Aquaponic growth of basil (Ocimum basilicum) with African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in standard substrate combined with a Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (HFS)
Metadata
- Cite key: knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: Ulrich Knaus, Dirk Hyo-Dschung Hübner, Christian Küchenmeister, Samuel Appelbaum, Walter Iten, Harry W. Palm
- Affiliation: Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Professor of Aquaculture and Sea-Ranching, University of Rostock, Germany; French Associates Institute for Agriculture and Biotechnology of Drylands, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel; Institut für angewandte Naturwirtschaft/Natural Science IfaN GmbH, Steinhausen, Switzerland
- Journal: Scientific Reports 14 (2024) 17725
- Date: 07/2024 (Received 21 Feb 2024; Accepted 23 Jul 2024; Published online 31 Jul 2024)
- Date added: 2025-01-28
- DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-68361-3
- Funding: Ministry for Climate Protection, Agriculture, Rural Areas and the Environment of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Germany); European Union and EIP-AGRI operational groups (“Aquaponik in MV”, BNRZD: 13 903 000 0103; WM-EIP-0007-15); Grönfingers Rostocks Gartenfachmarkt GmbH; FishGlassHouse pilot project (European Fisheries Fund-EFF, grant VI-560/730-32616-2013/025); Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Universität Rostock (Open Access Publishing programme); Open access funding organized by Projekt DEAL
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68361-3
- PDF:
Knaus et al. - 2024 - Aquaponic growth of basil (Ocimum basilicum) with .pdf
Opinion
A clean, well-instrumented substrate-aquaponics trial with real replication (n=33/group, 3 blocks) and a sensible 2x2-ish factorial design (2 substrates x 2 fish-water intensities x 1 fertiliser control), backed by proper normality testing and appropriate post-hoc tests throughout. The headline finding (15% HFS + intensive fish water rivals the standard peat substrate on 10/13 growth parameters) is well supported by Table 2 and Fig. 1c. Two soft spots: (1) the paper never states fish stocking density or fish-water chemistry per substrate trial, only per aquaculture unit (EAU/IAU) — it is implicit, and stated nowhere, that Trial I and Trial II share the same fish-water source, which I had to infer from Fig. 4 and the shared EAU/IAU vocabulary; (2) the “Control” arm is called “hydroponic fertiliser solution” but is agronomically a fertigated peat-substrate pot, not true hydroponics — worth remembering when comparing this “HYD” data point against papers using DWC/NFT/aeroponics. The substrate nutrient-composition tables (Tables 3-5, Fig. 2) are the paper’s most valuable original contribution but don’t fit anywhere in this vault’s schema (see Extraction notes) — a shame, since the Zn/NH4-N/Fe-EDTA mechanism discussion is genuinely interesting circular-economy chemistry. Would cite for the substrate-substitution angle and for the basil/SPAD benchmarking against supermarket samples, a nice touch not seen elsewhere in this vault yet.
Abstract
A major challenge in agriculture, horticulture and aquaponics practices is the reduction of mineral fertilisers and peat to reduce CO2 emissions and increase sustainability. This study used a three-phase natural fertiliser, the Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (HFS), made from natural regenerative organic and mineral-fractions (Humus-Mineral-Complex), to reduce the peat content in plant pots for aquaponics farming. Basil (Ocimum basilicum) growth was compared with i) 100% standard media substrate (“Einheitserde”, white peat 80%, clay 20%), and ii) 85% “Einheitserde” and 15% of HFS under irrigation with aquaculture process waters from an extensive and intensive production of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) under coupled aquaponic conditions. The substitution with 15% HFS and use of intensive fish water resulted in comparable plant growth to a fertiliser solution as control, and in higher leaf width and leaf green weight and lower root dry weight compared with the standard media substrate “Einheitserde”. Basil leaf chlorophyll content from the aquaponics was higher compared with local market plants. This suggests the possible substitution of the peat substrate “Einheitserde” with at least 15% HFS to reduce the natural peat fraction. Further studies on crop-specific substrates are needed to reduce peat in aquaponics farming plant cultivation.
Summary
Basil (cv. ‘Genovese’) was grown in pots for 45 days in a German research greenhouse (“FishGlassHouse”, University of Rostock, spring 2018) under two parallel substrate trials: Trial I compared 100% standard peat substrate (“Einheitserde”) irrigated with extensive (EAU) or intensive (IAU) African catfish process water against a fertiliser-solution control (Control+S1); Trial II ran the identical comparison but with 15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (HFS) replacing 15% of the peat substrate (Control+S2). Growth (height, weight, leaf count, SPAD, and detailed shoot/root morphology) was measured after 45 days, and pot substrate nutrient content was analysed at harvest. Across both trials, the fertiliser control consistently out-grew both aquaponic treatments, but basil in 15% HFS irrigated with intensive fish water matched the standard peat substrate on 10 of 13 growth parameters (and beat it on leaf width and leaf green weight), while extensive fish water combined with HFS underperformed the standard substrate on most parameters. The substitution of 15% HFS increased plant-available zinc, ammonium-N, and Fe-EDTA in the intensive-water pots, plausibly explaining the comparable or superior growth and the absence of the interveinal leaf chlorosis noted by visual observation. Basil SPAD (chlorophyll) values from all aquaponic/HFS treatments exceeded those of basil sampled from three German/Danish supermarket chains, supporting a quality claim for the aquaponic product. The authors conclude that 15% HFS substitution is a viable step toward reducing peat use in aquaponics pot cultivation without compromising basil quality, while noting nutrient deficiencies (particularly under extensive/low-nutrient fish water) still limit performance relative to a full fertiliser regime.
Experiment data
- Location: “FishGlassHouse” aquaponics facility, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Northern Germany (GPS 54.075714, 12.096591)
- Design: 2 substrate trials (Trial I: 100% Einheitserde; Trial II: 15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate + 85% Einheitserde) x 3 irrigation/nutrient groups per trial (Control fertiliser solution, extensive-aquaculture (EAU) process water, intensive-aquaculture (IAU) process water) = 6 experimental groups total, randomized across 9 ebb-and-flood tables in 3 blocks
- Replicates / n: 33 pots/group (11 pots x 3 blocks) for growth parameters; 18 for SPAD (6 plants x 3 blocks); 198 of 270 originally planted pots analysed
- Duration: Plants: 45 days (24.04.2018-07.06.2018, per paper’s own statement; ⚠️MINOR — inclusive calendar count is 44). Fish: 49 days (25.04.2018-12.06.2018, per paper’s own statement; ⚠️MINOR — inclusive calendar count is 48).
- Organisms: Basil (Ocimum basilicum) cv. ‘Genovese’ / African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)
- Statistics: One-way ANOVA (Shapiro-Wilk normality) with Tukey-HSD or Dunnett-T3 post hoc; Kruskal-Wallis-ANOVA + Bonferroni for non-normal data; t-test or Mann-Whitney-U for two-group comparisons; SPSS v29, p<=0.05 two-tailed
- Plant height: Trial I — Control 61.9 +/- 8.5 cm vs EAU 45.6 +/- 4.3 cm vs IAU 48.5 +/- 5.0 cm (all p<0.001 vs control). Trial II — Control 61.2 +/- 5.5 cm vs HFS+EAU 40.5 +/- 3.8 cm vs HFS+IAU 48.2 +/- 5.4 cm (all p<0.001)
- Plant fresh weight: Trial I — Control 72.3 +/- 14.2 g vs EAU 24.9 +/- 4.7 g vs IAU 29.1 +/- 5.7 g. Trial II — Control 56.2 +/- 10.0 g vs HFS+EAU 19.5 +/- 5.6 g vs HFS+IAU 27.9 +/- 6.0 g
- SPAD: Control+S1 39.5 +/- 4.2%; E+EAU 33.6 +/- 4.3%; E+IAU 33.1 +/- 4.2%; Control+S2 37.3 +/- 3.0%; HFS+EAU 33.6 +/- 3.1%; HFS+IAU 33.9 +/- 3.1%; market samples 29.3-31.6% (all aquaponic/HFS groups significantly higher than market samples)
- Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): EAU 0.92 +/- 0.14; IAU 1.25 +/- 0.65 (p=0.167, ns) — shared by both substrate trials (same fish source water)
- NO3-N (water): AET-E (feeds Trial I/II EAU pots) 57.69 +/- 9.08 mg/L; AET-I (feeds IAU pots) 144.00 +/- 20.15 mg/L; Control tank 116.47 +/- 16.07 mg/L (all trial-mean, hydroponic-cabin compartment, Table 5)
Growth performance: substrate x fish-water-intensity interaction
This paper: In both trials, the fertiliser control consistently produced the largest, heaviest, leafiest basil. Within the aquaponic arms, intensive fish water (IAU) consistently outperformed extensive water (EAU) on nearly every parameter in both substrates, reflecting the ~4-8x higher NO3-N, NH4-N and other nutrients in the intensive process water (Tables 4-5). The key comparative finding: basil in 15% HFS + intensive water matched the 100% standard peat substrate on 10 of 13 measured growth parameters (height, green/dry weight, shoot length/green/dry weight, root length/green weight, leaf number, leaf length), while HFS gave higher leaf width and leaf green weight and only lower root dry weight than the standard substrate under intensive water (p.4, Fig. 1c). Under extensive water, HFS and standard substrate were comparable in only 3 of 13 parameters (root length, root green weight, root dry weight) — the standard substrate did better everywhere else (Fig. 1b) — indicating HFS’s contribution depends on there being enough dissolved nutrient in the irrigation water to begin with.
