Quartz 5

Photosynthesis, Growth and Yield Characteristics of Peucedanum japonicum T. Grown under Aquaponics in a Plant Factory

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/experiment, meta/region/east-asia, meta/fish/koi, meta/plant/peucedanum-japonicum

30 min read

Photosynthesis, Growth and Yield Characteristics of Peucedanum japonicum T. Grown under Aquaponics in a Plant Factory

Metadata

  • Cite key: leePhotosynthesisGrowthYield2022
  • Item type: Journal Article
  • Authors: H. Lee, K. Choi, M. Jang, E. Choi (see Extraction notes — third author’s surname is spelled “Chiang” in zotero-export.csv and once on the PDF title page, but “Jang” in the running header repeated on 7 of the PDF’s 9 content pages; Zotero form used in frontmatter/Author(s), PDF’s dominant form used for the wikilink target)
  • Affiliation: Graduate student, Department of Agriculture and Industries, Kangwon National University Graduate School, Chuncheon (H.-J. Lee); Professor, Division of Future Agriculture Convergence, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon (K.-Y. Choi); Professor, Department of Horticulture, Biotechnology & Landscape Architecture, Seoul Women’s University, Seoul (M.-H. Jang/Chiang); Professor, Department of Agricultural Science, Korea National Open University, Seoul — corresponding author (E.-Y. Choi)
  • Journal: Journal of Bio-Environment Control 31 (2022) 67–76
  • Date: 01/2022
  • Date added: 2022-12-17 (per zotero-export.csv)
  • DOI: 10.12791/ksbec.2022.31.1.067
  • Funding: 2020 Korea National Open University Academic Research Fund (p.8)
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.12791/ksbec.2022.31.1.067
  • PDF: Lee et al. - 2022 - Photosynthesis, growth and yield characteristics o.pdf

Opinion

A small but carefully instrumented single-comparison trial (one AP unit vs one DWC-hydroponic unit, no system-level replication, t-test on n=6/n=3 sample replicates) on a genuinely under-studied crop — this appears to be the first aquaponics study on Peucedanum japonicum, a Korean wild vegetable. The photosynthesis/chlorophyll-fluorescence instrumentation (LI-6400XT, chlorophyll fluorometer) is a nice touch rarely seen in aquaponics comparison papers. Unfortunately the PDF is a raw Google Translate output of the Korean original (every page is watermarked “Machine Translated by Google”), and translation quality is poor enough that paragraph order is visibly scrambled across the two print columns and at least one numeric table cell has been mangled into an unparseable concatenated string. I would not cite specific numbers from this note without checking the original Korean PDF or requesting the publisher’s official English version first.

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the photosynthesis and growth characteristics of Peucedanum japonicum T. grown under aquaponics in a plant factory (AP) by comparing those grown under hydroponic cultivation system (HP). The AP system raised 30 fishes at a density of 10.6 kg·m-3 in a 367.5 L tank, and at HP, nutrient solution was controlled with EC 1.3 dS·m-1 and pH 6.5. The pH level ranged from 4.0 to 7.1 for the AP system and 4.0 to 7.4 for the HP system. The pH level in the AP began to decrease with an increase in nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) and lasted bellower than pH 5.5 for 15–67 DAT. It was found that ammonium nitrogen (NH4-N) continued to increase even under low pH conditions. EC was maintained at 1.3 to 1.5 dS·m-1 in both systems. The concentration of major mineral elements in the fish tank was higher than that of the hydroponics, except for K and Mg. There was no significant difference in the photosynthesis characteristics, but the PIABS parameters were 30.4% lower in the AP compared to the HP at the 34DAT and 12.0% lower at the 74DAT. There was no significant difference in the growth characteristics, but the petiole length was 56% longer in the leaf grown under the AP system. While there was no significant difference in the fresh and dry weights of leaf and root, the leaf area ratio was 36.43% higher in the AP system. All the integrated results suggest that aquaponics is a highly-sustainable farming to safely produce food by recycling agricultural by-products, and to produce Peucedanum japonicum as much as hydroponics under a proper fish density and pH level.

