Comparative Study on Growth and Yield of Far Eastern Catfish Silurus asotus and Leafy Vegetables Grown in Hybrid BFT-Aquaponics, Semi-RAS and Hydroponics
Metadata
- Cite key: leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: D.H. Lee, J.Y. Kim, S.R. Lim, D.Y. Kim, K.B. Kim, J.M. Kim, J.D. Kim
- Affiliation: Gyeonggi Province Maritime and Fisheries Research Institute, Yangpyeong 12513, Korea (Lee, Lim, Kim D-Y, Kim K-B); Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services, Hwaseong 18274, Korea (Kim J-Y); Seven Pillars, Dangjin 31778, Korea (Kim J-M); College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea (Kim J-D, corresponding author)
- Journal: Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52(5) (2019) 482-495
- Date: 10/2019 (received 5 September 2019; revised 25 September 2019; accepted 4 October 2019)
- Date added: [not reported] (zotero-export.csv lists Date Added 2021-06-17, but CLAUDE.md treats this as vault metadata, not paper metadata)
- DOI: 10.5657/KFAS.2019.0482
- Funding: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA), Republic of Korea, through the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) Agri-Bioindustry Technology Development Program (grant no. 118049-03-2-HD020)
- URL: https://doi.org/10.5657/KFAS.2019.0482
- PDF:
Lee et al. - 2019 - Comparative study on growth and yield of far easte.pdf
Opinion
A well-instrumented, production-scale (165 m²) field comparison that earns its
experimentclassification: fixed rations, weekly water-quality monitoring for 18 weeks, ANOVA with a preceding homogeneity-of-variance check, and 11 species tested across three sequential batches give real breadth. The pH-driven plant-growth-suppression finding in EXP 2 is genuinely well supported — it is visible in both the water-quality tables and the growth tables independently, not asserted from one alone. The biggest structural weakness is that “replicates” are individual fish/plants pooled within a single physical system per treatment (one HBFT-AP tank, one SRAS tank, one HP loop) — there is no system-level replication, so any system-to-system difference (construction quirks, microclimate, incidental contamination) is fully confounded with the treatment effect and cannot be distinguished from it statistically, no matter how many individual fish or plants were sampled within each system. FCR, the standard efficiency metric elsewhere in this literature, is never reported (only FE% and PER), which will make this paper hard to pool with FCR-based comparisons. One Results-sentence overstates significance for Swiss chard’s leaf length against the paper’s own Table 6 data (see Extraction notes) — a minor but real internal slip. Worth citing for its water-quality time series and multi-species breadth; treat efficiency-metric comparisons across systems as suggestive rather than confirmatory given the lack of system replication.
Abstract
This study compared the productivity of fish and vegetables grown using the hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics (HBFT-AP), a semi-recirculating aquaculture system (SRAS), and hydroponics (HP). For the study of fish productivity (HBFT-AP vs. SRAS), fish were provided feed containing 3.0% monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) for 18 weeks. After the 18-week feeding trial, the average weight of the sampled population (n=100) was not significantly different (P>0.05), while hematocrit (PCV, %), hemoglobin (Hb, g/dL), and plasma K (mEq/L) were significantly different (P<0.05) between the two groups (HBFT-AP: 47.83%, 15.48 g/dL, and 1.39 mEq/L; SRAS 34.83%, 11.81 g/dL, and 2.48 mEq/L). Leaf vegetable productivity (HBFT-AP vs. HP) was compared in three experiments (EXP 1-3), and slower growth was observed in both groups in EXP 2, in which pH was maintained at 5.0 or less throughout the experiment. During the 18-week feeding trial, total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), NO3-N, and PO4-P levels increased with time in the HBFT-AP system, while the concentration of NO2-N remained below 0.1 mg/L throughout the study.
Keywords: Silurus asotus, Aquaponics, Hydroponics, MKP, HBFT
Summary
This is a production-scale (165 m² total footprint) field trial in Gyeonggi Province, South Korea, comparing three independently-circulated systems for growing Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and 11 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars: an integrated hybrid biofloc-technology aquaponic system (HBFT-AP) using a monobasic-potassium-phosphate (MKP)-modified feed, a fish-only semi-recirculating control (SRAS), and a fish-free deep-flow hydroponic control (HP). Catfish were fed a fixed 0.5%-body-weight daily ration for 18 weeks in both HBFT-AP and SRAS; final growth performance (weight gain, feed efficiency, SGR, survival) was statistically indistinguishable between the two systems, but HBFT-AP fish had significantly higher hematocrit and hemoglobin and significantly lower plasma potassium than SRAS fish, which the authors interpret as physiological adaptation to HBFT-AP’s more acidic, higher-potassium water. Eleven leafy-vegetable species were grown in three sequential 23-24-day batches (EXP 1-3) in HBFT-AP vegetable beds fed only by fish-conditioned water, compared against HP beds on a full synthetic nutrient solution; growth was statistically indistinguishable between AP and HP in EXP 1, AP outgrew HP for most species/traits in EXP 2, and outgrew HP for one of five species (red lettuce) in EXP 3 — while EXP 2 showed the slowest overall growth in both systems, coinciding with the deepest and longest pH excursion below 5.0 recorded in either loop. Weekly water-quality monitoring over the full 18 weeks showed HBFT-AP total ammonia, nitrate, and phosphate all rising more or less steadily, while nitrite fell early and stayed below 0.1 mg/L from week 3 onward. The paper attributes the EXP 2 plant-growth setback specifically to pH excursions below 5.0 rather than to nutrient insufficiency, and reports that by the end of the trial iron, potassium, and phosphate concentrations in the HBFT-AP loop were comparable to (or higher than) the HP nutrient solution.
Experiment data
- Location: Gyeonggi Province Maritime and Fisheries Research Institute (fish/water systems) with seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services (plant nursery); total facility footprint 165 m² (Fig. 1A); Yangpyeong / Hwaseong, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.
- Design: Three parallel, independently-circulated production systems, no shared water between systems: HBFT-AP (integrated catfish + vegetable beds, one loop), SRAS (catfish only, semi-recirculating, one tank), HP (vegetables only, deep-flow hydroponics on synthetic nutrient solution, one loop). Single physical system per treatment — no system-level replication (see Opinion).
- Replicates / n: Fish growth: 100 individually-weighed fish sampled per system (of 615 HBFT-AP / 610 SRAS stocked, Table 4). Fish blood: 12 fish per system (Table 11). Plants: 12 individuals sampled per species per system per experiment (Tables 5-7, “No. 12” per species).