Compared with:
- todo Yang & Kim 2020 — basil DWC aquaponics with Nile tilapia reached 39.9 cm height, comparable to this study’s aquaponic heights (40.5-48.5 cm). (p.4)
- todo Pasch et al. 2021 (AgriEngineering 3:92) — decoupled basil/catfish aquaponics reached 46.78-55.75 cm after 36 days, similar range to this study. (p.4)
- todo Knaus et al. 2020 (Sustainability 12:8745) and Pasch et al. 2021 (AgriEngineering 3:92) — decoupled aquaponics basil reached substantially taller heights (94.8-101.8 cm) with 6-8 true leaves at transplanting, vs this study’s much earlier transplant stage (1.67 cm, one leaf pair); also reported far higher leaf numbers (493.7-518.0 after 41 days) vs this study’s 26.6-71.5. [secondary comparison by the authors, own prior work] (p.4)
- todo Saha, Monroe & Day 2016 — basil/crayfish aquaponics SPAD 29.3% vs hydroponics 28.7%, both lower than this study’s aquaponic SPAD (33.1-33.9%). (p.8)
- todo Ferrarezi & Bailey 2019 — basil/Nile tilapia aquaponics SPAD 23.2% vs hydroponics 31.7%; this study’s aquaponic SPAD (33.1-33.9%) exceeds both. (p.8)
- todo Walters & Currey 2018 — basil SPAD ranged 25.7% (low light, ~7 mol/m2 d) to 34.1% (high light, ~15 mol/m2 d, NFT hydroponic), used as a light-driven SPAD benchmark. (p.8)
- todo Teliban et al. 2020 — red basil fertilised with organic chicken manure reached SPAD 35.18%; with mycorrhizal/bacterial inoculant reached 40.27%, both above this study’s control (37.3-39.5%) and aquaponic (33.1-33.9%) values. (p.8)
- todo Tolay 2021 — recommends increasing basil leaf Zn to 10 mg/kg for improved biomass, K+/Cu uptake, and SPAD; this study’s HFS+IAU substrate reached only 5.4 mg/kg Zn (Table 3), used to motivate the “increase Zn” recommendation in the Conclusions. (p.7-8)
Substrate nutrient chemistry (HFS mechanism)
This paper: Substituting 15% of the standard Einheitserde with HFS in the intensive-water (IAU) pots increased plant-available Zn by 1.9-fold (5.4 vs 2.9 mg/kg), NH4-N by 1.7-fold, and Fe-EDTA by 1.4-fold (2.1-fold under extensive water) relative to the standard substrate (Table 3). Gross nutrient composition (Fig. 2) also showed HFS+IAU exceeding E+IAU in P (+25%), Mg (+15%) and Fe (+4.4%). The authors attribute the increased NH4-N to humic-acid-enhanced cation adsorption fixing NH4+ in the substrate’s clay fraction, and the Fe-EDTA increase to HFS binding Fe under acidic conditions; the exact Fe-EDTA source mechanism is explicitly stated by the authors as “unclear” (p.7). No interveinal leaf chlorosis was observed in the HFS-grown plants (visual observation only, not quantified), which the authors link to the higher Zn/Fe availability.
Compared with:
- todo Zhang et al. 2013 — humic acid increases cation adsorption and NH4+ preference in humic-montmorillonite clay complexes, used to explain the HFS NH4-N increase mechanism. (p.7)
- todo Kasozi et al. 2019 — review of iron supplementation/management in aquaponics, cites Fe-EDTA as the most-used chelating agent, stable at pH 4.0-6.3 (consistent with this study’s process-water pH range, Table 5). (p.7)
- todo Palm et al. 2018 (Aquaculture 491:155) — proportional up-scaling of African catfish RAS production; used to explain why P levels tracked feed-input ratio (1:2:4 across production intensities) rather than fish stocking density alone. (p.7-8)
Linked claims
- 15% substitution of peat substrate with a humic-acid fiber substrate can match standard substrate basil growth when irrigated with nutrient-rich (intensive) fish process water
- Aquaponic basil chlorophyll content (SPAD) can exceed that of commercially sold basil
- Fish process-water nutrient intensity is a stronger driver of aquaponic pot-culture basil growth than the choice between standard peat and humic-acid-substituted substrate under low-nutrient (extensive) water
Citations to chase
- todo Yang & Kim (2020) — basil DWC aquaponics with Nile tilapia, height benchmark
- todo Pasch, Ratajczak, Appelbaum, Palm & Knaus (2021, AgriEngineering 3:92-109) — decoupled basil/catfish aquaponics height benchmark (already in vault as
pasch...2021? check before creating) - todo Knaus, Pribbernow, Xu, Appelbaum & Palm (2020, Sustainability 12:8745) — decoupled basil/catfish aquaponics, transplant-stage and leaf-number benchmark, same author group’s own prior work
- todo Saha, Monroe & Day (2016) — basil/crayfish aquaponics SPAD benchmark
- todo Ferrarezi & Bailey (2019) — basil/tilapia aquaponics SPAD benchmark
- todo Walters & Currey (2018) — basil SPAD vs light-intensity benchmark
- todo Teliban et al. (2020) — red basil SPAD under organic/microbial fertilisation
- todo Tolay (2021) — basil leaf Zn threshold for optimal biomass/SPAD
- todo Zhang et al. (2013) — humic acid/clay NH4+ adsorption mechanism
- todo Kasozi, Tandlich, Fick, Kaiser & Wilhelmi (2019) — iron supplementation review in aquaponics
- todo Palm, Knaus, Wasenitz, Bischoff & Strauch (2018, Aquaculture 491:155) — African catfish RAS scaling, nutrient-dynamics benchmark
Extraction notes
Severity tally for this extraction: 0 ⚠️BLOCK, 0 ⚠️MATERIAL, 1 ⚠️CHECK, 5 ⚠️MINOR. Per SCHEMA.md’s scoring table (0 BLOCK and <=2 MATERIAL = ok), quality: ok is set. CHECK and MINOR do not affect the score.
⚠️CHECK — Fish size initial (affects all 4 trial rows): The paper gives two candidate “initial” fish weights with no stated rule for which corresponds to the schema’s “mean weight at stocking.” (a) 30 g/fish at delivery from a local fish farm in January 2018 (p.9, “Fish production”). (b) 629.2 +/- 473.2 g (EAU) / 655.0 +/- 438.9 g (IAU) as the mean initial weight for the reported 25.04.2018-12.06.2018 (49-day) growth-performance window, paired in the same sentence with final weight, FCR, SGR, mortality, and biomass (p.9-10). Recorded (b) in trials.csv because it shares its basis with every other reported fish-performance figure; (a) reflects delivery months earlier, before staggered production split the stock into three weight classes. Both are defensible under different definitions of “initial” (delivery vs. start-of-measured-cycle); UNRESOLVED, flagged for REVIEW.md.
⚠️MINOR flags (no cell impact beyond the flagged field itself):
- Fish trial duration stated as “49 days” for 25.04.2018-12.06.2018 (p.9); the inclusive calendar span is actually 48 days. Recorded as stated (49).
- Plant duration stated as “45 days” for 24.04.2018-07.06.2018 (p.9-10, and Table 1/2 captions); the inclusive calendar span is actually 44 days. Recorded as stated (45).
- SPAD readings are labelled with unit ”%” throughout the paper (Tables 1-2, Fig. 3, Abstract) rather than the conventional dimensionless SPAD index. Recorded with the paper’s own ”%” label per the prime directive.
Validation check performed (not a flag, no cell affected): recomputing FCR from the paper’s own totals — EAU: 58.2 kg feed / (223.9-163.0=60.9 kg biomass gain) = 0.96, vs. reported 0.92 +/- 0.14; IAU: 182.1 kg / (805.8-660.2=145.6 kg) = 1.25, vs. reported 1.25 +/- 0.65. Both check out closely (the small EAU discrepancy is consistent with the reported figure being a mean-of-replicates rather than a pooled/aggregate calculation). This recomputation is not entered in any cell (per SCHEMA.md’s “no derivation” rule) — it only confirms the reported FCR values are internally consistent, so no flag was raised.