Summary

The authors compared photosynthesis, growth and yield of Peucedanum japonicum T. (a perennial Korean wild vegetable, Umbelliferae family) grown for 74 days after transplant under a single aquaponic unit (30 koi, Cyprinus carpio, at 10.6 kg/m³ in a 367.5 L tank, 60 plants) versus a single hydroponic DWC control (12 plants, commercial Mulpure nutrient solution, EC 1.3 dS/m, pH 6.5), both under identical white-LED plant-factory lighting and climate control. They tracked water pH/EC/inorganic ions over the full cycle, leaf gas-exchange (Pn, stomatal conductance, internal CO2, transpiration, WUE) and chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm, PIABS and related OJIP parameters) at several timepoints, and destructive growth/yield measurements (height, petiole/leaf dimensions, SPAD, fresh/dry biomass, leaf area ratio) at harvest. Most photosynthesis and growth metrics did not differ significantly between the two systems, but two measures did: the photosystem-II performance index PIABS was lower in the aquaponic treatment at both measured timepoints, while petiole length and leaf-area ratio were both higher under aquaponics — the authors attribute the higher leaf-area ratio to lower measured stomatal conductance/transpiration (and hence water loss) in the aquaponic unit. AP water pH drifted uncorrected down to as low as ~4.0 as nitrification proceeded, staying below pH 5.5 for a 15–67-day-after-transplant window, without any reported harm to fish survival or overall yield. The authors conclude aquaponic Peucedanum japonicum production is broadly comparable to hydroponic production, contingent on appropriate fish density and pH management.

Experiment data

  • Location: Department of Agriculture, Korea National Open University (controlled-environment/“plant factory” growth room); HP unit reported as “set up in Guro” (a district of Seoul); South Korea
  • Design: Single-unit AP (30 koi, 60 plants) vs single-unit HP/DWC (12 plants) comparison — no system-level replication, sample-level replication only (n=6 for growth/photosynthesis measurements, n=3 for chlorophyll fluorescence sub-measurements)
  • Replicates / n: 6 (growth, gas exchange); 3 (chlorophyll fluorescence)
  • Duration: Sown 26 Apr 2021; transplanted 33 days after sowing; growth/yield tracked to 74 days after transplant (harvest 25 Aug 2021); overall experiment window 26 Apr–30 Aug 2021. A single photo caption (Fig. 5) states “75 days after transplanting” against 74 used everywhere else (WARN-MINOR, no cell impact)
  • Organisms: Peucedanum japonicum / koi Cyprinus carpio
  • Statistics: t-test (SAS v9.4), significance p<0.05
  • Performance Index (PIABS): AP 8.7 lower than HP 12.5 (30.4% lower, significant) at 34 DAT; AP 8.7 vs HP 9.9 (12.0% lower, significant) at 74 DAT
  • Petiole length: AP 20.78 cm vs HP 13.32 cm at 74 DAT — 56% longer under aquaponics, the paper’s only significant growth-morphology difference
  • Leaf area ratio (LAR): AP 175 cm²·dw·g⁻¹ vs HP 128 at 74 DAT — 36.43% higher under aquaponics, significant
  • Fresh weight (shoot), 74 DAT: AP 91.69 g/plant vs HP 78.82 g/plant (not significant)

Water chemistry (AP vs HP)

This paper: pH drifted uncorrected in both systems, driven by nitrification in AP and unbuffered depletion in HP; AP ranged pH 4.0–7.1 and stayed below pH 5.5 for 15–67 DAT, HP ranged pH 4.0–7.4 and stayed below 5.5 for 20–53 DAT (no single trial mean reported for either, time-series only — Fig. 2A). EC was maintained 1.3–1.5 dS/m in both systems across the cycle (again range only, no single trial mean). AP inorganic-ion ranges over the cycle: NH4-N 17–35 mg/L, NO3-N 120–242 mg/L (both range-only). Macro-mineral concentrations in the AP tank were reported as generally higher than the HP nutrient solution except for K and Mg, attributed to feed/excretion inputs from the koi.