- Duration: Fish 18 weeks (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: = 126 days). Plants: EXP 1 = 23 days after transplant (transplanted ~week 2 post-stocking); EXP 2 and EXP 3 = 24 days after transplant each (transplanted ~week 9 and ~week 14 post-stocking respectively).
- Organisms: Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) cvs. Sunpoong, Romaine, Caipira, Butterhead, Red (불꽃상추), Abata / Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris) / Red leaf mustard (Brassica juncea) / Pak Choi (Brassica campestris) / Celery (Apium graveolens) / Tatsoi (Brassica narinosa)
- Statistics: One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999), significance level P<0.05, preceded by Cochran’s test for homogeneity of variance (Sokal and Rohlf 1995).
- Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): [not reported] — only Feed Efficiency (FE%) and Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) are given, not the FCR ratio itself.
- Specific Growth Rate (SGR): 0.35 %/day, identical for HBFT-AP and SRAS (Table 4).
- Fish weight gain (%): 53.43% (HBFT-AP) vs 54.06% (SRAS), not significant (Table 4; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact both times).
- Plant fresh weight: Species- and experiment-dependent; see trials.csv for all 15 species x experiment rows. EXP 1: no significant AP vs HP difference for any of 5 species. EXP 2: AP significantly higher for Pak Choi, Butterhead, Swiss chard, Red lettuce, and Abata lettuce (all P<0.05). EXP 3: no significant difference for any of the 5 species, including Red lettuce (leaf weight ns despite leaf number/length both being significant for that species).
Fish growth (HBFT-AP vs SRAS)
This paper: Over the 18-week trial, HBFT-AP fish grew from a total initial weight of 123,900 g (615 fish, mean 201.4±21.2 g) to 190,100 g (601 surviving fish, mean 316.4±33.6 g), a 53.43% weight gain, on 141,280 g dry feed (FE 46.85%, SGR 0.35%/day, PER 0.95, DFI 0.48%/day, survival 97.7%). SRAS fish grew from 124,300 g (610 fish, mean 204.6±24.1 g) to 191,500 g (603 surviving fish, mean 315.9±46.3 g), a 54.06% weight gain, on 142,440 g feed (FE 47.18%, SGR 0.35%/day, PER 0.96, DFI 0.45%/day, survival 98.9%). None of these growth-performance metrics differed significantly between systems (P>0.05, Table 4), despite HBFT-AP operating at a substantially lower and more variable pH (weekly means 4.62-7.53) than SRAS (stable at 7.64±0.15). The authors read this as evidence that the pH 5.0-6.5 range HBFT-AP was managed within is not, by itself, growth-limiting for this species.
Compared with:
- todo Lee et al. 2019 (KFAS 52, 159-172) — the semi-pilot-scale precursor study that established the MKP3 diet and HBFT-AP method used here; this paper is explicitly framed as its field-scale follow-up (Introduction, cited repeatedly)
- todo Yoon et al. 2014 — optimal MKP substitute/phosphorus requirement in juvenile Far Eastern catfish, same species, same research group (References)
Blood parameters (HBFT-AP vs SRAS)
This paper: After 18 weeks, HBFT-AP catfish (n=12) had significantly higher PCV (47.83±3.49% vs 34.83±3.69%, P<0.05) and hemoglobin (15.48±0.98 vs 11.81±1.60 g/dL, P<0.05), and significantly lower plasma K (1.39±0.33 vs 2.48±0.36 mEq/L, P<0.05) than SRAS catfish. GOT, GPT, glucose, inorganic phosphorus, plasma Na, and plasma Cl did not differ significantly between systems. The authors attribute the higher PCV/Hb to an oxygen-carrying adaptation to HBFT-AP’s more acidic environment, and the lower plasma K to osmotic regulation against HBFT-AP’s higher ambient water K. These blood parameters have no dedicated column in trials.csv (NO COLUMN) and are recorded only here and in Experimental Remarks.
Compared with:
- todo Leard et al. 1998 — seasonal blood parameters of farm-raised channel catfish, Mississippi Delta; cited for a much higher plasma K baseline (4.01 mEq/L) than either system in this paper (Discussion, p.491)
- todo Akinrotimi et al. 2011 — hematological values of African catfish in a water-recirculating system (Discussion, p.491)
- todo Adedeji 2009 — diazinon effects on African catfish blood parameters (Discussion, p.491)
Leafy vegetable growth (HBFT-AP vs HP)
This paper: Three sequential batches of 5 species each (11 unique species total) were grown in HBFT-AP vegetable beds (fed only by fish-conditioned recirculating water) alongside an independent HP hydroponic loop (synthetic nutrient solution, Table 3). EXP 1 (23 days, weeks 2-5): no significant AP-vs-HP difference in leaf number, leaf weight, or leaf length for any of the 5 species (Swiss chard, Sunpoong/Romaine/Caipira lettuce, red leaf mustard). EXP 2 (24 days, weeks 9-12): AP significantly outperformed HP on most metrics for all 5 species (Pak Choi, Butterhead lettuce, Swiss chard, Red lettuce, Abata lettuce) — see Extraction notes for one internal contradiction affecting Swiss chard’s leaf-length significance claim. EXP 3 (24 days, weeks 14-17): no significant difference for 4 of 5 species (Celery, Tatsoi, Caipira lettuce, Abata lettuce); Red lettuce showed significantly higher leaf number and leaf length under AP but not leaf weight. The authors tie EXP 2’s comparatively weak growth in both systems to a sustained pH excursion below 5.0 (4 weeks in HP, 2 weeks in HBFT-AP) rather than to nutrient insufficiency, since the same species (e.g. Red lettuce, Abata lettuce, Caipira lettuce) recur across experiments and perform differently depending on which pH window they were grown in.