Excluded panel — flagged per SCHEMA.md, not routed to either CSV: Tables 3-5 and Fig. 2 report detailed nutrient chemistry of the pot substrate itself (plant-available nutrients: NO3-N, P, K, Ca, B, Zn, Mo, organic substance, NH4-N, Fe-EDTA; and gross nutrient composition: N, P, K, Mg, Fe) for all six substrate/irrigation combinations. This is neither water chemistry (it’s solid growing media, not the recirculating water) nor a plant tissue analyte (it’s the substrate the plant grows in, not leaf/root tissue) — it has no column in trials.csv (water-only) or plant_measurements.csv (plant analytes only: biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate of the plant itself). This is a genuinely valuable, paper-specific mechanistic dataset (it’s the actual explanation for why HFS worked) that the current schema cannot hold. Flagging to the user per SCHEMA.md’s instruction rather than force-fitting it into plant_measurements.csv.
Water panel note: the water-quality columns in trials.csv (Aq pH, DO, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) were populated from Table 5 (the hydroponic-cabin/plant-bed compartment: Control, AET-E, AET-I tanks), not Table 4 (the raw aquaculture-unit/RAS-sump compartment), per SCHEMA.md’s rule to prefer the plant-bed value when a paper reports per-compartment values. The two compartments differ substantially (e.g. NO3-N: Table 4 EAU 241.61 mg/L vs Table 5 AET-E 57.69 mg/L) — this is not a contradiction, it reflects real dilution/exchange-timing differences between the RAS sump and the twice-weekly-refreshed hydroponic-cabin tank, and Table 4’s fuller parameter set (K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Fe2+, SO4-S, PO4-P, redox, salinity, TON) is preserved as NO COLUMN remarks in each trial row rather than discarded.
[not reported] fields, grouped by field name (identical across all 4 trial rows unless noted): Fish Category; N (feed, only crude protein % given, not nitrogen %); K (feed); % of body weight (feed load “80% as recommended” is not stated as %BW/day); Fish biomass created (initial/final totals given but net creation not stated — not derived); Fish weight gain (individual initial/final weights given but gain not stated — not derived); Water recycle (no L/min flow rate given, only a twice-weekly exchange schedule); Water volume in the system (too many distinct compartments — fish tanks, sedimenters, trickling filters, sumps, water-management tanks, AET tanks — for a single “system volume” figure; components listed in each row’s NO COLUMN remarks); Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (exchange frequency given as “twice weekly,” not a %/day rate); FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE; Plants/m2 (pot count and table dimensions given, but density not stated directly — not derived); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf/plant tissue nitrate measured — only water NO3-N and substrate NO3-N); AP, HYD (no single area-yield or whole-plant summary “yield” figure reported that would populate these fields; per-plant morphology is already captured in the dedicated Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter columns instead); Average room Temperature (only water temperature and light parameters given, no air/room temperature); Artificial Lighting (light intensity and PPFD were measured as ambient/greenhouse conditions, not stated as supplemental lighting).
[unclear] fields: none — every NR above reflects a genuine absence, not an ambiguous passage.
Scanned PDF check: this PDF has a clean, extractable text layer (Nature/Springer typesetting); no OCR issue, not added to NEEDS_OCR.md.
Judgment call — “Control” as the HYD comparator: the paper’s own wording calls the control treatment “irrigated with hydroponic fertiliser solution” (Table 1/2 captions), but agronomically it is a fertigated peat-substrate pot culture (same Einheitserde substrate as the E arm, just fed commercial liquid fertiliser instead of fish effluent), not a soil-free hydroponic system (DWC/NFT/aeroponics). Treated as the paper’s own HYD-equivalent comparator per its stated wording; noted here so downstream cross-paper HYD comparisons account for this substrate difference.
Judgment call — shared fish population across Trial I and Trial II: the Methods section reports fish stocking, FCR, SGR, and mortality once per aquaculture unit (EAU, IAU), not once per substrate trial. Fig. 4 and the shared “EAU”/“IAU” terminology across both trials make clear the same RAS units and fish populations supplied both the E-substrate (Trial I) and HFS-substrate (Trial II) pots concurrently. Fish-block cells are therefore identical between T1/T3 (both EAU-fed) and between T2/T4 (both IAU-fed) — this is stated as an explicit judgment call, not an assumption made silently.
New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/African-Catfish, Meta/Plant/Basil (neither pre-existed a naming convention check could confirm from this session; Meta/Region/Europe and Meta/Type/Experiment follow existing vault conventions seen in other notes).
New wikilink targets introduced: Ulrich Knaus, Dirk Hyo-Dschung Hübner, Christian Küchenmeister, Samuel Appelbaum, Walter Iten, Harry W. Palm, Basil (Ocimum basilicum), African catfish (Clarias gariepinus), Plant height, Plant fresh weight, SPAD, Feed Conversion Rate (FCR), NO3-N (water), 15% substitution of peat substrate with a humic-acid fiber substrate can match standard substrate basil growth when irrigated with nutrient-rich (intensive) fish process water, Aquaponic basil chlorophyll content (SPAD) can exceed that of commercially sold basil, Fish process-water nutrient intensity is a stronger driver of aquaponic pot-culture basil growth than the choice between standard peat and humic-acid-substituted substrate under low-nutrient (extensive) water.
Source: Knaus et al. - 2024 - Aquaponic growth of basil (Ocimum basilicum) with .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
knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) |
| Initial Stock density | 18.1 +/- 13.6 |
| FCR | 0.92 +/- 0.14 |
| SGR | 0.92 +/- 0.51 |
| Protein | 42.0 |
| P | 1.02 |
| Fish size initial | 629.2 +/- 473.2 |
| Fish size final | 806.7 +/- 457.2 |
| Feed routine | Automatic feeders, standard commercial feeding protocol at 80% feed load as recommended by the RAS manufacturer (PAL GmbH, Germany) |
| Feed regime | Alltech Coppens Special Pro EF 4.5 mm (The Netherlands): 42.0% protein, 13% fat, 1.5% crude fibre, 7.6% ash, 1.02% phosphorus, 1.9% calcium, 0.3% sodium, 60 mg/kg iron, 5 mg/kg iodine, 5 mg/kg copper, 20 mg/kg magnesium, 60 mg/kg zinc |
| Total Feed (kg) | 58.2 |
| Fish survival rate | 2.63% mortality (stated as mortality, not survival) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 49 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Aquaculture process water from an extensive (EAU) recirculating African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) production unit, semi-coupled to the hydroponic cabin |
| Aq pH | 5.9 +/- 0.1 |
| pHOptimal | 6.0 +/- 0.2 (system-wide pH-controller setpoint, applies to Control/AET-E/AET-I alike) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 8.6 +/- 0.2 |
| EC | 0.9957 +/- 0.0894 |
| Water temperature | 25.1 +/- 1.2 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.43 +/- 0.24 |
| NO2-N | 0.05 +/- 0.07 |
| NO3-N | 57.69 +/- 9.08 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum), cv. ‘Genovese’ |
| Details | Seeds (N=350) germinated in 100% Einheitserde ‘Nullerde Typ 0’, transferred to hydroponic cabin at initial height 1.67 +/- 0.2 cm with one pair of fully expanded leaves; grown for 45 days (24.04.2018-07.06.2018) |
| Plant Category | Herb (Lamiaceae) (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 45 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 33.6 +/- 4.3 |
| Plant height | 45.6 +/- 4.3 |
| Leaf count | 36.3 +/- 5.8 |
| Plant fresh weight | 24.9 +/- 4.7 |
| Plant dry matter | 2.4 +/- 0.4 g (paper reports dry weight in g/plant, not % dry matter) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Pot cultivation on ebb-and-flood tables (aquaponics s.l., semi-coupled) |
| Media Details | 100% standard growth media substrate ‘Einheitserde’ (white peat 80%, 0-10mm, + clay 20%, pH 5.5-6.5; Einheitserde EE-Typ 0 ‘Nullerde’ nach Fruhstorfer), 250 g/pot, no starter fertiliser added to this arm |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Pre-existing nitrifying trickling filters (TF-E 2.9 m3 in EAU; TF-I 11.8 m3 in IAU) and solids-separation sedimenters (Se-E 1.2 m3; Se-I 1.7 m3) in the recirculating aquaculture units) |
| Air supplement | Y (Nutrient-solution tanks (Control, AET-E, AET-I) ventilated by an air membrane pump (Mistral 4000, Aqua Medic GmbH, Germany)) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Not supplemented to the aquaponic (EAU/IAU) treatments during this trial; Discussion (p.8) explicitly recommends iron chelate supplementation (2.5 mg/L every 3 weeks) as a FUTURE improvement, indicating it was not part of this experiment’s protocol. The commercial control fertiliser (Universol Orange) itself already contains 0.10% Fe as EDTA-chelate.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation) on Control, AET-E and AET-I nutrient tanks; ‘pH+up’ = 28.2% potassium hydroxide, ‘pH-bloom’ = 59% phosphoric acid; target pH 6.0 +/- 0.2 (Table 5 shows this was achieved more tightly in Control/AET tanks than in the raw aquaculture units, Table 4)) |