Compared with:

  • todo Lee, D.H. 2021 — companion/related aquaponics study on leafy vegetables with the same “yellow koi fish” system design, cited for the pH-below-6.0 leafy-vegetable yield comparison (p.5)
  • todo Kang et al. 2017 — optimum cultivation conditions for Glehnia littoralis (a related coastal wild vegetable), cited for habitat pH range 7.4–9.0 (p.5)
  • todo Wongkiew et al. 2017 — aquaponics nitrogen transformation review, cited on NO3-N uptake/production balance (p.7)

Photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence

This paper: No significant difference between AP and HP in instantaneous leaf gas exchange (net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, internal CO2, transpiration, leaf-level WUE; Table 1, 33 & 38 DAT) nor in most chlorophyll-fluorescence OJIP parameters (Fv/Fm, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, ETo/RC, DIo/RC; Table 2, 34 & 74 DAT) — the sole significant fluorescence difference was PIABS (see Experiment data callout above). Fv/Fm stayed at 0.84–0.86 in all treatments/timepoints, above the 0.83 stress threshold cited from Demmig and Björkman (1987), interpreted as no measurable photoinhibition/stress in either system.

Compared with:

  • todo Demmig and Björkman 1987 — Fv/Fm stress threshold (0.83) used as the benchmark for “no stress observed” in this paper (p.7)
  • todo Zhang et al. 2014 — pH-3.0 photosynthetic/growth decline in Juglans regia, cited by analogy for why AP’s lower pH did not appear to impair photosynthesis here (p.8)

Growth and yield

This paper: No significant AP-vs-HP difference in plant height, leaf length, leaf width, leaf number or SPAD at any of the four measured timepoints (4/34/54/74 DAT), nor in shoot or root fresh/dry weight at final harvest (74 DAT) — the two significant differences found anywhere in growth/yield data were petiole length and leaf area ratio (both higher under AP; see above). Relative growth rate (RGR, Fig. 4) is reported only as a bar chart with error bars, no numeric value in text or table, and stated non-significant between shoot/root and AP/HP.

Compared with:

  • todo Patane 2011 — evapotranspiration/leaf-area relationship in tomato under water deficit, cited as background for interpreting AP’s lower stomatal conductance/transpiration and higher LAR (p.7)
  • todo Stanghellini et al. 2019 — greenhouse horticulture textbook, cited on LAR as a growth-driving variable (p.7)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

  • todo Lee, D.H. (2021) — comparative growth of leafy vegetables in hybrid BFT-aquaponics with yellow koi vs hydroponics; closely related companion system (same koi/BFT design), worth deduplicating against — note the vault also holds a distinct Lee et al. (2019) far-eastern-catfish paper; do not conflate the three “Lee” citations
  • todo Kang, H.K., Kim, S.M., Song, H.S. (2017) — optimum cultivation conditions for Glehnia littoralis from habitat status, Korean J Medicinal Crop Sci 25:102-107
  • todo Wongkiew, S. et al. (2017) — nitrogen transformations in aquaponic systems: a review, Aquac Eng 76:9-19
  • todo Demmig, B., Björkman, O. (1987) — photon yield of O2 evolution and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77K, Planta 170:489-504
  • todo Zhang, C.P. et al. (2014) — soil acidification/P-deficiency effects on photosynthesis in Juglans regia, Chin J Plant Ecol 38:1345-1355
  • todo Patane, C. (2011) — leaf area index, transpiration and stomatal conductance under soil water deficit in tomato, J Agron Crop Sci 197:165-176
  • todo Stanghellini, C., Ooster, B.V., Heuvelink, E. (2019) — Greenhouse horticulture: Technology for optimal crop production, Wageningen Academic Publishers

Extraction notes

Type classification: experiment. Two controlled treatment units (AP, HP), original fish/water/plant/photosynthesis data collected by the authors, t-test statistics (SAS v9.4), n=6/n=3 sample replicates. Gets one trials.csv row.

Title/species note: the paper’s own title, running headers and abstract are machine-translated and repeatedly render the studied species as “wild vegetable perilla” (e.g. title: “…wild vegetable perilla in plant-based aquaponics”). This is almost certainly a mistranslation artifact — the Materials and Methods section unambiguously and repeatedly names the actual species as Peucedanum japonicum T.* (perennial Umbelliferae, Korean common names Sikbangpung/Haebangpung, seed source Gangwon-do Wild Vegetable Research Institute), which is an entirely different plant from true perilla (Perilla frutescens, Lamiaceae). The note, tags and CSV rows use Peucedanum japonicum throughout; “perilla” is not used or tagged anywhere except in this explanatory note, to avoid propagating the translation error.