Compared with:
- todo Bittsanszky et al. 2016 — general aquaponic nutrient supply, reports P/Ca/Fe/K as typically most deficient for plant growth in AP systems (Discussion, p.489-490)
- todo Rakocy 2007 / Rakocy et al. 2006 / Bailey and Ferrarezi 2017 — UVI aquaponic system design, the RAS-based comparator the authors position HBFT-AP against as simpler/cheaper (Introduction)
- todo Dhakal et al. 2005 — recycling vs non-recycling hydroponic nutrient solution, tomato, no yield difference found (Discussion, p.491, cited as a counter-example to the ion-imbalance-over-time literature)
- todo Parks and Murray 2011 — leafy Asian vegetable hydroponic nutrition; cited for the >100 mg/L Na threshold above which Na begins to competitively inhibit K uptake in lettuce (Discussion, p.493)
- todo Findenegg et al. 1986 — proton balance of plants, pH-related nutrient-uptake symptoms (Discussion, p.491)
- todo Thorarinsdottir 2015 — aquaponics guidelines; cited for optimal pH windows (macro-elements 6.5-7.0, micro-elements <6.5) and fish pH tolerance limits (no growth pH 4.0-5.0, mortality >pH 11) (Discussion, p.492)
Water quality
This paper: HBFT-AP was monitored 6x/week for 18 weeks (Table 8-9; only a range is reported, no single trial-mean, since values are given as 18 separate weekly means — the final week’s figure is based on only 3 days). Across the 18 weeks, weekly means ranged: DO 7.93-9.00 mg/L, pH 4.62-7.53, water temperature 23.77-26.38°C, EC 170.37-1,050.20 µS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m), TAN 0.44-14.62 mg/L, NO2-N 0.02-5.08 mg/L (falling below 0.1 mg/L from week 3 onward), NO3-N 4.37-108.12 mg/L, PO4-P 4.99-33.20 mg/L (Table 9; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column). pH fell below 5.0 for 3 consecutive weeks (weeks 11-13) due to continued nitrification (H⁺ production) and CO2 accumulation from mineralization; sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) was dosed into both HBFT-AP and HP from week 13 onward to hold pH in the 5.0-6.5 range, which measurably raised both systems’ water Na by the trial’s end (Table 12). SRAS (fish-only) and HP (plant-only) each had a single stable 18-week mean±SD reported instead of a weekly range (Table 10): SRAS — DO 7.89±0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64±0.15, temp 25.48±1.25°C, EC 167.35±7.54 µS/cm, TAN 0.21±0.11, NO2-N 0.07±0.02, NO3-N 3.84±0.59, PO4-P 2.87±0.23 mg/L; HP — DO 9.81±0.37 mg/L, pH 6.35±0.34 (weeks 1-9) / 4.63±1.66 (weeks 10-14) / 6.34±0.21 (weeks 15-18), temp 20.49±0.84°C, EC 1,214.36±95.65 µS/cm, TAN 2.75±0.57, NO2-N 0.01±0.01, NO3-N 57.38±13.21, PO4-P 78.29±28.67 mg/L. An end-of-trial nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/IC, “means of 2 determinations”) found HBFT-AP and HP broadly comparable for K, Ca, Fe, Zn, Cu, with HBFT-AP roughly 2x higher in NO3-N and HP roughly 3x higher in PO4-P.
Compared with:
- todo Emerenciano et al. 2017 — biofloc technology as a water-quality management tool, method basis for HBFT-AP’s beneficial-microbe/organic-carbon dosing protocol (Materials and Methods, p.485)
- todo Russo et al. 1981 — acute nitrate toxicity to rainbow trout, cited for RAS water-quality management rationale (Introduction)
Linked claims
- Aquaponic vegetable growth can match hydroponic growth despite lower and more variable pH
- Aquaponic fish blood chemistry differs from recirculating-aquaculture controls without a corresponding growth-performance difference
- Low pH below 5.0 suppresses leafy vegetable growth in both aquaponic and hydroponic systems
Citations to chase
- todo Lee DH, Kim JY, Lim SR, Kim DY, Kim JM, Shin SJ, Kim JD (2019) — Effect of dietary monobasic potassium phosphate levels on water quality and growth of far eastern catfish and four leafy vegetables in a hybrid biofloc technology aquaponic system, Korean J Fish Aquat Sci 52, 159-172 (the semi-pilot precursor to this paper; NOT the same paper as this citekey despite both being “Lee et al. 2019”)
- todo Yoon TH, Lee DH, Won SG, Ra CS, Kim JD (2014) — optimal MKP incorporation / phosphorus requirement in juvenile Far Eastern catfish
- todo Leard AT, Wagner BA, Camp KL, Wise DJ, Gao XD (1998) — seasonal blood parameters of farm-raised channel catfish
- todo Akinrotimi OA, Bekibele DO, Orokotan OO (2011) — hematological values of African catfish in a recirculating system
- todo Bittsanszky A et al. (2016) — nutrient supply of plants in aquaponics systems
- todo Rakocy JE, Masser MP, Losordo TM (2006) — recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: aquaponics
- todo Bailey DS, Ferrarezi RS (2017) — valuation of vegetable crops in the UVI commercial aquaponic system
- todo Dhakal U, Salokhe VM, Tantau HJ, Mas J (2005) — greenhouse nutrient recycling system for tomato, humid tropics
- todo Parks S, Murray C (2011) — leafy Asian vegetables and their nutrition in hydroponics
- todo Thorarinsdottir RI (2015) — Aquaponics guidelines
- todo Emerenciano MGC, Martinez-Cordova LR, Martinez-Porchas M, Miranda-Baeza A (2017) — biofloc technology as a water-quality management tool
Extraction notes
- ⚠️WARN-MATERIAL Plant height (leaf length) significance, Swiss chard, EXP 2 (trial row
-T8): Results running text (p.487-488) states “적근대, 불꽃상추는… 엽채길이 평균(적근대 26.75cm…) 모두 유의하게 높은 값을 나타내었다(P<0.05)” — i.e. it claims Swiss chard’s leaf length (26.75 cm HBFT-AP vs 23.54 cm HP) was significantly different at P<0.05. Table 6 (p.488) marks this exact same value pair with an “ns” superscript, i.e. NOT significant. Table 6’s per-value superscript is the paper’s own explicit, consistently-applied statistical marking (used throughout Tables 5-7 to distinguish significant from non-significant comparisons) and is recorded as authoritative in trials.csv; the text’s significance claim for Swiss chard’s leaf length is the discrepant candidate, most likely a copy-paste over-generalization from the immediately adjacent (and genuinely significant) Red lettuce leaf-length result in the same sentence. No other cell for this species is affected — leaf number and leaf weight significance both match between text and table for Swiss chard. Not added to REVIEW.md (MATERIAL tier resolves itself; only BLOCK/CHECK require user review per SCHEMA.md). - ⚠️WARN-MINOR Blood Cl standard deviation, HBFT-AP (NO COLUMN — blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv field): Results running text (p.489) states Cl = 121.83±2.32 mEq/L; Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83±1.64 mEq/L for the same comparison. Same mean, different SD; both are marked/described as non-significant either way, so no interpretation is affected. Recorded in Experimental Remarks (all 15 rows) without resolving to a single value.
