, or a different N basis). Table 1’s separate “standard nutrient solution” reference value (42.0 mg L⁻¹, p.2, citing Kaburagi et al. 2014) is a nominal-recipe figure for a different purpose (general comparison table, not this batch’s measured solution) and is not treated as part of this conflict. Recorded: Table 2’s 44.1 mg L⁻¹ is preferred (precise, explicitly time-anchored “at start of cultivation”, used consistently for every other treatment in this row) — the schema has no separate Control/HYD water-NO3-N column, so this value and the flag live only in Experimental Remarks, not a cell. The 56 mg L⁻¹ figure is recorded as the alternate candidate in remarks. Affects: no other extracted cell (Control’s water chemistry is not otherwise used quantitatively in this schema).
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish production: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed Protein/N/P/K, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed regime (brand/composition), Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration in days (aquaculture ran “March to May 2016” but no day-count stated, and is a separate cycle from the 48-day plant trial), Water recycle (L/min; system only described as “closed recirculating”).
- Water chemistry (beyond NO3-N): Aq pH trial mean (only a pH-5.5 setpoint at transplanting is stated, never a measured trial-duration mean), EC (never measured for the experimental solutions — the 3–5 dS m⁻¹ figure in the Introduction describes Los Planes, Baja California Sur, Mexico groundwater as background/motivating context only, not this paper’s own treatment solutions), Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N.
- Plant growth/analyte point values: SPAD, leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/NO3/P absolute concentrations, leaf FW per harvest, total yield, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, AP/HYD yield columns, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter, Plants/m². All of these are reported only as bars with letter-significance groupings in Figs. 1–5, with no table or in-text point values (running text gives only relative comparisons: “70% of the control value”, “less than 50%”, “1/2 and 1/3 of the control levels”) — never read off a figure per the extraction rules. A handful of approximate/exact leaf-Mn values are given in running Discussion text and were captured in
plant.csvinstead (see below). - Location: Lat/Long (author affiliation is Tottori University, Japan; no coordinates stated anywhere in the paper — not filled from outside knowledge), Average room Temperature, Fish Category, Water classification (beyond “saline”), Plant Category (Swiss chard’s Amaranthaceae family is mentioned but that is taxonomic family, not a stated category like “leafy vegetable”).
[unclear] fields: none — every absent field above is a genuine paper silence, not an ambiguous one.
NO COLUMN items: Tables 1 and 2 (p.2) report a full water mineral panel — P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu (mg L⁻¹) for the standard nutrient solution, generic fish wastewater, and each of the five treatment solutions “at the start of cultivation” — for which trials.csv has no dedicated columns beyond NO3-N. This is flagged as a water panel excluded from plant.csv (it is water chemistry, not plant tissue, per SCHEMA.md) and reported in full in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks rather than silently discarded, per the task instruction to say so rather than force it into the wrong file. It is also not a full trial-duration mean — only a single start-of-cultivation timepoint, since the wastewater-treatment solutions were never renewed and no further main-text measurement is reported (a supplementary Table 1S is referenced once, for third-harvest P only, but was not accessible for extraction).
New tags introduced: Meta/Region/East-Asia (new leaf — existing region leaves in the vault are Africa, Europe, North-America/NorthAmerica, South-America, Central-America, South-Asia, Southeast-Asia, Middle-East, China, Oceania, Global; none covers Japan. Chose sub-continental “East-Asia” to match the granularity of the existing South-Asia/Southeast-Asia leaves rather than a country-level leaf like the vault’s existing Meta/Region/China exception — a judgment call, flagged here for consistency review). Meta/Plant/Swiss-Chard (new leaf — Swiss chard appears only as an unstructured list item, not a dedicated tag, in the existing chenComparativeLifeCycle2020.md; no prior Meta/Plant/Swiss-Chard tag exists in the vault). Meta/Fish/Tilapia and Meta/Type/Experiment reused exactly as already spelled elsewhere in the vault (e.g. albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018, blanchardEffectPHCucumber2020).
Trial structure: 4 aquaponic (fish-wastewater) treatments — W100, W50, W25, W0 — each a separate trial row against the single shared Control. See TRIAL DEFINITION: in each row’s Experimental Remarks.
Quality score: ok (0 ⚠️BLOCK, 1 ⚠️MATERIAL, 0 ⚠️CHECK).