Machine-translation caveat: every page of the source PDF is watermarked “Machine Translated by Google,” and large stretches of running text are visibly scrambled — sentences/paragraphs reordered or interleaved between the original two print columns, and at least one table cell has two adjacent numeric columns concatenated into an unparseable string. Several fields below are marked UNCLEAR specifically because translation garbling prevented confident parsing, not because the paper itself contains conflicting data; this is called out explicitly in each case.

Contradictions (severity-tagged):

  • WARN-CHECK — Feed “Protein.” p.2 lists a feed proximate-composition sequence: “moisture 8.8% or less, White matter 47.21%, crude fat 6.82%, crude fiber 1.21%, ash 10.93%,” followed by “Ca 2.62%, P 1.91%, Mg 0.22%, K 0.08%, Fe 0.04%.” “White matter” is not a standard feed-analysis term. Its position in the list — immediately after moisture, before crude fat/fiber/ash — matches the conventional guaranteed-analysis order (moisture / crude protein / crude fat / crude fiber / crude ash), suggesting “White matter” is a mistranslation of a Korean term for crude protein with a syllable dropped. No second candidate value or corroborating label appears anywhere else in the paper. Recorded Protein = UNCLEAR rather than asserting the inferred label as fact; the raw value (47.21) and this reasoning are preserved here. P (1.91%) and K (0.08%) in the same list are unambiguously labelled and recorded directly; N is not stated and was not derived from the (uncertain) protein figure.

  • WARN-BLOCK — Leaf count / leaf width, 74 DAT, AP (Table 3). The 74-DAT row for AP prints Leaf width and Leaf number as a single run-together string, “15.569.2,” with no visible separator — every other row/treatment in the table shows the two as clearly distinct values (e.g., HP 74DAT: width 14.37, number 9.5). No basis exists to determine the split point (candidates 15.56/9.2, 15.5/69.2, 15/569.2 among others; none corroborated elsewhere in text). Recorded Leaf count = UNCLEAR. Leaf width has no dedicated trials.csv column (routed to NO COLUMN as UNCLEAR alongside it). Downstream: confined to this single row/DAT; HP’s 74DAT leaf number (9.5) and all other DAT rows for both treatments are unaffected.

  • WARN-MATERIAL — Third author’s surname. The PDF’s own running header, repeated identically on 7 of 9 content pages, reads “Hyunjin Lee, Kiyoung Choi, Maehee Jang, Eunyoung Choi.” The page-1 title-block’s secondary byline rendering instead reads ”…Mae-Hee Chiang³…” (appearing once). zotero-export.csv also records “Chiang, Mae-Hee.” Per this vault’s rule that Zotero metadata is more reliable than the PDF when present, “Chiang, Mae-Hee” is used in the frontmatter/Author(s) list; the PDF’s more-frequent “Jang” spelling is preserved here and used for this note’s wikilink target ([[M. Jang]]), since it is the form that recurs throughout the body of the source PDF. Which spelling is the journal’s actual official form is unresolved; does not affect any trial-data cell.

  • WARN-MATERIAL — RGR / dry-weight significance (p.8, “briefs” summary block). A secondary, more heavily garbled summary block near the end of the PDF states: “…the relative growth rate and dry matter weight of above and below ground areas were significant. There was no difference.” Taken literally this contradicts (a) the Abstract — “no significant difference in the fresh and dry weights of leaf and root”; (b) the body Results/Discussion (p.7) — “There was no significant difference in the above-ground and underground relative growth rates (RGR) in the two cultivation plots… there was no significant difference in the [dry] weight”; and (c) Table 4, where the Shoot/Root fresh- and dry-weight columns carry no significance asterisk (only LAR is asterisked, at AP 175 vs HP 128). Two of three sources plus the table’s own asterisk convention agree on “not significant.” The “briefs” block’s “were significant. There was no difference.” is read as a garbled double-negative (most plausibly an intended “were not significantly different” split across a machine-translation seam) rather than a genuine fourth data point. Recorded as not significant, consistent with Table 4 and the values used in Plant dry matter/Plant fresh weight. Flagged rather than silently resolved because the literal English text does say “were significant.”