- Column-mapping note (not a contradiction): the schema’s “Plant height” column has no matching measurement in this paper — the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own “leaf length (cm)” (Tables 5-7), which is recorded there instead for lack of a dedicated column. Same treatment for “System type”: HP is explicitly described as deep-flow-technique (DFT) hydroponics (p.490-491), but the paper never explicitly restates this label for the physically-identical HBFT-AP bed, so System type is recorded
NRfor HBFT-AP rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. - [not reported] grouped by field (all 15 trial rows): SPAD (never measured in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemistry, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter; Plants/m²; Water volume in the system; Water recycle (flow rate); Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (HBFT-AP); FCR; N (% of feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g, only % is given); Initial Stock density (kg/m³, only fish count + tank dimensions given, not a stated density); pHOptimal; FUE AP/HYD; WUE; Lat/Long (only town names given: Yangpyeong, Hwaseong, Dangjin, Chuncheon); Average room Temperature; System type (HBFT-AP); Iron supplemented; Climate control.
- NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (initial 123,900 g / final 190,100 g both stated, difference not computed); Fish weight gain in grams (only WG%=53.43% stated, formula-recomputed and confirmed exact from Table 4’s own totals but not converted to a gram value); Initial Stock density (tank dimensions phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m given, volume not computed); Plants/m² (900 plants and 34.8 m² total bed area both stated, not divided); Water volume in the system (component dimensions given for fish tank/sump/filter, not summed).
- UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (all rows): 18 weeks → 126 days; 141,280 g → 141.28 kg (Total Feed); 16,499.0 ppm → 1.6499% (feed K); 170.37-1,050.20 µS/cm → 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (EC, HBFT-AP weekly range); 167.35±7.54 µS/cm → 0.16735±0.00754 dS/m (SRAS, NO COLUMN); 1,214.36±95.65 µS/cm → 1.21436±0.09565 dS/m (HP, NO COLUMN).
- NO COLUMN items (repeated in every row’s Experimental Remarks): SRAS fish-only comparison data in full (growth performance, water quality, blood chemistry — SRAS is a fish-only control, not a hydroponic control, and has no dedicated columns distinct from HBFT-AP’s own Fish-block cells); Table 12’s single end-of-trial nutrient panel (K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, SO4, Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu for both HBFT-AP and HP); PO4-P (no dedicated trials.csv column at all, either system); stem mean weight and root mean weight per species (Tables 5-7, no SD given, single determinations, no dedicated columns).
- Tags note: No
TAGS.mdexists yet in this vault to check against.Meta/Plant/Swiss-Chard,Meta/Plant/Mustard,Meta/Plant/Pak-Choi,Meta/Plant/Celery, andMeta/Plant/Tatsoiare newly introduced by this extraction (in addition to the existingMeta/Plant/Lettuce); other batch-5 papers extracted in parallel may introduce overlapping facets under different names (e.g.Meta/Plant/Brassica) that should be reconciled onceTAGS.mdis created. - Author-initial note: this paper has five different co-authors surnamed Kim (Jin-Young, Dal-Young, Kwang-Bae, Joo-Min, Jeong-Dae). A single-initial wikilink convention (as used for
[[M. Kim]]inkimComparisonWaterQuality2023.md) would collapse all five into one ambiguous note here, so two-letter initials ([[J.Y. Kim]],[[D.Y. Kim]],[[K.B. Kim]],[[J.M. Kim]],[[J.D. Kim]]) were used instead — flagging in case the vault’s author-note convention needs reconciling across these two forms. - Trial-row count rationale: 15 rows (one per species x experiment combination) rather than 1 or 3, because each of the 11 species is grown as an independent batch with its own stated per-species/per-experiment means, SDs, and significance markers (Tables 5-7) — this is per-arm reported data, not a repeated restatement of one parameter, and follows the precedent set in
kimComparisonWaterQuality2023.md(one row per cultivar under a single aquaponic system). Four species recur across two experiments each with materially different results (Swiss chard: EXP1 & EXP2; Caipira lettuce: EXP1 & EXP3; Red lettuce and Abata lettuce: EXP2 & EXP3) and are recorded as separate rows for the same reason — different transplant cohorts, different measured outcomes.
Source: Lee et al. - 2019 - Comparative study on growth and yield of far easte.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
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 23 |
| Plant height | 34.67 +/- 3.36 |
| Leaf count | 12.67 +/- 2.06 |
| Plant fresh weight | 71.56 +/- 14.71 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 1’s window had already concluded (weeks 2-5).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris) in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post-stocking; 23 days cultivation after transplant, Table 5), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 5, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 11.25 +/- 1.71; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 57.22 +/- 14.22 g/plant; Leaf length 31.21 +/- 3.51 cm. Stem mean weight 3.15 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 5.91 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.41 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 2.72 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Sunpoong lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 23 |
| Plant height | 28.63 +/- 2.23 |
| Leaf count | 13.17 +/- 1.90 |
| Plant fresh weight | 70.61 +/- 14.50 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 1’s window had already concluded (weeks 2-5).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Sunpoong lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Sunpoong lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post-stocking; 23 days cultivation after transplant, Table 5), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 5, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 11.25 +/- 1.60; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 78.93 +/- 12.49 g/plant; Leaf length 29.38 +/- 1.48 cm. Stem mean weight 11.42 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 6.17 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 13.62 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 3.02 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 23 |
| Plant height | 31.58 +/- 1.68 |
| Leaf count | 18.75 +/- 2.56 |
| Plant fresh weight | 97.46 +/- 16.49 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 1’s window had already concluded (weeks 2-5).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post-stocking; 23 days cultivation after transplant, Table 5), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 5, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 16.92 +/- 2.64; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 112.4 +/- 18.54 g/plant; Leaf length 34.67 +/- 2.67 cm. Stem mean weight 19.25 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 9.22 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 11.38 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.44 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Red leaf mustard (Brassica juncea) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 23 |
| Plant height | 37.13 +/- 2.56 |
| Leaf count | 9.58 +/- 1.78 |