| Climate control | Y (VENLO greenhouse (GTW Gewaechshaustechnik Werder GmbH), ‘FishGlassHouse’ facility, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; no temperature/humidity setpoints reported) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic control (S1/S2) only: commercial fertiliser Universol(R) Orange 16-5-25+3.4MgO+TE (16% N: 5.2% N-NH4, 10.4% N-NO3; 5.0% P2O5; 25% K2O; 3.4% MgO; 0.10% Fe-EDTA; 0.04% Mn-EDTA; 0.01% B; 0.010% Cu-EDTA; 0.001% Mo; 0.010% Zn-EDTA), EC adjusted to approx. 2000 +/- 50 uS/cm; plus dried commercial starter fertiliser (Groenfingers GmbH) in the control substrate only (P 750, K 2020, Mg 1815 mg/kg dry matter, N 0.72%, Fe 718.81 mg/100g). Aquaponic treatments (EAU/IAU): no nutrient solution added; nutrients supplied solely by fish effluent (+ HFS substrate in Trial II).) |
| Equipment | PAL Anlagenbau GmbH RAS units; automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation); HQ40D multimeter (Hach Lange GmbH); Gallery(TM) Automated Photometric Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific); Chlorophyll Meter SPAD-502-Plus (Konica Minolta); Lightscout-3415FSE PPFD meter (Spectrum Technologies); LX1330B light meter (Dr. Meter); Analytical balance ATX224 (Shimadzu) and PCE-BS 300 (PCE Deutschland); drying oven Memmert UN750; automated clock-driven ebb-and-flood irrigation (Fackler Gewaechshaustechnik), 4x/day, 4 min flood/4 min ebb, ~5 cm water level |
| Control Parameters | 2 substrate trials (Trial I: Einheitserde; Trial II: 15% HFS) x 3 irrigation groups (Control fertiliser, EAU, IAU) x 3 blocks; n=33 pots/group (11/block) for growth, n=18 for SPAD; completely randomized block design on 9 ebb-and-flood tables; 198 of 270 planted pots analysed |
| Combination | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) extensive/intensive RAS process water + basil (Ocimum basilicum) pot culture with 100% Einheitserde or 15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate blend, semi-coupled aquaponics (s.l.) vs. commercial hydroponic-fertiliser potted control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Germany |
| Lat | 54.075714 |
| Long | 12.096591 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (height/length); g (fresh/dry weight); count (leaf number); % (SPAD, as reported in paper) |
| Statistic Details | SPSS v29 and Excel, p<=0.05 two-tailed; one-way ANOVA (Shapiro-Wilk normality check), post hoc Tukey-HSD (homogeneous variance) or Dunnett-T3 (heterogeneous variance); Kruskal-Wallis-ANOVA + Bonferroni correction for non-normal/unequal-n data; t-test (normal) or Mann-Whitney-U (non-normal) for two-group comparisons; sample size set a-priori via G*Power 3 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 33 (growth parameters, 11 pots x 3 blocks); 18 (SPAD, 6 plants x 3 blocks) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = Trial I, basil in 100% standard growth media substrate ‘Einheitserde’ (E) irrigated with extensive-aquaculture (EAU) African catfish process water, sampled after 45 days (p.2-3, Table 1). Paired control = Control+S1 (same substrate + dried starter fertiliser, irrigated with commercial hydroponic fertiliser solution Universol Orange), recorded in remarks below (no dedicated HYD-morphology columns exist in this schema beyond Tissue nitrate/AP/HYD). | WARN-CHECK Fish size initial: paper gives two candidate ‘initial’ fish weights with no stated rule for which is ‘stocking weight’. (a) 30 g/fish at delivery from Fischzucht Abtshagen GmbH & Co. KG in January 2018 (p.9, ‘Fish production’). (b) 629.2 +/- 473.2 g mean initial weight for the EAU at the start of the reported 25.04.2018-12.06.2018 (49-day) growth-performance window (p.9-10), which is the value paired with the reported final weight, FCR, SGR, mortality and duration in the same passage. Recorded (b) 629.2 +/- 473.2 g because it shares its basis with every other fish-performance figure in this row; (a) reflects delivery months earlier under staggered production of three weight classes, not the start of the measured cycle. Both plausible under different definitions of ‘initial’; UNRESOLVED, added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Fish trial duration: stated as ‘in total 49 days’ / ‘25.04.2018 to 12.06.2018 (49 days)’ (p.9), but the inclusive calendar span between those two dates is 48 days. Recorded as stated (49); no cell besides duration itself is affected. | WARN-MINOR SPAD unit: paper labels all SPAD readings with the unit ’%’ (Tables 1-2, Fig. 3, Abstract) rather than the conventional dimensionless SPAD index. Recorded value with paper’s own ’%’ label per the prime directive; no cell impact. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC 995.7 +/- 89.4 uS/cm (Table 5, AET-E tank) -> 0.9957 +/- 0.0894 dS/m. | Water-quality columns (Aq pH, DO, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) taken from Table 5 (‘Hydroponic physico-chemical water parameters … in the experimental aquaculture process water tanks’, AET-E), i.e. the plant-bed/hydroponic-cabin compartment, per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to prefer the plant-bed value when a paper reports separate values per compartment. Table 4 (‘chemo-physical water parameters of the extensive and intensive aquaculture units’, i.e. the raw RAS/sump water before transfer) gives materially different, higher values for the same analytes (e.g. NO3-N EAU 241.61 +/- 109.49 mg/L, pH 6.6 +/- 0.8, NH4-N 0.38 +/- 0.278 mg/L) — not a contradiction, this is the expected upstream/downstream difference across two named compartments (RAS sump vs. the pH-buffered, twice-weekly-refreshed AET tank that actually irrigates the pots), so not flagged as CHECK. Table 4 EAU values kept here for reference only. | NO COLUMN (fish): fish-count stocking density 33.8 fish/m3-and-tank (EAU) vs. 132.4 fish/m3-and-tank (IAU) (p.9), distinct from the kg/m3 density already recorded above. Final stocking density (biomass-based): EAU 24.9 +/- 15.8 kg/m3 (p=0.014 vs initial). Initial/final fish biomass totals: EAU 163.0 kg -> 223.9 kg (mortality 2.63%; initial fish-biomass ratio to IAU 1:4.1). Daily feed quantity: EAU 1.2 kg feed/day. | NO COLUMN (water, Table 4, raw EAU aquaculture-unit compartment): O2 7.3 +/- 0.2 mg/L (91.7 +/- 2.5%), redox 166.9 +/- 19.8 mV, conductivity 1022.9 +/- 91.2 uS/cm, salinity 0.5 +/- 0.0 permille, TON 241.88 +/- 109.58 mg/L, PO4-P 17.56 +/- 4.60 mg/L, K+ 7.00 +/- 2.50 mg/L, Mg2+ 17.49 +/- 3.99 mg/L, Ca2+ 109.88 +/- 27.11 mg/L, Fe2+ 0.02 +/- 0.01 mg/L, SO4-S 80.55 +/- 16.06 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (water, Table 5, AET-E compartment used above): O2 8.6 +/- 0.2 mg/L (103.9 +/- 1.5%), redox 176.3 +/- 9.3 mV, salinity 0.5 +/- 0.0 permille, TON 57.72 +/- 9.07 mg/L, TDN 53.30 +/- 18.74 mg/L, PO4-P 17.25 +/- 7.28 mg/L, K+ 7.98 +/- 2.09 mg/L, Mg2+ 21.86 +/- 4.72 mg/L, Ca2+ 129.90 +/- 28.18 mg/L, Fe2+ 0.02 +/- 0.01 mg/L, SO4-S 30.34 +/- 3.51 mg/L; light intensity 323.7 +/- 245.0 lx, PPFD 516.0 +/- 390.1 umol/m2s (E-Substrate planting-table side: light intensity 354.7 +/- 252.1 lx, PPFD 582.5 +/- 405.5 umol/m2s). | NO COLUMN (paired hydroponic Control+S1 morphology, Table 1, n=33; schema has no HYD-side height/weight/SPAD columns): plant height 61.9 +/- 8.5 cm; green (fresh) weight 72.3 +/- 14.2 g; dry weight 6.8 +/- 1.3 g; leaf number 71.5 +/- 12.0; leaf width 7.7 +/- 0.6 cm; leaf length 12.0 +/- 0.7 cm; leaf green weight 1.2 +/- 0.2 g; SPAD 39.5 +/- 4.2%. Significance vs this row’s EAU group: p<0.001 for height, green/dry weight, leaf number/width/length/green weight and SPAD (p-I column, Table 1). | NO COLUMN (this row’s own EAU-group morphology beyond the schema’s columns, Table 1, n=33): shoot length 28.7 +/- 3.2 cm; shoot green weight 19.6 +/- 3.2 g; shoot dry weight 2.0 +/- 0.4 g; root length 16.9 +/- 2.6 cm; root green weight 5.3 +/- 2.5 g; root dry weight 0.4 +/- 0.1 g; shoot/root ratio (dry wt) 5.3 +/- 1.3; shoot/root ratio (length) 1.7 +/- 0.3; leaf width 7.1 +/- 0.5 cm; leaf length 10.1 +/- 0.6 cm; leaf green weight 1.0 +/- 0.1 g. | Excluded panel (flagged to user, not routed to plant.csv or trials.csv): Table 3 (plant-available nutrients, PAN) and Fig. 2 (gross nutrient composition, GNC) of the POT SUBSTRATE (not leaf tissue, not water) for Control+S1 and E+EAU — e.g. Control+S1 NO3-N 40.3 mg/100g, P 61.3 mg/100g, K 457.0 mg/100g, Fe-EDTA 1448.9 mg/kg vs E+EAU NO3-N 1.0 mg/100g, P 31.2 mg/100g, K 47.0 mg/100g, Fe-EDTA 464.9 mg/kg (Table 3). This is substrate/growing-media chemistry, distinct from both ‘plant analyte’ (leaf tissue) and ‘water quality’ — it has no home in either trials.csv or plant_measurements.csv under the current schema. Reported here in the batch report per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to flag valuable panels that don’t fit. | [not reported]: Fish Category, N (feed), K (feed), % of body weight, Fish biomass created, Fish weight gain, Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Plants/m2, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, AP, HYD, Average room Temperature, Artificial Lighting — see Extraction notes in the markdown note for the reasoning per field.
knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) |
| Initial Stock density | 73.4 +/- 56.8 |
| FCR | 1.25 +/- 0.65 |
| SGR | 0.83 +/- 0.55 |
| Protein | 42.0 |
| P | 1.02 |
| Fish size initial | 655.0 +/- 438.9 |
| Fish size final | 838.5 +/- 477.1 |
| Feed routine | Automatic feeders, standard commercial feeding protocol at 80% feed load as recommended by the RAS manufacturer (PAL GmbH, Germany) |
| Feed regime | Alltech Coppens Special Pro EF 4.5 mm (The Netherlands): 42.0% protein, 13% fat, 1.5% crude fibre, 7.6% ash, 1.02% phosphorus, 1.9% calcium, 0.3% sodium, 60 mg/kg iron, 5 mg/kg iodine, 5 mg/kg copper, 20 mg/kg magnesium, 60 mg/kg zinc |
| Total Feed (kg) | 182.1 |
| Fish survival rate | 1.34% mortality (stated as mortality, not survival) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 49 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Aquaculture process water from an intensive (IAU) recirculating African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) production unit, semi-coupled to the hydroponic cabin |
| Aq pH | 6.0 +/- 0.2 |
| pHOptimal | 6.0 +/- 0.2 (system-wide pH-controller setpoint, applies to Control/AET-E/AET-I alike) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 8.6 +/- 0.3 |
| EC | 1.7082 +/- 0.1732 |
| Water temperature | 25.0 +/- 1.3 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.35 +/- 0.96 |
| NO2-N | 0.22 +/- 0.23 |
| NO3-N | 144.00 +/- 20.15 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum), cv. ‘Genovese’ |
| Details | Seeds (N=350) germinated in 100% Einheitserde ‘Nullerde Typ 0’, transferred to hydroponic cabin at initial height 1.67 +/- 0.2 cm with one pair of fully expanded leaves; grown for 45 days (24.04.2018-07.06.2018) |
| Plant Category | Herb (Lamiaceae) (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 45 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 33.1 +/- 4.2 |
| Plant height | 48.5 +/- 5.0 |
| Leaf count | 39.7 +/- 5.8 |
| Plant fresh weight | 29.1 +/- 5.7 |
| Plant dry matter | 2.7 +/- 0.5 g (paper reports dry weight in g/plant, not % dry matter) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Pot cultivation on ebb-and-flood tables (aquaponics s.l., semi-coupled) |
| Media Details | 100% standard growth media substrate ‘Einheitserde’ (white peat 80%, 0-10mm, + clay 20%, pH 5.5-6.5; Einheitserde EE-Typ 0 ‘Nullerde’ nach Fruhstorfer), 250 g/pot, no starter fertiliser added to this arm |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Pre-existing nitrifying trickling filters (TF-E 2.9 m3 in EAU; TF-I 11.8 m3 in IAU) and solids-separation sedimenters (Se-E 1.2 m3; Se-I 1.7 m3) in the recirculating aquaculture units) |
| Air supplement | Y (Nutrient-solution tanks (Control, AET-E, AET-I) ventilated by an air membrane pump (Mistral 4000, Aqua Medic GmbH, Germany)) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Not supplemented to the aquaponic (EAU/IAU) treatments during this trial; Discussion (p.8) explicitly recommends iron chelate supplementation (2.5 mg/L every 3 weeks) as a FUTURE improvement, indicating it was not part of this experiment’s protocol. The commercial control fertiliser (Universol Orange) itself already contains 0.10% Fe as EDTA-chelate.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation) on Control, AET-E and AET-I nutrient tanks; ‘pH+up’ = 28.2% potassium hydroxide, ‘pH-bloom’ = 59% phosphoric acid; target pH 6.0 +/- 0.2 (Table 5 shows this was achieved more tightly in Control/AET tanks than in the raw aquaculture units, Table 4)) |
| Climate control | Y (VENLO greenhouse (GTW Gewaechshaustechnik Werder GmbH), ‘FishGlassHouse’ facility, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; no temperature/humidity setpoints reported) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic control (S1/S2) only: commercial fertiliser Universol(R) Orange 16-5-25+3.4MgO+TE (16% N: 5.2% N-NH4, 10.4% N-NO3; 5.0% P2O5; 25% K2O; 3.4% MgO; 0.10% Fe-EDTA; 0.04% Mn-EDTA; 0.01% B; 0.010% Cu-EDTA; 0.001% Mo; 0.010% Zn-EDTA), EC adjusted to approx. 2000 +/- 50 uS/cm; plus dried commercial starter fertiliser (Groenfingers GmbH) in the control substrate only (P 750, K 2020, Mg 1815 mg/kg dry matter, N 0.72%, Fe 718.81 mg/100g). Aquaponic treatments (EAU/IAU): no nutrient solution added; nutrients supplied solely by fish effluent (+ HFS substrate in Trial II).) |
| Equipment | PAL Anlagenbau GmbH RAS units; automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation); HQ40D multimeter (Hach Lange GmbH); Gallery(TM) Automated Photometric Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific); Chlorophyll Meter SPAD-502-Plus (Konica Minolta); Lightscout-3415FSE PPFD meter (Spectrum Technologies); LX1330B light meter (Dr. Meter); Analytical balance ATX224 (Shimadzu) and PCE-BS 300 (PCE Deutschland); drying oven Memmert UN750; automated clock-driven ebb-and-flood irrigation (Fackler Gewaechshaustechnik), 4x/day, 4 min flood/4 min ebb, ~5 cm water level |
| Control Parameters | 2 substrate trials (Trial I: Einheitserde; Trial II: 15% HFS) x 3 irrigation groups (Control fertiliser, EAU, IAU) x 3 blocks; n=33 pots/group (11/block) for growth, n=18 for SPAD; completely randomized block design on 9 ebb-and-flood tables; 198 of 270 planted pots analysed |
| Combination | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) extensive/intensive RAS process water + basil (Ocimum basilicum) pot culture with 100% Einheitserde or 15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate blend, semi-coupled aquaponics (s.l.) vs. commercial hydroponic-fertiliser potted control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Germany |
| Lat | 54.075714 |
| Long | 12.096591 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (height/length); g (fresh/dry weight); count (leaf number); % (SPAD, as reported in paper) |