  • WARN-CHECK — Plant fresh/dry weight: shoot vs. root vs. whole-plant. Table 4 (74 DAT) reports fresh weight separately for Shoot (AP 91.69, HP 78.82 g/plant) and Root (AP 61.07, HP 50.80 g/plant), and dry weight likewise (Shoot AP 11.87/HP 10.66 g; Root AP 2.97/HP 3.10 g) — no single “whole-plant” figure is stated anywhere. Shoot values are recorded in Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, AP and HYD, as the clearest single basis (the typical marketable/above-ground yield convention); root values are preserved here. Added to REVIEW.md worklist per SCHEMA.md.

  • WARN-MINOR — Plant trial duration, 74 vs 75 days. Growth/yield Tables 3–4 and Fig. 4 all use “74 days after transplant” consistently; Fig. 5’s photo caption alone states the plants were “grown… for 75 days after transplanting.” Recorded Days Plant after transplant = 74 (used by every numeric table); the single 75-day photo caption most plausibly reflects a one-day photograph-vs-final-harvest offset, not a genuine duration conflict. No cell impact.

  • WARN-MINOR — Light intensity, 200 vs 180 μmol/m²/s. The post-transplant growth-room/bed lighting is stated as White LED 200 μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (matches Fig. 1’s diagram labels for both AP and HP beds). A separate passage — “Afterwards, the photoperiod was set to 12H/12H… under White LED (180μmol·m-2·s-1)… Tap water was supplied for 10 days after sowing” — sits within the pre-transplant seedling-raising paragraph and most plausibly describes the SEEDLING stage (before the 33-day post-sowing transplant), not a second figure for the same growth phase. Not treated as a genuine contradiction; both values are recorded against their respective growth stages in Artificial LightingDetails.

  • WARN-MINOR — LAR percentage rounding. Body text states LAR was “36.43% higher” in AP; Table 4’s own AP (175) vs HP (128) values compute to ≈36.7% higher — simple rounding, no cell impact (Table 4 values are NO COLUMN and not independently re-derived here).

NO COLUMN items (no dedicated trials.csv column, recorded here for the record):

  • Petiole length, 74 DAT: AP 20.78* cm vs HP 13.32 cm (the paper’s single significant growth-morphology difference, “56% longer” per Abstract)
  • Leaf length, 74 DAT: AP 10.08 / HP 9.73 cm
  • Root fresh weight, 74 DAT: AP 61.07 / HP 50.80 g/plant (see shoot/root CHECK above)
  • Root dry weight, 74 DAT: AP 2.97 / HP 3.10 g/plant
  • Moisture content, 74 DAT: AP 87.17% / HP 86.68% (Table 4)
  • Shoot/root (S/R) ratio, 74 DAT: AP 4.00 / HP 3.44
  • Leaf area, 74 DAT: AP 2,152 / HP 1,721 cm² (mean of 6 replicates)
  • Leaf area ratio (LAR), 74 DAT: AP 175* / HP 128 cm²·dw·g⁻¹ (significant, “36.43% higher”)
  • Relative growth rate (RGR), Fig. 4: shoot/root, AP/HP — bar chart only, no numeric value in running text or a table, stated not significant; per the “never read a value off a figure” rule, left un-extracted rather than estimated
  • Gas exchange, Table 1 (33 & 38 DAT, mean of 6 reps, all ns): Photosynthesis (Pn, μmolCO2·m⁻²·s⁻¹) AP 8.19/7.95, HP 8.52/7.48; Stomatal conductance (Gs, mol H2O·m⁻²·s⁻¹) AP 0.62/0.46, HP 0.61/0.62; Internal CO2 (Ci, μmolCO2·m⁻²·s⁻¹) AP 355/345, HP 352/355; Transpiration rate (Tr, mol H2O·m⁻²·s⁻¹) AP 4.78/5.15, HP 4.73/6.32; leaf-level Water Use Efficiency (μmolCO2/mmolH2O) AP 0.172/0.161, HP 0.180/0.118 — routed here rather than the trials.csv WUE column because this is an instantaneous leaf-gas-exchange ratio reported alongside Pn/Gs/Ci/Tr in the same table, not a whole-system/crop water-use metric
  • Chlorophyll fluorescence, Table 2 (34 & 74 DAT, mean of 3 reps): Fv/Fm AP 0.84/0.85, HP 0.86/0.84 (ns); PIABS AP 8.7/8.7, HP 12.5*/9.9*z (significant both DAT — see Experiment data callout); ABS/RC AP 1.45/1.34, HP 1.28/1.29 (ns); TRo/RC AP 1.22/1.14, HP 1.10/1.09 (ns); ETo/RC AP 0.85/0.76, HP 0.80/0.77 (ns); DIo/RC AP 0.23/0.20, HP 0.18/0.21 (ns)