| Plant fresh weight | 65.83 +/- 17.16 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 1’s window had already concluded (weeks 2-5).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Red leaf mustard (Brassica juncea); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Red leaf mustard (Brassica juncea) in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post-stocking; 23 days cultivation after transplant, Table 5), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 5, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 9.25 +/- 1.14; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 73.23 +/- 21.71 g/plant; Leaf length 38 +/- 4.34 cm. Stem mean weight 5.2 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 5.91 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 3.9 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.64 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T5
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 23 |
| Plant height | 21.75 +/- 1.71 |
| Leaf count | 20.08 +/- 1.88 |
| Plant fresh weight | 79.45 +/- 11.77 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 1’s window had already concluded (weeks 2-5).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T5 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 1 (weeks 2-5 post-stocking; 23 days cultivation after transplant, Table 5), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 5, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 18.75 +/- 2.60; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 86.65 +/- 16.04 g/plant; Leaf length 21.58 +/- 1.51 cm. Stem mean weight 6.34 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 3.94 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.41 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 2.72 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T6
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Pak Choi (Brassica campestris) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 19.33 +/- 1.61 |
| Leaf count | 13.08 +/- 1.16 |
| Plant fresh weight | 63.86 +/- 11.90 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 2’s window had already concluded (weeks 9-12).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Pak Choi (Brassica campestris); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T6 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Pak Choi (Brassica campestris) in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 6), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 6, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 11.5 +/- 1.38; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 31.73 +/- 6.03 g/plant; Leaf length 16.18 +/- 1.20 cm. Stem mean weight 1.20 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 2.63 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 0.88 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 1.92 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T7
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 20.75 +/- 1.60 |
| Leaf count | 19.00 +/- 1.41 |
| Plant fresh weight | 60.99 +/- 7.51 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 2’s window had already concluded (weeks 9-12).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T7 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 6), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 6, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 16.75 +/- 1.82; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 38.42 +/- 8.94 g/plant; Leaf length 15.58 +/- 1.18 cm. Stem mean weight 0.58 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 2.57 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 0.36 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 3.47 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T8
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 26.75 +/- 2.30 |
| Leaf count | 11.00 +/- 1.28 |
| Plant fresh weight | 30.26 +/- 5.73 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 2’s window had already concluded (weeks 9-12).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T8 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris) in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 6), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 6, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 8.33 +/- 0.65; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 17.00 +/- 2.62 g/plant; Leaf length 23.54 +/- 2.46 cm. Stem mean weight 0.45 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 1.03 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 0.73 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 2.99 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | WARN-MATERIAL Plant height (leaf length) significance, Swiss chard EXP 2: Results running text (p.487-488, ‘적근대, 불꽃상추는… 엽채길이 평균(적근대 26.75cm…) 모두 유의하게 높은 값을 나타내었다(P<0.05)’) states Swiss chard’s leaf length (26.75 cm HBFT-AP) was significantly higher than HP (23.54 cm) at P<0.05. Table 6 (p.488) marks this exact value with an ‘ns’ superscript (‘Leaf length (cm) 26.75+/-2.30(ns) 23.54+/-2.46’), i.e. NOT significant — directly contradicting the running text for this one species/metric. Table 6’s per-value superscript is the paper’s own explicit, granular statistical marking (used consistently to distinguish significant from non-significant results throughout Tables 5-7) and is recorded here as authoritative (ns); the Results-text claim of significance for Swiss chard’s leaf length is the discrepant candidate, most likely a copy-paste over-generalisation from the adjacent, genuinely-significant Red lettuce leaf-length result in the same sentence. No other cell in this row is affected (Leaf No. and Leaf weight significance both match between text and table for Swiss chard). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T9
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Red lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 25.66 +/- 1.23 |
| Leaf count | 16.58 +/- 1.44 |
| Plant fresh weight | 49.41 +/- 9.25 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 2’s window had already concluded (weeks 9-12).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Red lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T9 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Red lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 6), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 6, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 12.25 +/- 1.22; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 22.65 +/- 4.64 g/plant; Leaf length 19.05 +/- 2.10 cm. Stem mean weight 0.92 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 1.68 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 0.59 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 3.32 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T10
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Abata lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 15.83 +/- 3.16 |
| Leaf count | 16.91 +/- 1.51 |
| Plant fresh weight | 37.56 +/- 5.12 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | N (N — NaHCO3 remineralisation/pH-buffering only began week 13 (Discussion p.491-492, ‘중탄산나트륨을… 13주부터 투입하였다’), after EXP 2’s window had already concluded (weeks 9-12).) |
| pH Buffers | N (N — see Remineralization details; same NaHCO3 intervention, not yet started during this experiment’s window.) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Abata lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T10 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Abata lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 2 (weeks 9-12 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 6), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 6, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 12.58 +/- 1.38; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 22.45 +/- 2.93 g/plant; Leaf length 12.50 +/- 1.31 cm. Stem mean weight 0.68 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 2.99 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 1.03 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 4.27 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T11