| Statistic Details | SPSS v29 and Excel, p<=0.05 two-tailed; one-way ANOVA (Shapiro-Wilk normality check), post hoc Tukey-HSD (homogeneous variance) or Dunnett-T3 (heterogeneous variance); Kruskal-Wallis-ANOVA + Bonferroni correction for non-normal/unequal-n data; t-test (normal) or Mann-Whitney-U (non-normal) for two-group comparisons; sample size set a-priori via G*Power 3 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 33 (growth parameters, 11 pots x 3 blocks); 18 (SPAD, 6 plants x 3 blocks) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = Trial I, basil in 100% standard growth media substrate ‘Einheitserde’ (E) irrigated with intensive-aquaculture (IAU) African catfish process water, sampled after 45 days (p.2-3, Table 1). Paired control = Control+S1 (same as T1’s control; repeated here per schema convention). | WARN-CHECK Fish size initial: see T1 remarks for full evidence. IAU candidates: (a) 30 g/fish at January 2018 delivery (p.9); (b) 655.0 +/- 438.9 g mean initial weight for the IAU at the start of the reported 49-day window (p.9-10), recorded here as it shares its basis with final weight/FCR/SGR/duration. UNRESOLVED, added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Fish trial duration: ‘49 days’ stated (25.04.2018-12.06.2018, p.9); inclusive calendar span computes to 48 days. Recorded as stated (49). | WARN-MINOR SPAD unit: paper labels SPAD readings ’%’ rather than the conventional dimensionless index; recorded as stated. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC 1708.2 +/- 173.2 uS/cm (Table 5, AET-I tank) -> 1.7082 +/- 0.1732 dS/m. | Water-quality columns taken from Table 5 (AET-I, hydroponic-cabin process-water tank), not Table 4 (raw IAU aquaculture-unit/sump water, which gives materially higher values for the same analytes, e.g. NO3-N 501.64 +/- 70.79 mg/L, pH 5.3 +/- 1.0, NH4-N 1.92 +/- 1.531 mg/L) — expected upstream/downstream compartment difference, not a contradiction; Table 4 IAU values kept here for reference. | NO COLUMN (fish): fish-count stocking density 132.4 fish/m3-and-tank (IAU) (p.9). Final stocking density: IAU 89.5 +/- 55.6 kg/m3 (p=0.004 vs initial). Initial/final fish biomass totals: IAU 660.2 kg -> 805.8 kg (mortality 1.34%). Daily feed quantity: IAU 3.7 kg feed/day. Mean feed use by weight class 22.8 +/- 11.0 kg (IAU) vs 6.5 +/- 2.9 kg (EAU), p=0.001. | NO COLUMN (water, Table 4, raw IAU aquaculture-unit compartment): O2 6.3 +/- 0.7 mg/L (79.0 +/- 8.3%), redox 185.1 +/- 30.2 mV, conductivity 1603.6 +/- 230.6 uS/cm, salinity 0.8 +/- 0.1 permille, TON 503.28 +/- 71.64 mg/L, PO4-P 13.80 +/- 9.91 mg/L, K+ 11.73 +/- 3.39 mg/L, Mg2+ 18.93 +/- 4.31 mg/L, Ca2+ 199.76 +/- 23.11 mg/L, Fe2+ 0.02 +/- 0.01 mg/L, SO4-S 97.47 +/- 18.33 mg/L. | NO COLUMN (water, Table 5, AET-I compartment used above): O2 8.6 +/- 0.3 mg/L (103.5 +/- 2.6%), redox 181.3 +/- 17.4 mV, salinity 0.9 +/- 0.1 permille, TON 144.22 +/- 20.05 mg/L, TDN 145.35 +/- 19.76 mg/L, PO4-P 24.42 +/- 15.73 mg/L, K+ 18.23 +/- 5.40 mg/L, Mg2+ 27.15 +/- 8.39 mg/L, Ca2+ 232.34 +/- 47.42 mg/L, Fe2+ 0.02 +/- 0.01 mg/L, SO4-S 37.91 +/- 14.05 mg/L; light intensity 329.7 +/- 236.1 lx, PPFD 551.1 +/- 403.0 umol/m2s (E-Substrate planting-table side). | NO COLUMN (paired hydroponic Control+S1 morphology, Table 1, n=33; identical control to T1): plant height 61.9 +/- 8.5 cm; green weight 72.3 +/- 14.2 g; dry weight 6.8 +/- 1.3 g; leaf number 71.5 +/- 12.0; leaf width 7.7 +/- 0.6 cm; leaf length 12.0 +/- 0.7 cm; leaf green weight 1.2 +/- 0.2 g; SPAD 39.5 +/- 4.2%. Significance vs this row’s IAU group: p<0.001 for all except root length (p=0.206, p-II column, Table 1). | NO COLUMN (this row’s own IAU-group morphology beyond the schema’s columns, Table 1, n=33): shoot length 30.7 +/- 4.5 cm; shoot green weight 22.2 +/- 4.4 g; shoot dry weight 2.2 +/- 0.5 g; root length 17.9 +/- 2.0 cm; root green weight 6.9 +/- 2.0 g; root dry weight 0.5 +/- 0.1 g; shoot/root ratio (dry wt) 4.4 +/- 0.9; shoot/root ratio (length) 1.7 +/- 0.3; leaf width 7.3 +/- 0.3 cm; leaf length 10.7 +/- 0.5 cm; leaf green weight 0.9 +/- 0.1 g. | Excluded panel (flagged to user): Table 3/Fig.2 substrate PAN/GNC for Control+S1 and E+IAU (e.g. E+IAU NO3-N 39.9 mg/100g — note this is 39.9-fold higher than E+EAU’s 1.0 mg/100g, per the paper’s own ‘39.9-fold’ claim p.4; P 15.0 mg/100g; K 11.0 mg/100g; Fe-EDTA 575.9 mg/kg) — substrate chemistry, no home in either CSV; see T1 remarks for general reasoning. | [not reported]: Fish Category, N (feed), K (feed), % of body weight, Fish biomass created, Fish weight gain, Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Plants/m2, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, AP, HYD, Average room Temperature, Artificial Lighting.
knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) |
| Initial Stock density | 18.1 +/- 13.6 |
| FCR | 0.92 +/- 0.14 |
| SGR | 0.92 +/- 0.51 |
| Protein | 42.0 |
| P | 1.02 |
| Fish size initial | 629.2 +/- 473.2 |
| Fish size final | 806.7 +/- 457.2 |
| Feed routine | Automatic feeders, standard commercial feeding protocol at 80% feed load as recommended by the RAS manufacturer (PAL GmbH, Germany) |
| Feed regime | Alltech Coppens Special Pro EF 4.5 mm (The Netherlands): 42.0% protein, 13% fat, 1.5% crude fibre, 7.6% ash, 1.02% phosphorus, 1.9% calcium, 0.3% sodium, 60 mg/kg iron, 5 mg/kg iodine, 5 mg/kg copper, 20 mg/kg magnesium, 60 mg/kg zinc |
| Total Feed (kg) | 58.2 |
| Fish survival rate | 2.63% mortality (stated as mortality, not survival) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 49 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Aquaculture process water from an extensive (EAU) recirculating African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) production unit, semi-coupled to the hydroponic cabin |
| Aq pH | 5.9 +/- 0.1 |
| pHOptimal | 6.0 +/- 0.2 (system-wide pH-controller setpoint, applies to Control/AET-E/AET-I alike) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 8.6 +/- 0.2 |
| EC | 0.9957 +/- 0.0894 |
| Water temperature | 25.1 +/- 1.2 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.43 +/- 0.24 |
| NO2-N | 0.05 +/- 0.07 |
| NO3-N | 57.69 +/- 9.08 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum), cv. ‘Genovese’ |
| Details | Seeds (N=350) germinated in 100% Einheitserde ‘Nullerde Typ 0’, transferred to hydroponic cabin at initial height 1.67 +/- 0.2 cm with one pair of fully expanded leaves; grown for 45 days (24.04.2018-07.06.2018) |
| Plant Category | Herb (Lamiaceae) (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 45 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 33.6 +/- 3.1 |
| Plant height | 40.5 +/- 3.8 |
| Leaf count | 26.6 +/- 5.6 |
| Plant fresh weight | 19.5 +/- 5.6 |
| Plant dry matter | 1.6 +/- 0.4 g (paper reports dry weight in g/plant, not % dry matter) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Pot cultivation on ebb-and-flood tables (aquaponics s.l., semi-coupled) |
| Media Details | ~15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (mean 37.55 g = 15.05% of pot, n=33) + ~85% Einheitserde (211.89 g = 84.94%, n=11); HFS = mineral-humus mix of 5-30% mussel-lime powder, 50-70% magma stone powder, 50-30% milled tertiary raw lignite (patent WO1993010061A1, old trade name ‘BIOHUMIN’); no starter fertiliser added to this arm |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Pre-existing nitrifying trickling filters (TF-E 2.9 m3 in EAU; TF-I 11.8 m3 in IAU) and solids-separation sedimenters (Se-E 1.2 m3; Se-I 1.7 m3) in the recirculating aquaculture units) |