Source: Kaburagi et al. - 2020 - Aquaponics using saline groundwater Effect of add.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
kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (p.2, section 2.1) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 1500 (fish tank only; plant-side is separate 30 L/container, 6 plants/container, not part of a shared recirculating water body — see remarks) |
| Water type | Fish wastewater from tilapia closed-recirculating system; source water = groundwater adjusted to 1150 mg L-1 NaCl (p.2) |
| Water classification | Saline (NaCl-adjusted to 1150 mg L-1; paper’s own terms ‘high salt concentration’ / ‘saline groundwater’, p.1-2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 0 |
| NO3-N | 238.0 (Table 2, at start of cultivation only — not a trial-duration mean; see NO COLUMN remark) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla cv. Seiyou Shirokuki) |
| Details | Seeds sown in vermiculite; transplanted hydroponically at first-true-leaf stage into 30-L containers (6 plants/container); repeated harvest of ~20 cm (market-transaction size) leaves at 1st (27 DAT), 2nd (+10 d = 37 DAT), 3rd (+11 d = 48 DAT), younger leaves left for regrowth between harvests (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 48 (3rd/final harvest, cumulative total yield); also harvested at 27 (1st) and 37 (2nd) DAT — see remarks |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Static hydroponic solution culture, 30-L plastic containers, 6 plants/container (p.2) |
| Media Details | Vermiculite for germination only; no separate growing media at the hydroponic (post-transplant) stage (p.2) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Fe 1.62 mg/L (Table 2), 100% of control’s 1.78 mg/L) |
| Climate control | Y (Greenhouse at Tottori University, Japan, Mar-May 2016; no temperature/humidity setpoints or equipment specified (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu added to fish wastewater at 100% of control solution levels (Table 2): Fe 1.62, Mn 0.46, Zn 0.12, Cu 0.04 mg/L (vs. control Fe 1.78, Mn 0.44, Zn 0.12, Cu 0.01 mg/L)) |
| Equipment | SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); ICP-AES (Spectro Ciros CCD, Spectro) for Na/K/Ca/Mg/Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu; spectrophotometer V-630BIO (JASCO) with molybdenum blue method for P; Cataldo method for NO3 (p.3) |
| Control Parameters | pH adjusted to 5.5 at transplanting for wastewater treatments (not re-adjusted thereafter); control solution renewed weekly with pH re-adjusted to 5.5 each renewal; wastewater collected from tilapia RAS once NO3-N reached ~250 mg/L (p.2-3) |
| Combination | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) wastewater aquaponics vs. groundwater + standard-nutrient-solution hydroponic control; single-batch (non-renewed) fish wastewater with graded microelement supplementation (100/50/25/0% of control level) — Swiss chard cv. Seiyou Shirokuki |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East-Asia |
| Country | Japan |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (leaf FW, total yield — figure only, not extracted); SPAD units (chlorophyll, figure only); mg kg-1 DW (leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu, P); mg kg-1 FW (leaf NO3) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (P<0.05), Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison test if significant; GraphPad Prism 7.0b; mean +/- SE (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T1 = W100 (fish wastewater from tilapia RAS, microelements added at 100% of the control solution’s level (Table 2)). Paired control = Control treatment (groundwater + standard hydroponics nutrient solution, Kaburagi et al. 2014), recorded qualitatively wherever this schema has no dedicated HYD-water-chemistry cell (see MATERIAL flag below). Four labelled wastewater treatments (W100/W50/W25/W0) in this paper, each a separate trial (T1-T4), all against the one shared Control. | WARN-MATERIAL Control solution NO3-N/N: Table 2 (p.2, ‘Mineral concentrations in the treatment solutions at the start of cultivation’) states Control NO3-N = 44.1 mg/L. Running text Section 2.2 (p.3) states: ‘The nitrogen concentration in the control solution was 56 mg L-1, which was 1/5 of the wastewater.’ Two figures for the same quantity, unreconciled — no stated reason (e.g. pre- vs post-renewal). Table 1’s separate ‘standard nutrient solution’ reference value (42.0 mg/L, p.2, citing Kaburagi et al. 2014) is a distinct nominal-recipe figure for a different purpose and is not part of this conflict. Reconcilable: partially — Table 2’s 44.1 mg/L is preferred (precise, treatment-labelled, explicitly time-anchored ‘at start of cultivation’, used consistently for every other treatment in this schema). Recorded: 44.1 (this row’s NO3-N column reflects this trial’s own wastewater value, not Control’s; Control’s 44.1 vs 56 mg/L has no dedicated cell in this schema — only one NO3-N column exists, used for the AP/wastewater side of each row — so both Control candidate values are recorded here in remarks only). Downstream effects: none — Control’s water chemistry is not otherwise used quantitatively elsewhere in this row. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required this row (all values already in mg/L, days, mg/kg as reported). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (1500 L tank, fish count/biomass never stated); SGR; FCR; feed N/P/K; fish size initial/final; fish trial duration in days (aquaculture ran ‘March to May 2016’, no day-count given, and is a separate cycle from the 48-day plant trial); fish biomass created; fish survival rate; fish weight gain; Water recycle rate (system called ‘closed recirculating’, no L/min given); Aq pH trial mean (only the pH-5.5 setpoint at transplanting is stated, never a measured trial-duration mean); EC (never measured for the experimental solutions — the 3-5 dS/m figure in the Introduction describes Los Planes, Baja California Sur, Mexico groundwater as background/motivating context, not this paper’s own treatment solutions); Water temperature; TAN/NH4-N; NO2-N; Plants/m2 (container floor area never given); SPAD, leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/NO3/P absolute values, leaf FW per harvest, and total yield (reported only as bars in Figs. 1-5 with letter significance groupings, no table or in-text point values for this treatment — never read off a figure per SCHEMA.md; a few approximate/exact leaf-Mn values ARE given in running text and were captured in plant.csv instead, see there); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD; AP/HYD yield columns; Plant height; Leaf count; Plant dry matter; Lat/Long (Tottori University, Japan affiliation stated, but no coordinates given anywhere in the paper — not filled from outside knowledge per the prime directive); Average room Temperature. | NO COLUMN: Table 1 and Table 2 (p.2) report a full water mineral panel with no dedicated trials.csv columns beyond NO3-N — P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu (all mg/L, ‘at the start of cultivation’ only, not a trial-duration mean; solutions were not renewed thereafter for wastewater treatments so true values likely drifted over the 48-day trial and were not re-measured/reported in the main text; a supplementary Table 1S is referenced once for third-harvest P but was not accessible for extraction). This is a substantively valuable panel excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (it is water chemistry, not plant tissue) and reported here in full rather than discarded — flagged in the batch report as a water panel worth the user’s attention. | Fish Category, Water classification (beyond ‘saline’), Plant Category: paper does not assign a category term beyond species/common names; Swiss chard’s Amaranthaceae family is mentioned (p.2 Introduction, p.5 Discussion) but that is taxonomic family, not a stated ‘category’ comparable to e.g. ‘Leafy vegetables’ in other papers, so left NR rather than substituted. | Harvest schedule: three sequential harvests of the SAME plants (regrowth) — 27 DAT (1st), +10 d = 37 DAT (2nd), +11 d = 48 DAT (3rd); ‘Days Plant after transplant’ records the final/cumulative-yield harvest (48) since Fig. 1b’s ‘total yield across all three harvests’ is the paper’s own summary metric; per-harvest FW values exist only in Fig. 1a (not extracted, figure-only).
kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (p.2, section 2.1) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 1500 (fish tank only; plant-side is separate 30 L/container, 6 plants/container, not part of a shared recirculating water body — see remarks) |
| Water type | Fish wastewater from tilapia closed-recirculating system; source water = groundwater adjusted to 1150 mg L-1 NaCl (p.2) |
| Water classification | Saline (NaCl-adjusted to 1150 mg L-1; paper’s own terms ‘high salt concentration’ / ‘saline groundwater’, p.1-2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 0 |
| NO3-N | 260.6 (Table 2, at start of cultivation only — not a trial-duration mean; see NO COLUMN remark) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla cv. Seiyou Shirokuki) |
| Details | Seeds sown in vermiculite; transplanted hydroponically at first-true-leaf stage into 30-L containers (6 plants/container); repeated harvest of ~20 cm (market-transaction size) leaves at 1st (27 DAT), 2nd (+10 d = 37 DAT), 3rd (+11 d = 48 DAT), younger leaves left for regrowth between harvests (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 48 (3rd/final harvest, cumulative total yield); also harvested at 27 (1st) and 37 (2nd) DAT — see remarks |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Static hydroponic solution culture, 30-L plastic containers, 6 plants/container (p.2) |
| Media Details | Vermiculite for germination only; no separate growing media at the hydroponic (post-transplant) stage (p.2) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Fe 0.86 mg/L (Table 2), 50% of control’s 1.78 mg/L) |
| Climate control | Y (Greenhouse at Tottori University, Japan, Mar-May 2016; no temperature/humidity setpoints or equipment specified (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu added to fish wastewater at 50% of control solution levels (Table 2): Fe 0.86, Mn 0.25, Zn 0.07, Cu 0.05 mg/L (vs. control Fe 1.78, Mn 0.44, Zn 0.12, Cu 0.01 mg/L)) |
| Equipment | SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); ICP-AES (Spectro Ciros CCD, Spectro) for Na/K/Ca/Mg/Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu; spectrophotometer V-630BIO (JASCO) with molybdenum blue method for P; Cataldo method for NO3 (p.3) |
| Control Parameters | pH adjusted to 5.5 at transplanting for wastewater treatments (not re-adjusted thereafter); control solution renewed weekly with pH re-adjusted to 5.5 each renewal; wastewater collected from tilapia RAS once NO3-N reached ~250 mg/L (p.2-3) |
| Combination | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) wastewater aquaponics vs. groundwater + standard-nutrient-solution hydroponic control; single-batch (non-renewed) fish wastewater with graded microelement supplementation (100/50/25/0% of control level) — Swiss chard cv. Seiyou Shirokuki |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East-Asia |
| Country | Japan |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (leaf FW, total yield — figure only, not extracted); SPAD units (chlorophyll, figure only); mg kg-1 DW (leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu, P); mg kg-1 FW (leaf NO3) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (P<0.05), Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison test if significant; GraphPad Prism 7.0b; mean +/- SE (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T2 = W50 (fish wastewater from tilapia RAS, microelements added at 50% of the control solution’s level (Table 2)). Paired control = Control treatment (groundwater + standard hydroponics nutrient solution, Kaburagi et al. 2014), recorded qualitatively wherever this schema has no dedicated HYD-water-chemistry cell (see MATERIAL flag below). Four labelled wastewater treatments (W100/W50/W25/W0) in this paper, each a separate trial (T1-T4), all against the one shared Control. | WARN-MATERIAL Control solution NO3-N/N: Table 2 (p.2, ‘Mineral concentrations in the treatment solutions at the start of cultivation’) states Control NO3-N = 44.1 mg/L. Running text Section 2.2 (p.3) states: ‘The nitrogen concentration in the control solution was 56 mg L-1, which was 1/5 of the wastewater.’ Two figures for the same quantity, unreconciled — no stated reason (e.g. pre- vs post-renewal). Table 1’s separate ‘standard nutrient solution’ reference value (42.0 mg/L, p.2, citing Kaburagi et al. 2014) is a distinct nominal-recipe figure for a different purpose and is not part of this conflict. Reconcilable: partially — Table 2’s 44.1 mg/L is preferred (precise, treatment-labelled, explicitly time-anchored ‘at start of cultivation’, used consistently for every other treatment in this schema). Recorded: 44.1 (this row’s NO3-N column reflects this trial’s own wastewater value, not Control’s; Control’s 44.1 vs 56 mg/L has no dedicated cell in this schema — only one NO3-N column exists, used for the AP/wastewater side of each row — so both Control candidate values are recorded here in remarks only). Downstream effects: none — Control’s water chemistry is not otherwise used quantitatively elsewhere in this row. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required this row (all values already in mg/L, days, mg/kg as reported). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (1500 L tank, fish count/biomass never stated); SGR; FCR; feed N/P/K; fish size initial/final; fish trial duration in days (aquaculture ran ‘March to May 2016’, no day-count given, and is a separate cycle from the 48-day plant trial); fish biomass created; fish survival rate; fish weight gain; Water recycle rate (system called ‘closed recirculating’, no L/min given); Aq pH trial mean (only the pH-5.5 setpoint at transplanting is stated, never a measured trial-duration mean); EC (never measured for the experimental solutions — the 3-5 dS/m figure in the Introduction describes Los Planes, Baja California Sur, Mexico groundwater as background/motivating context, not this paper’s own treatment solutions); Water temperature; TAN/NH4-N; NO2-N; Plants/m2 (container floor area never given); SPAD, leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/NO3/P absolute values, leaf FW per harvest, and total yield (reported only as bars in Figs. 1-5 with letter significance groupings, no table or in-text point values for this treatment — never read off a figure per SCHEMA.md; a few approximate/exact leaf-Mn values ARE given in running text and were captured in plant.csv instead, see there); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD; AP/HYD yield columns; Plant height; Leaf count; Plant dry matter; Lat/Long (Tottori University, Japan affiliation stated, but no coordinates given anywhere in the paper — not filled from outside knowledge per the prime directive); Average room Temperature. | NO COLUMN: Table 1 and Table 2 (p.2) report a full water mineral panel with no dedicated trials.csv columns beyond NO3-N — P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu (all mg/L, ‘at the start of cultivation’ only, not a trial-duration mean; solutions were not renewed thereafter for wastewater treatments so true values likely drifted over the 48-day trial and were not re-measured/reported in the main text; a supplementary Table 1S is referenced once for third-harvest P but was not accessible for extraction). This is a substantively valuable panel excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (it is water chemistry, not plant tissue) and reported here in full rather than discarded — flagged in the batch report as a water panel worth the user’s attention. | Fish Category, Water classification (beyond ‘saline’), Plant Category: paper does not assign a category term beyond species/common names; Swiss chard’s Amaranthaceae family is mentioned (p.2 Introduction, p.5 Discussion) but that is taxonomic family, not a stated ‘category’ comparable to e.g. ‘Leafy vegetables’ in other papers, so left NR rather than substituted. | Harvest schedule: three sequential harvests of the SAME plants (regrowth) — 27 DAT (1st), +10 d = 37 DAT (2nd), +11 d = 48 DAT (3rd); ‘Days Plant after transplant’ records the final/cumulative-yield harvest (48) since Fig. 1b’s ‘total yield across all three harvests’ is the paper’s own summary metric; per-harvest FW values exist only in Fig. 1a (not extracted, figure-only).
kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (p.2, section 2.1) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 1500 (fish tank only; plant-side is separate 30 L/container, 6 plants/container, not part of a shared recirculating water body — see remarks) |
| Water type | Fish wastewater from tilapia closed-recirculating system; source water = groundwater adjusted to 1150 mg L-1 NaCl (p.2) |
| Water classification | Saline (NaCl-adjusted to 1150 mg L-1; paper’s own terms ‘high salt concentration’ / ‘saline groundwater’, p.1-2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 0 |
| NO3-N | 241.5 (Table 2, at start of cultivation only — not a trial-duration mean; see NO COLUMN remark) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla cv. Seiyou Shirokuki) |
| Details | Seeds sown in vermiculite; transplanted hydroponically at first-true-leaf stage into 30-L containers (6 plants/container); repeated harvest of ~20 cm (market-transaction size) leaves at 1st (27 DAT), 2nd (+10 d = 37 DAT), 3rd (+11 d = 48 DAT), younger leaves left for regrowth between harvests (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 48 (3rd/final harvest, cumulative total yield); also harvested at 27 (1st) and 37 (2nd) DAT — see remarks |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Static hydroponic solution culture, 30-L plastic containers, 6 plants/container (p.2) |
| Media Details | Vermiculite for germination only; no separate growing media at the hydroponic (post-transplant) stage (p.2) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (Fe 0.42 mg/L (Table 2), 25% of control’s 1.78 mg/L) |
| Climate control | Y (Greenhouse at Tottori University, Japan, Mar-May 2016; no temperature/humidity setpoints or equipment specified (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu added to fish wastewater at 25% of control solution levels (Table 2): Fe 0.42, Mn 0.13, Zn 0.05, Cu 0.04 mg/L (vs. control Fe 1.78, Mn 0.44, Zn 0.12, Cu 0.01 mg/L)) |
| Equipment | SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); ICP-AES (Spectro Ciros CCD, Spectro) for Na/K/Ca/Mg/Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu; spectrophotometer V-630BIO (JASCO) with molybdenum blue method for P; Cataldo method for NO3 (p.3) |
| Control Parameters | pH adjusted to 5.5 at transplanting for wastewater treatments (not re-adjusted thereafter); control solution renewed weekly with pH re-adjusted to 5.5 each renewal; wastewater collected from tilapia RAS once NO3-N reached ~250 mg/L (p.2-3) |
| Combination | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) wastewater aquaponics vs. groundwater + standard-nutrient-solution hydroponic control; single-batch (non-renewed) fish wastewater with graded microelement supplementation (100/50/25/0% of control level) — Swiss chard cv. Seiyou Shirokuki |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East-Asia |