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Red lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 28.35 +/- 1.40 |
| Leaf count | 20.00 +/- 2.63 |
| Plant fresh weight | 66.54 +/- 16.74 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Y — NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) added to both HBFT-AP and HP from week 13 onward to counteract nitrification/mineralisation-driven pH decline below the 5.0-6.5 target range (Discussion, p.491-492); EXP 3’s window (weeks 14-17) falls entirely within this NaHCO3-treated period.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Y — same NaHCO3 addition as Remineralization (week 13 onward), explicitly framed by the paper as a pH-stabilisation measure; also raised Na concentration in both HBFT-AP and HP water by EXP 3’s end (Table 12).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Red lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T11 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Red lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 7), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 7, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 15.50 +/- 1.31; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 54.83 +/- 13.44 g/plant; Leaf length 22.76 +/- 2.36 cm. Stem mean weight 2.33 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 7.98 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 1.71 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 4.96 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T12
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Celery (Apium graveolens) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 33.26 +/- 1.78 |
| Leaf count | 10.58 +/- 1.00 |
| Plant fresh weight | 46.16 +/- 5.92 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Y — NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) added to both HBFT-AP and HP from week 13 onward to counteract nitrification/mineralisation-driven pH decline below the 5.0-6.5 target range (Discussion, p.491-492); EXP 3’s window (weeks 14-17) falls entirely within this NaHCO3-treated period.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Y — same NaHCO3 addition as Remineralization (week 13 onward), explicitly framed by the paper as a pH-stabilisation measure; also raised Na concentration in both HBFT-AP and HP water by EXP 3’s end (Table 12).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Celery (Apium graveolens); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T12 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Celery (Apium graveolens) in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 7), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 7, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 12.83 +/- 2.48; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 48.84 +/- 10.59 g/plant; Leaf length 30.96 +/- 2.64 cm. Stem mean weight 1.98 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 12.90 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 1.99 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.51 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T13
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tatsoi (Brassica narinosa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 19.67 +/- 2.25 |
| Leaf count | 21.91 +/- 4.56 |
| Plant fresh weight | 45.48 +/- 12.38 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Y — NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) added to both HBFT-AP and HP from week 13 onward to counteract nitrification/mineralisation-driven pH decline below the 5.0-6.5 target range (Discussion, p.491-492); EXP 3’s window (weeks 14-17) falls entirely within this NaHCO3-treated period.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Y — same NaHCO3 addition as Remineralization (week 13 onward), explicitly framed by the paper as a pH-stabilisation measure; also raised Na concentration in both HBFT-AP and HP water by EXP 3’s end (Table 12).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Tatsoi (Brassica narinosa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T13 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Tatsoi (Brassica narinosa) in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 7), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 7, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 20.25 +/- 2.83; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 55.61 +/- 19.74 g/plant; Leaf length 20.47 +/- 2.73 cm. Stem mean weight 0.73 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 8.92 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 0.69 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 4.53 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T14
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 19.75 +/- 1.14 |
| Leaf count | 20.00 +/- 1.60 |
| Plant fresh weight | 89.29 +/- 17.47 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Y — NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) added to both HBFT-AP and HP from week 13 onward to counteract nitrification/mineralisation-driven pH decline below the 5.0-6.5 target range (Discussion, p.491-492); EXP 3’s window (weeks 14-17) falls entirely within this NaHCO3-treated period.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Y — same NaHCO3 addition as Remineralization (week 13 onward), explicitly framed by the paper as a pH-stabilisation measure; also raised Na concentration in both HBFT-AP and HP water by EXP 3’s end (Table 12).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T14 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 7), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 7, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 18.91 +/- 1.16; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 91.56 +/- 9.55 g/plant; Leaf length 18.12 +/- 1.05 cm. Stem mean weight 2.20 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 7.47 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 1.30 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.45 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).
leeComparativeStudyGrowth2019-T15
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) |
| SGR | 0.35 |
| Protein | 46.46 |
| P | 2.13 |
| K | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.6499 (16,499.0 ppm, Table 2) |
| % of body weight | 0.48 |
| Fish size initial | 201.4 +/- 21.2 |
| Fish size final | 316.4 +/- 33.6 |
| Feed routine | Twice daily (1일 2회 공급) |
| Feed regime | MKP3 diet: extruded floating pellet approx. 6 mm dia.; monobasic potassium phosphate (MKP) 3.0% substituted for standard feed phosphate salts, plus 0.5% KCl added; fed at 0.5% of body weight/day (ration deliberately limited to avoid uneaten-feed bias in plant productivity, p.485); composition (Table 2, MKP3): crude protein 46.46%, crude lipid 6.69%, crude ash 11.55%, crude fiber 2.05%, moisture 5.87%, Ca 2.38%, P 2.13%; minerals (ppm): Mg 2,090.6, Fe 320.5, Cu 16.9, Mn 37.2, Zn 122.8, K 16,499.0 (Table 1, Table 2). |
| Total Feed (kg) | 141.28 |
| Fish survival rate | 97.7 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 126 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Aq pH | 4.62-7.53 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means across 18 weeks, Table 8) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.93-9.00 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| EC | 0.17037-1.05020 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm) |