| Air supplement | Y (Nutrient-solution tanks (Control, AET-E, AET-I) ventilated by an air membrane pump (Mistral 4000, Aqua Medic GmbH, Germany)) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Not supplemented to the aquaponic (EAU/IAU) treatments during this trial; Discussion (p.8) explicitly recommends iron chelate supplementation (2.5 mg/L every 3 weeks) as a FUTURE improvement, indicating it was not part of this experiment’s protocol. The commercial control fertiliser (Universol Orange) itself already contains 0.10% Fe as EDTA-chelate.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation) on Control, AET-E and AET-I nutrient tanks; ‘pH+up’ = 28.2% potassium hydroxide, ‘pH-bloom’ = 59% phosphoric acid; target pH 6.0 +/- 0.2 (Table 5 shows this was achieved more tightly in Control/AET tanks than in the raw aquaculture units, Table 4)) |
| Climate control | Y (VENLO greenhouse (GTW Gewaechshaustechnik Werder GmbH), ‘FishGlassHouse’ facility, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; no temperature/humidity setpoints reported) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic control (S1/S2) only: commercial fertiliser Universol(R) Orange 16-5-25+3.4MgO+TE (16% N: 5.2% N-NH4, 10.4% N-NO3; 5.0% P2O5; 25% K2O; 3.4% MgO; 0.10% Fe-EDTA; 0.04% Mn-EDTA; 0.01% B; 0.010% Cu-EDTA; 0.001% Mo; 0.010% Zn-EDTA), EC adjusted to approx. 2000 +/- 50 uS/cm; plus dried commercial starter fertiliser (Groenfingers GmbH) in the control substrate only (P 750, K 2020, Mg 1815 mg/kg dry matter, N 0.72%, Fe 718.81 mg/100g). Aquaponic treatments (EAU/IAU): no nutrient solution added; nutrients supplied solely by fish effluent (+ HFS substrate in Trial II).) |
| Equipment | PAL Anlagenbau GmbH RAS units; automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation); HQ40D multimeter (Hach Lange GmbH); Gallery(TM) Automated Photometric Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific); Chlorophyll Meter SPAD-502-Plus (Konica Minolta); Lightscout-3415FSE PPFD meter (Spectrum Technologies); LX1330B light meter (Dr. Meter); Analytical balance ATX224 (Shimadzu) and PCE-BS 300 (PCE Deutschland); drying oven Memmert UN750; automated clock-driven ebb-and-flood irrigation (Fackler Gewaechshaustechnik), 4x/day, 4 min flood/4 min ebb, ~5 cm water level |
| Control Parameters | 2 substrate trials (Trial I: Einheitserde; Trial II: 15% HFS) x 3 irrigation groups (Control fertiliser, EAU, IAU) x 3 blocks; n=33 pots/group (11/block) for growth, n=18 for SPAD; completely randomized block design on 9 ebb-and-flood tables; 198 of 270 planted pots analysed |
| Combination | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) extensive/intensive RAS process water + basil (Ocimum basilicum) pot culture with 100% Einheitserde or 15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate blend, semi-coupled aquaponics (s.l.) vs. commercial hydroponic-fertiliser potted control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Germany |
| Lat | 54.075714 |
| Long | 12.096591 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (height/length); g (fresh/dry weight); count (leaf number); % (SPAD, as reported in paper) |
| Statistic Details | SPSS v29 and Excel, p<=0.05 two-tailed; one-way ANOVA (Shapiro-Wilk normality check), post hoc Tukey-HSD (homogeneous variance) or Dunnett-T3 (heterogeneous variance); Kruskal-Wallis-ANOVA + Bonferroni correction for non-normal/unequal-n data; t-test (normal) or Mann-Whitney-U (non-normal) for two-group comparisons; sample size set a-priori via G*Power 3 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 33 (growth parameters, 11 pots x 3 blocks); 18 (SPAD, 6 plants x 3 blocks) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = Trial II, basil in ~15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (HFS) + ~85% Einheitserde irrigated with extensive-aquaculture (EAU) African catfish process water, sampled after 45 days (p.3, Table 2). Fish source water (EAU) is the SAME recirculating aquaculture unit and same fish-performance figures as T1 (Trial I ran concurrently with Trial II, sharing the EAU/IAU water source, p.9-10) — Fish-block cells intentionally repeat T1’s EAU values. Paired control = Control+S2 (100% Einheitserde + dried starter fertiliser, irrigated with commercial hydroponic fertiliser solution). | WARN-CHECK Fish size initial: same ambiguity as T1 (this trial shares the EAU fish population/water) — see T1 remarks for full evidence. Recorded 629.2 +/- 473.2 g (49-day-window initial) over the January delivery weight of 30 g/fish. UNRESOLVED, added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Fish trial duration: ‘49 days’ stated; inclusive calendar span of the given dates computes to 48. Recorded as stated. | WARN-MINOR Plant duration: stated as ‘45 days’ (24.04.2018-07.06.2018, p.9-10; Table 2 caption ‘after 45 days’), but the inclusive calendar span of those dates computes to 44 days. Recorded as stated (45); no other cell affected. | WARN-MINOR SPAD unit: paper labels SPAD readings ’%’; recorded as stated. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC 995.7 +/- 89.4 uS/cm (Table 5, AET-E) -> 0.9957 +/- 0.0894 dS/m (same water source as T1). | Water-quality columns taken from Table 5 AET-E (plant-bed compartment for both E- and HFS-substrate tables in this experiment, since HFS and E tables in the same trial share the same AET-E/AET-I source tanks, Fig. 4) — see T1 remarks for the Table 4 vs Table 5 compartment reasoning. | NO COLUMN (fish): identical to T1’s NO COLUMN fish items (same EAU population) — fish-count density 33.8 fish/m3-and-tank; final stocking density 24.9 +/- 15.8 kg/m3; biomass 163.0 kg -> 223.9 kg (mortality 2.63%); daily feed 1.2 kg/day. | NO COLUMN (water, Table 4/5): identical to T1’s NO COLUMN water items for the EAU/AET-E compartments. | NO COLUMN (paired hydroponic Control+S2 morphology, Table 2, n=33): plant height 61.2 +/- 5.5 cm; green weight 56.2 +/- 10.0 g; dry weight 5.2 +/- 0.9 g; leaf number 60.6 +/- 6.8; leaf width 7.7 +/- 0.5 cm; leaf length 11.8 +/- 0.7 cm; leaf green weight 1.1 +/- 0.1 g; SPAD 37.3 +/- 3.0%. Significance vs this row’s EAU-HFS group: p<0.001 for all listed parameters (p-I column, Table 2). | NO COLUMN (this row’s own EAU-HFS morphology beyond the schema’s columns, Table 2, n=33): shoot length 23.6 +/- 4.0 cm; shoot green weight 13.3 +/- 3.8 g; shoot dry weight 1.3 +/- 0.3 g; root length 16.9 +/- 1.6 cm; root green weight 6.3 +/- 2.5 g; root dry weight 0.4 +/- 0.1 g; shoot/root ratio (dry wt) 3.9 +/- 2.3; shoot/root ratio (length) 1.4 +/- 0.3; leaf width 6.8 +/- 0.4 cm; leaf length 9.4 +/- 0.7 cm; leaf green weight 0.7 +/- 0.1 g. | Excluded panel (flagged to user): Table 3/Fig.2 substrate PAN/GNC for Control+S2 and HFS+EAU (e.g. Control+S2 NO3-N 49.5 mg/100g vs HFS+EAU 0.8 mg/100g; Zn 10.7 vs 6.2 mg/kg) — substrate chemistry, no home in either CSV; see T1 remarks for general reasoning. | [not reported]: Fish Category, N (feed), K (feed), % of body weight, Fish biomass created, Fish weight gain, Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Plants/m2, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, AP, HYD, Average room Temperature, Artificial Lighting.
knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) |
| Initial Stock density | 73.4 +/- 56.8 |
| FCR | 1.25 +/- 0.65 |
| SGR | 0.83 +/- 0.55 |
| Protein | 42.0 |
| P | 1.02 |
| Fish size initial | 655.0 +/- 438.9 |
| Fish size final | 838.5 +/- 477.1 |
| Feed routine | Automatic feeders, standard commercial feeding protocol at 80% feed load as recommended by the RAS manufacturer (PAL GmbH, Germany) |
| Feed regime | Alltech Coppens Special Pro EF 4.5 mm (The Netherlands): 42.0% protein, 13% fat, 1.5% crude fibre, 7.6% ash, 1.02% phosphorus, 1.9% calcium, 0.3% sodium, 60 mg/kg iron, 5 mg/kg iodine, 5 mg/kg copper, 20 mg/kg magnesium, 60 mg/kg zinc |
| Total Feed (kg) | 182.1 |
| Fish survival rate | 1.34% mortality (stated as mortality, not survival) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 49 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Aquaculture process water from an intensive (IAU) recirculating African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) production unit, semi-coupled to the hydroponic cabin |
| Aq pH | 6.0 +/- 0.2 |
| pHOptimal | 6.0 +/- 0.2 (system-wide pH-controller setpoint, applies to Control/AET-E/AET-I alike) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 8.6 +/- 0.3 |
| EC | 1.7082 +/- 0.1732 |
| Water temperature | 25.0 +/- 1.3 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.35 +/- 0.96 |
| NO2-N | 0.22 +/- 0.23 |
| NO3-N | 144.00 +/- 20.15 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum), cv. ‘Genovese’ |
| Details | Seeds (N=350) germinated in 100% Einheitserde ‘Nullerde Typ 0’, transferred to hydroponic cabin at initial height 1.67 +/- 0.2 cm with one pair of fully expanded leaves; grown for 45 days (24.04.2018-07.06.2018) |
| Plant Category | Herb (Lamiaceae) (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 45 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 33.9 +/- 3.1 |
| Plant height | 48.2 +/- 5.4 |
| Leaf count | 38.2 +/- 8.3 |
| Plant fresh weight | 27.9 +/- 6.0 |
| Plant dry matter | 2.5 +/- 0.6 g (paper reports dry weight in g/plant, not % dry matter) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Pot cultivation on ebb-and-flood tables (aquaponics s.l., semi-coupled) |
| Media Details | ~15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (mean 37.55 g = 15.05% of pot, n=33) + ~85% Einheitserde (211.89 g = 84.94%, n=11); HFS = mineral-humus mix of 5-30% mussel-lime powder, 50-70% magma stone powder, 50-30% milled tertiary raw lignite (patent WO1993010061A1, old trade name ‘BIOHUMIN’); no starter fertiliser added to this arm |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Pre-existing nitrifying trickling filters (TF-E 2.9 m3 in EAU; TF-I 11.8 m3 in IAU) and solids-separation sedimenters (Se-E 1.2 m3; Se-I 1.7 m3) in the recirculating aquaculture units) |
| Air supplement | Y (Nutrient-solution tanks (Control, AET-E, AET-I) ventilated by an air membrane pump (Mistral 4000, Aqua Medic GmbH, Germany)) |
| Iron supplemented | N (Not supplemented to the aquaponic (EAU/IAU) treatments during this trial; Discussion (p.8) explicitly recommends iron chelate supplementation (2.5 mg/L every 3 weeks) as a FUTURE improvement, indicating it was not part of this experiment’s protocol. The commercial control fertiliser (Universol Orange) itself already contains 0.10% Fe as EDTA-chelate.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation) on Control, AET-E and AET-I nutrient tanks; ‘pH+up’ = 28.2% potassium hydroxide, ‘pH-bloom’ = 59% phosphoric acid; target pH 6.0 +/- 0.2 (Table 5 shows this was achieved more tightly in Control/AET tanks than in the raw aquaculture units, Table 4)) |
| Climate control | Y (VENLO greenhouse (GTW Gewaechshaustechnik Werder GmbH), ‘FishGlassHouse’ facility, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; no temperature/humidity setpoints reported) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic control (S1/S2) only: commercial fertiliser Universol(R) Orange 16-5-25+3.4MgO+TE (16% N: 5.2% N-NH4, 10.4% N-NO3; 5.0% P2O5; 25% K2O; 3.4% MgO; 0.10% Fe-EDTA; 0.04% Mn-EDTA; 0.01% B; 0.010% Cu-EDTA; 0.001% Mo; 0.010% Zn-EDTA), EC adjusted to approx. 2000 +/- 50 uS/cm; plus dried commercial starter fertiliser (Groenfingers GmbH) in the control substrate only (P 750, K 2020, Mg 1815 mg/kg dry matter, N 0.72%, Fe 718.81 mg/100g). Aquaponic treatments (EAU/IAU): no nutrient solution added; nutrients supplied solely by fish effluent (+ HFS substrate in Trial II).) |
| Equipment | PAL Anlagenbau GmbH RAS units; automated pH-controller (Bluelab Corporation); HQ40D multimeter (Hach Lange GmbH); Gallery(TM) Automated Photometric Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific); Chlorophyll Meter SPAD-502-Plus (Konica Minolta); Lightscout-3415FSE PPFD meter (Spectrum Technologies); LX1330B light meter (Dr. Meter); Analytical balance ATX224 (Shimadzu) and PCE-BS 300 (PCE Deutschland); drying oven Memmert UN750; automated clock-driven ebb-and-flood irrigation (Fackler Gewaechshaustechnik), 4x/day, 4 min flood/4 min ebb, ~5 cm water level |
| Control Parameters | 2 substrate trials (Trial I: Einheitserde; Trial II: 15% HFS) x 3 irrigation groups (Control fertiliser, EAU, IAU) x 3 blocks; n=33 pots/group (11/block) for growth, n=18 for SPAD; completely randomized block design on 9 ebb-and-flood tables; 198 of 270 planted pots analysed |
| Combination | African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) extensive/intensive RAS process water + basil (Ocimum basilicum) pot culture with 100% Einheitserde or 15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate blend, semi-coupled aquaponics (s.l.) vs. commercial hydroponic-fertiliser potted control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Germany |
| Lat | 54.075714 |
| Long | 12.096591 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (height/length); g (fresh/dry weight); count (leaf number); % (SPAD, as reported in paper) |
| Statistic Details | SPSS v29 and Excel, p<=0.05 two-tailed; one-way ANOVA (Shapiro-Wilk normality check), post hoc Tukey-HSD (homogeneous variance) or Dunnett-T3 (heterogeneous variance); Kruskal-Wallis-ANOVA + Bonferroni correction for non-normal/unequal-n data; t-test (normal) or Mann-Whitney-U (non-normal) for two-group comparisons; sample size set a-priori via G*Power 3 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 33 (growth parameters, 11 pots x 3 blocks); 18 (SPAD, 6 plants x 3 blocks) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = Trial II, basil in ~15% Humicacid Fiber-Substrate (HFS) + ~85% Einheitserde irrigated with intensive-aquaculture (IAU) African catfish process water, sampled after 45 days (p.3, Table 2). Fish source water (IAU) is the SAME recirculating aquaculture unit and same fish-performance figures as T2 — Fish-block cells intentionally repeat T2’s IAU values. Paired control = Control+S2 (same as T3’s control). | WARN-CHECK Fish size initial: same ambiguity as T2 (this trial shares the IAU fish population/water) — see T1/T2 remarks for full evidence. Recorded 655.0 +/- 438.9 g (49-day-window initial) over the January delivery weight of 30 g/fish. UNRESOLVED, added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR Fish trial duration: ‘49 days’ stated; inclusive calendar span computes to 48. Recorded as stated. | WARN-MINOR Plant duration: ‘45 days’ stated; inclusive calendar span of the given dates computes to 44. Recorded as stated. | WARN-MINOR SPAD unit: paper labels SPAD readings ’%’; recorded as stated. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC 1708.2 +/- 173.2 uS/cm (Table 5, AET-I) -> 1.7082 +/- 0.1732 dS/m (same water source as T2). | Water-quality columns taken from Table 5 AET-I (plant-bed compartment) — see T1/T2 remarks for the Table 4 vs Table 5 compartment reasoning. | NO COLUMN (fish): identical to T2’s NO COLUMN fish items (same IAU population) — fish-count density 132.4 fish/m3-and-tank; final stocking density 89.5 +/- 55.6 kg/m3; biomass 660.2 kg -> 805.8 kg (mortality 1.34%); daily feed 3.7 kg/day. | NO COLUMN (water, Table 4/5): identical to T2’s NO COLUMN water items for the IAU/AET-I compartments. | NO COLUMN (paired hydroponic Control+S2 morphology, Table 2, n=33; identical control to T3): plant height 61.2 +/- 5.5 cm; green weight 56.2 +/- 10.0 g; dry weight 5.2 +/- 0.9 g; leaf number 60.6 +/- 6.8; leaf width 7.7 +/- 0.5 cm; leaf length 11.8 +/- 0.7 cm; leaf green weight 1.1 +/- 0.1 g; SPAD 37.3 +/- 3.0%. Significance vs this row’s IAU-HFS group: p<0.001 for all except leaf width (p=0.893, ns, p-II column, Table 2). | NO COLUMN (this row’s own IAU-HFS morphology beyond the schema’s columns, Table 2, n=33): shoot length 30.8 +/- 4.6 cm; shoot green weight 21.1 +/- 5.0 g; shoot dry weight 2.0 +/- 0.6 g; root length 17.4 +/- 2.0 cm; root green weight 6.8 +/- 2.2 g; root dry weight 0.4 +/- 0.1 g; shoot/root ratio (dry wt) 4.8 +/- 1.4; shoot/root ratio (length) 1.8 +/- 0.3; leaf width 7.5 +/- 0.6 cm; leaf length 10.7 +/- 0.7 cm; leaf green weight 0.9 +/- 0.1 g. | Excluded panel (flagged to user): Table 3/Fig.2 substrate PAN/GNC for Control+S2 and HFS+IAU (e.g. HFS+IAU NO3-N 30.7 mg/100g — paper’s own ‘38.4-fold’ vs HFS+EAU’s 0.8 mg/100g, p.4; Zn 5.4 mg/kg; Fe-EDTA 807.9 mg/kg; NH4-N 1.2 mg/100g, the highest of the six substrate groups) — substrate chemistry, no home in either CSV; see T1 remarks for general reasoning. | [not reported]: Fish Category, N (feed), K (feed), % of body weight, Fish biomass created, Fish weight gain, Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Plants/m2, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, AP, HYD, Average room Temperature, Artificial Lighting.