| Country | Japan |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (leaf FW, total yield — figure only, not extracted); SPAD units (chlorophyll, figure only); mg kg-1 DW (leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu, P); mg kg-1 FW (leaf NO3) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (P<0.05), Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison test if significant; GraphPad Prism 7.0b; mean +/- SE (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T3 = W25 (fish wastewater from tilapia RAS, microelements added at 25% of the control solution’s level (Table 2)). Paired control = Control treatment (groundwater + standard hydroponics nutrient solution, Kaburagi et al. 2014), recorded qualitatively wherever this schema has no dedicated HYD-water-chemistry cell (see MATERIAL flag below). Four labelled wastewater treatments (W100/W50/W25/W0) in this paper, each a separate trial (T1-T4), all against the one shared Control. | WARN-MATERIAL Control solution NO3-N/N: Table 2 (p.2, ‘Mineral concentrations in the treatment solutions at the start of cultivation’) states Control NO3-N = 44.1 mg/L. Running text Section 2.2 (p.3) states: ‘The nitrogen concentration in the control solution was 56 mg L-1, which was 1/5 of the wastewater.’ Two figures for the same quantity, unreconciled — no stated reason (e.g. pre- vs post-renewal). Table 1’s separate ‘standard nutrient solution’ reference value (42.0 mg/L, p.2, citing Kaburagi et al. 2014) is a distinct nominal-recipe figure for a different purpose and is not part of this conflict. Reconcilable: partially — Table 2’s 44.1 mg/L is preferred (precise, treatment-labelled, explicitly time-anchored ‘at start of cultivation’, used consistently for every other treatment in this schema). Recorded: 44.1 (this row’s NO3-N column reflects this trial’s own wastewater value, not Control’s; Control’s 44.1 vs 56 mg/L has no dedicated cell in this schema — only one NO3-N column exists, used for the AP/wastewater side of each row — so both Control candidate values are recorded here in remarks only). Downstream effects: none — Control’s water chemistry is not otherwise used quantitatively elsewhere in this row. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required this row (all values already in mg/L, days, mg/kg as reported). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (1500 L tank, fish count/biomass never stated); SGR; FCR; feed N/P/K; fish size initial/final; fish trial duration in days (aquaculture ran ‘March to May 2016’, no day-count given, and is a separate cycle from the 48-day plant trial); fish biomass created; fish survival rate; fish weight gain; Water recycle rate (system called ‘closed recirculating’, no L/min given); Aq pH trial mean (only the pH-5.5 setpoint at transplanting is stated, never a measured trial-duration mean); EC (never measured for the experimental solutions — the 3-5 dS/m figure in the Introduction describes Los Planes, Baja California Sur, Mexico groundwater as background/motivating context, not this paper’s own treatment solutions); Water temperature; TAN/NH4-N; NO2-N; Plants/m2 (container floor area never given); SPAD, leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/NO3/P absolute values, leaf FW per harvest, and total yield (reported only as bars in Figs. 1-5 with letter significance groupings, no table or in-text point values for this treatment — never read off a figure per SCHEMA.md; a few approximate/exact leaf-Mn values ARE given in running text and were captured in plant.csv instead, see there); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD; AP/HYD yield columns; Plant height; Leaf count; Plant dry matter; Lat/Long (Tottori University, Japan affiliation stated, but no coordinates given anywhere in the paper — not filled from outside knowledge per the prime directive); Average room Temperature. | NO COLUMN: Table 1 and Table 2 (p.2) report a full water mineral panel with no dedicated trials.csv columns beyond NO3-N — P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu (all mg/L, ‘at the start of cultivation’ only, not a trial-duration mean; solutions were not renewed thereafter for wastewater treatments so true values likely drifted over the 48-day trial and were not re-measured/reported in the main text; a supplementary Table 1S is referenced once for third-harvest P but was not accessible for extraction). This is a substantively valuable panel excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (it is water chemistry, not plant tissue) and reported here in full rather than discarded — flagged in the batch report as a water panel worth the user’s attention. | Fish Category, Water classification (beyond ‘saline’), Plant Category: paper does not assign a category term beyond species/common names; Swiss chard’s Amaranthaceae family is mentioned (p.2 Introduction, p.5 Discussion) but that is taxonomic family, not a stated ‘category’ comparable to e.g. ‘Leafy vegetables’ in other papers, so left NR rather than substituted. | Harvest schedule: three sequential harvests of the SAME plants (regrowth) — 27 DAT (1st), +10 d = 37 DAT (2nd), +11 d = 48 DAT (3rd); ‘Days Plant after transplant’ records the final/cumulative-yield harvest (48) since Fig. 1b’s ‘total yield across all three harvests’ is the paper’s own summary metric; per-harvest FW values exist only in Fig. 1a (not extracted, figure-only).
kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (p.2, section 2.1) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 1500 (fish tank only; plant-side is separate 30 L/container, 6 plants/container, not part of a shared recirculating water body — see remarks) |
| Water type | Fish wastewater from tilapia closed-recirculating system; source water = groundwater adjusted to 1150 mg L-1 NaCl (p.2) |
| Water classification | Saline (NaCl-adjusted to 1150 mg L-1; paper’s own terms ‘high salt concentration’ / ‘saline groundwater’, p.1-2) |
| Daily Water exchange rate | 0 |
| NO3-N | 248.0 (Table 2, at start of cultivation only — not a trial-duration mean; see NO COLUMN remark) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla cv. Seiyou Shirokuki) |
| Details | Seeds sown in vermiculite; transplanted hydroponically at first-true-leaf stage into 30-L containers (6 plants/container); repeated harvest of ~20 cm (market-transaction size) leaves at 1st (27 DAT), 2nd (+10 d = 37 DAT), 3rd (+11 d = 48 DAT), younger leaves left for regrowth between harvests (p.2-3) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 48 (3rd/final harvest, cumulative total yield); also harvested at 27 (1st) and 37 (2nd) DAT — see remarks |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Static hydroponic solution culture, 30-L plastic containers, 6 plants/container (p.2) |
| Media Details | Vermiculite for germination only; no separate growing media at the hydroponic (post-transplant) stage (p.2) |
| Iron supplemented | N (No microelements added; wastewater’s native Fe 0.02 mg/L is unsupplemented residual, not an intentional addition — paper explicitly states W0 = ‘fish wastewater without micronutrient supplementation’ (p.2-3)) |
| Climate control | Y (Greenhouse at Tottori University, Japan, Mar-May 2016; no temperature/humidity setpoints or equipment specified (p.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (No microelements added to fish wastewater; W0 is the zero-supplementation arm of the gradient (Table 2) — native wastewater Fe 0.02, Mn 0.02, Zn 0.02, Cu 0.03 mg/L) |
| Equipment | SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta); ICP-AES (Spectro Ciros CCD, Spectro) for Na/K/Ca/Mg/Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu; spectrophotometer V-630BIO (JASCO) with molybdenum blue method for P; Cataldo method for NO3 (p.3) |
| Control Parameters | pH adjusted to 5.5 at transplanting for wastewater treatments (not re-adjusted thereafter); control solution renewed weekly with pH re-adjusted to 5.5 each renewal; wastewater collected from tilapia RAS once NO3-N reached ~250 mg/L (p.2-3) |
| Combination | Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) wastewater aquaponics vs. groundwater + standard-nutrient-solution hydroponic control; single-batch (non-renewed) fish wastewater with graded microelement supplementation (100/50/25/0% of control level) — Swiss chard cv. Seiyou Shirokuki |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East-Asia |
| Country | Japan |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (leaf FW, total yield — figure only, not extracted); SPAD units (chlorophyll, figure only); mg kg-1 DW (leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu, P); mg kg-1 FW (leaf NO3) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (P<0.05), Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison test if significant; GraphPad Prism 7.0b; mean +/- SE (p.3) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T4 = W0 (fish wastewater from tilapia RAS, no microelements added (Table 2)). Paired control = Control treatment (groundwater + standard hydroponics nutrient solution, Kaburagi et al. 2014), recorded qualitatively wherever this schema has no dedicated HYD-water-chemistry cell (see MATERIAL flag below). Four labelled wastewater treatments (W100/W50/W25/W0) in this paper, each a separate trial (T1-T4), all against the one shared Control. | WARN-MATERIAL Control solution NO3-N/N: Table 2 (p.2, ‘Mineral concentrations in the treatment solutions at the start of cultivation’) states Control NO3-N = 44.1 mg/L. Running text Section 2.2 (p.3) states: ‘The nitrogen concentration in the control solution was 56 mg L-1, which was 1/5 of the wastewater.’ Two figures for the same quantity, unreconciled — no stated reason (e.g. pre- vs post-renewal). Table 1’s separate ‘standard nutrient solution’ reference value (42.0 mg/L, p.2, citing Kaburagi et al. 2014) is a distinct nominal-recipe figure for a different purpose and is not part of this conflict. Reconcilable: partially — Table 2’s 44.1 mg/L is preferred (precise, treatment-labelled, explicitly time-anchored ‘at start of cultivation’, used consistently for every other treatment in this schema). Recorded: 44.1 (this row’s NO3-N column reflects this trial’s own wastewater value, not Control’s; Control’s 44.1 vs 56 mg/L has no dedicated cell in this schema — only one NO3-N column exists, used for the AP/wastewater side of each row — so both Control candidate values are recorded here in remarks only). Downstream effects: none — Control’s water chemistry is not otherwise used quantitatively elsewhere in this row. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required this row (all values already in mg/L, days, mg/kg as reported). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (1500 L tank, fish count/biomass never stated); SGR; FCR; feed N/P/K; fish size initial/final; fish trial duration in days (aquaculture ran ‘March to May 2016’, no day-count given, and is a separate cycle from the 48-day plant trial); fish biomass created; fish survival rate; fish weight gain; Water recycle rate (system called ‘closed recirculating’, no L/min given); Aq pH trial mean (only the pH-5.5 setpoint at transplanting is stated, never a measured trial-duration mean); EC (never measured for the experimental solutions — the 3-5 dS/m figure in the Introduction describes Los Planes, Baja California Sur, Mexico groundwater as background/motivating context, not this paper’s own treatment solutions); Water temperature; TAN/NH4-N; NO2-N; Plants/m2 (container floor area never given); SPAD, leaf Fe/Mn/Zn/Cu/NO3/P absolute values, leaf FW per harvest, and total yield (reported only as bars in Figs. 1-5 with letter significance groupings, no table or in-text point values for this treatment — never read off a figure per SCHEMA.md; a few approximate/exact leaf-Mn values ARE given in running text and were captured in plant.csv instead, see there); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD; AP/HYD yield columns; Plant height; Leaf count; Plant dry matter; Lat/Long (Tottori University, Japan affiliation stated, but no coordinates given anywhere in the paper — not filled from outside knowledge per the prime directive); Average room Temperature. | NO COLUMN: Table 1 and Table 2 (p.2) report a full water mineral panel with no dedicated trials.csv columns beyond NO3-N — P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu (all mg/L, ‘at the start of cultivation’ only, not a trial-duration mean; solutions were not renewed thereafter for wastewater treatments so true values likely drifted over the 48-day trial and were not re-measured/reported in the main text; a supplementary Table 1S is referenced once for third-harvest P but was not accessible for extraction). This is a substantively valuable panel excluded from plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (it is water chemistry, not plant tissue) and reported here in full rather than discarded — flagged in the batch report as a water panel worth the user’s attention. | Fish Category, Water classification (beyond ‘saline’), Plant Category: paper does not assign a category term beyond species/common names; Swiss chard’s Amaranthaceae family is mentioned (p.2 Introduction, p.5 Discussion) but that is taxonomic family, not a stated ‘category’ comparable to e.g. ‘Leafy vegetables’ in other papers, so left NR rather than substituted. | Harvest schedule: three sequential harvests of the SAME plants (regrowth) — 27 DAT (1st), +10 d = 37 DAT (2nd), +11 d = 48 DAT (3rd); ‘Days Plant after transplant’ records the final/cumulative-yield harvest (48) since Fig. 1b’s ‘total yield across all three harvests’ is the paper’s own summary metric; per-harvest FW values exist only in Fig. 1a (not extracted, figure-only).
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T4 | W0 | mineral | Leaf Mn (DW basis) | ~40 | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T3 | W25 | mineral | Leaf Mn (DW basis) | ~40 | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T4 | W0 | mineral | Leaf Mn (DW basis) | 1 | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T4 | W0 | mineral | Leaf Mn (DW basis) | NR | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T3 | W25 | mineral | Leaf Mn (DW basis) | NR | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T4 | W0 | mineral | Leaf Zn (DW basis) | NR | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |
| kaburagiAquaponicsUsingSaline2020-T3 | W25 | mineral | Leaf Zn (DW basis) | NR | mg/kg DW | NR | p.5 (Discussion) |