| Water temperature | 23.77-26.38 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 8) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.44-14.62 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO2-N | 0.02-5.08 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
| NO3-N | 4.37-108.12 (range only, no trial mean reported; weekly means, Table 9) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Abata lettuce (Lactuca sativa) |
| Details | One of 5 leaf-vegetable species/cultivars planted in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post fish-stocking); nursery-raised seedlings from Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services greenhouse (p.485); one of 11 unique species used in total across the paper’s 3 experiments (p.485). |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (엽채류, paper’s own term, p.485) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 24 |
| Plant height | 20.81 +/- 2.38 |
| Leaf count | 17.08 +/- 1.62 |
| Plant fresh weight | 85.96 +/- 13.10 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | 45 plant pots per bed, 20 beds per system (900 pots/plants total), 2-tier (‘2층 구조’) bed structure, bed dims L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m; water-supply pipe 25 mm PVC, drain pipe 40 mm PVC, final collection pipe to fish tank 100 mm PVC (p.484-485). |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Hybrid BFT: heterotrophic/autotrophic mixed beneficial-microorganism product (BFT-ST, EgeeTech Ltd., USA) dosed into the sump tank together with organic carbon (refined glucose) for the first 2 weeks post-stocking, then switched to CO2 as an inorganic carbon source once pH fell below 6.0; beneficial microbes re-dosed every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised (p.485, per Lee et al. 2019’s method / Emerenciano et al. 2017).) |
| Air supplement | Y (Venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) dedicated to maintaining BFT/biofloc suspension in the HBFT-AP fish tank (p.484).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Y — NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) added to both HBFT-AP and HP from week 13 onward to counteract nitrification/mineralisation-driven pH decline below the 5.0-6.5 target range (Discussion, p.491-492); EXP 3’s window (weeks 14-17) falls entirely within this NaHCO3-treated period.) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Y — same NaHCO3 addition as Remineralization (week 13 onward), explicitly framed by the paper as a pH-stabilisation measure; also raised Na concentration in both HBFT-AP and HP water by EXP 3’s end (Table 12).) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (40 fluorescent lamps installed beneath the vegetable beds to supply light for plant growth (p.484-485).) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic (HP) treatment only: 3-tank nutrient solution system (A: KNO3 2,525 g + Ca(NO3)2.4H2O 3,540 g + Fe-EDTA 160 g; B: KNO3 2,525 g + MgSO4.7H2O 1,850 g + H3BO3 30 g + MnSO4.5H2O 877 g + ZnSO4.7H2O 0.9 g + CuSO4.5H2O 0.4 g + Na2MoO4.2H2O 0.13 g + NaCl 16.4 g; C: NH4H2PO4 1,380 g; each tank 0.1 ton), delivered via an automatic nutrient controller (Agronic 54, HANGARAMPONICS, Korea) (Table 3, p.485). HBFT-AP (aquaponic) treatment: no nutrient solution added; vegetable beds fed solely by catfish-conditioned recirculating water (fish tank -> sump -> biohelix filter -> vegetable beds -> fish tank, Fig. 1B).) |
| Equipment | Circular fish tank (dia. 4.5 m x H 0.7 m); sump tank (L2.0 x W1.0 x H0.9 m); Biohelix biofilter (680 L, Isan M Tech Ltd., Korea); water-circulation pump (1.5 HP) linking fish tank and vegetable beds; venturi air-supply circulation pump (1.0 HP) for BFT maintenance; 40 fluorescent lamps under the vegetable beds; 20 vegetable beds (L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m, 45 pots/bed, 900 pots total, 2-tier structure); 25 mm PVC water-supply pipe, 40 mm PVC drain pipe, 100 mm PVC final-collection pipe to fish tank; 60 kg digital scale (BW-1N, CAS Ltd., Korea); YSI PRODSS field meter (DO/pH/temperature/EC/turbidity); HACH DR5000 spectrophotometer with NitraVer-X / Low Range Ammonia / NitriVer3 / PhosVer3 reagent sets (TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/PO4-P); ICP-OES Optima 8300 (Perkin Elmer) for K/Ca/Mg/Na/Fe/Zn/Mn/Cu; 930 Compact IC Flex ion chromatograph (Metrohm) for Cl/SO4. |
| Control Parameters | pH target 5.0-6.5 maintained via CO2 injection (from week 2 post-stocking) then NaHCO3 (from week 13); feed ration capped at 0.5% of body weight/day (twice daily), explicitly to minimise uneaten-feed bias in the plant-productivity comparison (p.485); beneficial-microbe (BFT-ST) dosing every 2-3 days initially, then triggered by rising NO2-N once pH<6.0, discontinued once water quality stabilised. |
| Combination | Far Eastern catfish (Silurus asotus) and Abata lettuce (Lactuca sativa); HBFT-AP (integrated fish+plant loop) vs SRAS (fish-only control, no plant) and HP (hydroponic plant-only control, no fish) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | East Asia |
| Country | South Korea |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (leaf length, recorded under Plant height — see remarks); number/plant (leaf count); g/plant (leaf weight, recorded under Plant fresh weight). |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA (SPSS ver. 10, SPSS 1999) on leaf No./leaf weight/leaf length means per species, significance level P<0.05; homogeneity of variance confirmed beforehand via Cochran’s test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) (p.486). |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T15 = HBFT-AP (hybrid biofloc technology-aquaponics) treatment growing Abata lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in EXP 3 (weeks 14-17 post-stocking; 24 days cultivation after transplant, Table 7), one of 5 leafy-vegetable species/cultivars planted simultaneously in that experiment’s HBFT-AP vegetable beds. Paired control = the parallel HP (hydroponics) treatment, same species, same transplant/harvest timing, independent water circuit (Fig. 1D); paired HYD values given below since Plant height/Leaf count/Plant fresh weight have no dedicated HYD column in this schema. The Fish-block columns (Fish size/survival/WG/FE/SGR/etc.) describe the SAME integrated HBFT-AP system’s single 18-week catfish trial (n=615 fish stocked, MKP3 diet), repeated identically across all 15 rows in this paper because only one aquaponic (fish+plant) system was operated; the separate SRAS system is a fish-only comparison arm (no plant component, not a hydroponic control) with no dedicated columns in this schema — its data is recorded as NO COLUMN below for context, not substituted into any Fish-block cell. | HYD-paired values (Table 7, HP treatment, same species): Leaf No. 15.00 +/- 2.15; Leaf weight (fresh weight) 88.35 +/- 13.21 g/plant; Leaf length 19.44 +/- 2.33 cm. Stem mean weight 1.95 g (single determination, no SD given); Root mean weight 10.56 g (single determination, no SD given). NO COLUMN: Stem mean weight (HBFT-AP 1.29 g) and Root mean weight (HBFT-AP 5.82 g) have no dedicated trials.csv column. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Fish trial duration 18 weeks -> 126 days (value-preserving, x7). Total Feed 141,280 g (DM, HBFT-AP, Table 4) -> 141.28 kg. K (feed) 16,499.0 ppm (Table 2) -> 1.6499% (ppm/10,000=%). EC 170.37-1,050.20 uS/cm (Table 8, weekly-mean range) -> 0.17037-1.05020 dS/m (uS/cm/1,000=dS/m); SRAS/HP EC conversions given in their respective NO-COLUMN blocks above. | Water-quality cells (Aq pH, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N) record the RANGE of weekly means given in Tables 8-9 and restated in Results running text (p.489, ‘1주간 측정 평균 값은…’), per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to record a range (not average it) when no single trial-mean summary exists. NOTE: the week-18 data point in Tables 8-9 is explicitly footnoted ‘(3day)’, i.e. based on only 3 days rather than a full 7-day average like weeks 1-17; the NO3-N maximum (108.12 mg/L) and other week-18 extremes in the recorded ranges come from this partial-week reading, not a full week. | Plant height: no plant-height measurement is reported anywhere in this paper; the closest available vertical-size metric is the paper’s own ‘엽채길이 (leaf length, cm)’ (Tables 5-7, Fig. 2), recorded here under the schema’s ‘Plant height’ column for lack of a dedicated ‘leaf length’ column. This is a column-mapping substitution forced by the schema, not a paper-internal contradiction (only one vertical-size metric exists), so no severity tag or REVIEW.md entry applies. | System type: HP is explicitly described in the Discussion (p.490-491) as ‘담액수경 (deep flow technique, printed ‘DPT’ in the English abbreviation, likely for DFT/DWC)’ — a deep-water raft culture. The HBFT-AP vegetable bed shares identical physical construction with the HP bed (same L2.9 x W0.6 x H0.1 m geometry, same 45-pot layout, Fig. 1B/1D), but the paper never explicitly restates the DFT label for the HBFT-AP bed specifically. Recorded System type = NR for HBFT-AP (not explicitly categorised by the paper for this system), rather than inferring HP’s label onto it. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) — initial total 123,900 g and final total 190,100 g both stated (Table 4), difference (66,200 g = 66.2 kg) not stated directly as ‘biomass created’, not computed here. Fish weight gain (g) — the paper states only WG(%) = 53.43% (HBFT-AP, Table 4, footnote formula [final-initial]x100/initial; recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact), not a gram-based value; NO COLUMN: WG(%) 53.43 (HBFT-AP) / 54.06 (SRAS) recorded here since no percent-based weight-gain column exists in the schema. Initial Stock density (kg/m3) — fish tank given only as diameter/height (phi 4.5 m x H 0.7 m, p.484), no stated volumetric density; computing tank volume from dimensions and dividing by stocked biomass would be derivation, not performed. Plants/m2 — 900 plants total (45 pots x 20 beds) and bed dimensions (L2.9 x W0.6 m x 20 beds = 34.8 m2 total bed area) are both stated (p.485), but no density value is stated; dividing would be derivation, not performed. Water volume in the system — component dimensions given (fish tank phi4.5 x H0.7 m; sump 2.0x1.0x0.9 m; biohelix filter 680 L explicitly stated) but no stated total system volume in litres; computing cylinder/rectangular volumes from dimensions would be derivation, not performed. | NO COLUMN (fish-side control, SRAS system, Table 4/10/11): SRAS (semi-recirculating aquaculture system) is a fish-only comparison arm run in parallel with HBFT-AP (same catfish stock, same MKP3 diet, same 18-week duration, same 0.5%-body-weight ration), used to test whether integrating a hydroponic bed into the fish loop (HBFT-AP) changes fish productivity relative to a conventional recirculating tank (SRAS) with no plant component. SRAS is NOT a hydroponic control (that role is filled by HP) and has no dedicated ‘control-fish’ columns in this schema, so its values are recorded here rather than in the Fish-block cells above (which report HBFT-AP only, per this row’s trial definition): Initial total weight 124,300 g (610 fish); Final total weight 191,500 g (603 fish); WG(%) 54.06 (HBFT-AP 53.43, both recomputed from Table 4’s own total weights and confirmed exact: (191,500-124,300)x100/124,300=54.06 and (190,100-123,900)x100/123,900=53.43); Total feed 142,440 g dry matter; FE(%) 47.18 (HBFT-AP 46.85, both recomputed and confirmed exact from wet-gain/dry-feed-intakex100); SGR 0.35%/day (same as HBFT-AP); PER 0.96 (HBFT-AP 0.95); DFI 0.45%/day (HBFT-AP 0.48%); Survival 98.9% (HBFT-AP 97.7%). Water quality (Table 10, 18-week mean+/-SD): DO 7.89+/-0.32 mg/L, pH 7.64+/-0.15, temperature 25.48+/-1.25 degC, EC 167.35+/-7.54 uS/cm (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: =0.16735+/-0.00754 dS/m), turbidity 1.88+/-0.27 NTU, TAN 0.21+/-0.11 mg/L, NO2-N 0.07+/-0.02 mg/L, NO3-N 3.84+/-0.59 mg/L, PO4-P 2.87+/-0.23 mg/L; daily water exchange approx. 1.5x system volume/day (13-ton tank, Bacillus subtilis product ‘Adapon’ 3 g/day). Blood analysis (Table 11, n=12 fish/group, 24h-fasted, sampled after the 18-week trial): PCV(%) HBFT-AP 47.83+/-3.49* vs SRAS 34.83+/-3.69 (, P<0.05); Hb(g/dL) 15.48+/-0.98 vs 11.81+/-1.60 (, P<0.05); GOT(U/L) 87.33+/-8.00(ns) vs 81.83+/-10.62; GPT(U/L) 25.83+/-4.49(ns) vs 24.58+/-5.12; GLU(mg/dL) 74.75+/-8.29(ns) vs 75.75+/-10.52; Pi(mg/dL) 16.28+/-0.76(ns) vs 16.05+/-0.85; Na(mEq/L) 141.92+/-1.56(ns) vs 140.42+/-1.00; K(mEq/L) 1.39+/-0.33 vs 2.48+/-0.36 (*, P<0.05); Cl(mEq/L) 121.83(ns) vs 119.25+/-2.42. WARN-MINOR Cl SD discrepancy: Results running text (p.489) states HBFT-AP Cl = 121.83+/-2.32 mEq/L, but Table 11 (p.490) states 121.83+/-1.64 mEq/L for the identical comparison — same mean, different SD, both marked non-significant either way. No CSV cell affected (blood chemistry has no dedicated trials.csv column); recorded here for completeness, not resolved to one value. Average sampled fish weight for blood analysis (n=12): HBFT-AP 306.82+/-20.21 g, SRAS 311.08+/-23.53 g (ns) — a distinct, smaller subsample from the main n=100 growth-sampling population (Table 4: HBFT-AP 316.4+/-33.6 g, SRAS 315.9+/-46.3 g); not a contradiction, the paper explicitly labels these as different-n samples (100 vs 12 fish). | NO COLUMN water nutrient panel (Table 12, ICP-OES/ion chromatography, stated as ‘means of 2 determinations’, taken once at the end of EXP 3 / end of the 18-week trial, not a repeated trial-mean): HBFT-AP vs HP — K 87.6 vs 95.3 mg/L; Ca 108.3 vs 158.9 mg/L; Mg 14.8 vs 7.5 mg/L; Na 241.4 vs 299.9 mg/L (elevated in both arms following NaHCO3 dosing from week 13, Discussion p.492); Cl 23.0 vs 34.0 mg/L; SO4 62.0 vs 111.0 mg/L; Fe 2.1458 vs 2.2789 mg/L; Zn 1.2918 vs 2.2782 mg/L; Mn 1.3233 vs 0.0740 mg/L; Cu 1.0291 vs 0.8187 mg/L. Table 12 also restates NO3-N (108.1 HBFT-AP vs 42.2 HP) and PO4-P (33.2 vs 108.3, mg/L) as single end-of-trial values; NO3-N’s dedicated column above instead uses the full weekly-mean range (Table 9) per SCHEMA.md’s trial-mean preference; PO4-P has no dedicated trials.csv column at all (NO COLUMN: PO4-P ranged 4.99-33.20 mg/L across 18 weekly means, Table 9; HP PO4-P 78.29+/-28.67 mg/L over 18 weeks, Table 10). | [not reported], grouped by field: SPAD (not measured anywhere in this paper); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no leaf-tissue chemical analysis was performed, only the water nutrient panel of Table 12); Plant dry matter (not measured); Plants/m2; Water volume in the system; Water recycle; Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (for HBFT-AP specifically); FCR; N (feed); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish weight gain (g); Initial Stock density; pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; WUE; Lat; Long; Average room Temperature; System type; Iron supplemented; Climate control — none stated by the paper for the HBFT-AP system (see NOT DERIVED / NO COLUMN blocks above for related available-but-unusable inputs).