[not reported] fields, grouped: FCR; SGR; N (feed); Fish size initial/final; Total Feed (kg); Fish biomass created; Fish survival rate; Fish weight gain; Fish trial duration (days) — fish were held/reared before transplanting the plants but no total duration or pre-trial holding period is stated in days; Water recycle (pump model GSP-100G given, no flow rate restated); Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (only evapotranspiration top-up described, not a defined exchange rate); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; system-level WUE (leaf-level value routed to NO COLUMN above); NO2-N (listed among the ions the authors say they measured, but no value or range for it appears anywhere in Results or Fig. 3); Plants/m² (only absolute plant counts — 60 AP / 12 HP — and bed dimensions 0.7×1.5 m are given, not a stated density); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no plant-tissue nitrate analysis performed, only water-column NO3-N); Lat/Long; Biological system already in use; Iron supplemented; Remineralization — the paper is silent on all of these (not stated absent), recorded NR in both the flag and paired ...Details columns per the paired-column convention.

[unclear] fields: Protein (label ambiguity, see WARN-CHECK above); Leaf count (table-cell garbling, see WARN-BLOCK above); Dissolved Oxigen — p.2 states, verbatim as machine-translated: “to maintain a saturated dissolved oxygen level of 9-9% during the entire cultivation period. 12mg·L-1 was maintained.” Cannot confidently determine whether this intends a %-saturation figure, an absolute mg/L range (plausibly “9–12 mg/L,” a very standard aquaculture DO target, but not reconstructable from the garbled syntax with confidence), or both; recorded UNCLEAR rather than guessing.

Fish Category left NR: koi are described only via an external citation (“Koi is reported to be easier to cultivate than other ornamental fish…,” Kim and Lee 2015), which implicitly frames koi as an ornamental fish, but the paper never itself categorises its own study animal — judgment call, following the Alcarraz precedent in SCHEMA.md of not substituting an external taxonomy for the paper’s own (non-existent) categorisation.

pH Buffers — possible unresolved passage: the Discussion contains a passage describing oyster-shell “fossil shell fertilizer” alkalization (10 kg soaked in 60 L water for 24 h, said to maintain “pH around 6.0 by adding 1.5 L to each tank”), immediately adjacent to citations of general aquaculture pH-buffering practice (Masser et al. 1992). Its placement is ambiguous under machine translation — it could describe (a) a step actually used in this trial, or (b) background/cited common practice. This reading is set aside in favour of the paper’s own explicit, unambiguous statements that AP pH was NOT corrected during this experiment (“In this experiment, natural changes were not corrected,” p.4) and HP pH “was not corrected with KOH” (p.4) — pH Buffers recorded as N on that basis, with the ambiguous oyster-shell passage noted for the record rather than silently discarded.

Scanned PDF check: text layer present throughout (searchable, appears to be a native/OCR’d PDF of the machine-translated document, not a scan); no NEEDS_OCR.md entry needed. The document’s problems are translation-quality, not OCR/scan-quality.

Quality tally: 1 BLOCK (leaf count/width table-cell garbling) + 2 MATERIAL (authorship spelling, RGR/dry-weight significance) + 2 CHECK (feed protein label, shoot/root/whole-plant fresh-and-dry-weight basis) + 3 MINOR (74-vs-75-day duration, 200-vs-180 μmol/m²/s lighting, LAR rounding). Per SCHEMA.md scoring (1 BLOCK → caution), quality: caution.

New tags introduced: Meta/Plant/Peucedanum-Japonicum (new — no existing tag for this species; follows the vault’s existing TitleCase-hyphenated Meta/Plant/ convention, e.g. Meta/Plant/Indian-Spinach). Meta/Fish/Koi and Meta/Region/East-Asia reused exactly as already spelled elsewhere in the vault (e.g. Meta/Fish/Koi in the Abbey basil/perch/koi paper; Meta/Region/East-Asia in other Korea/China/Japan papers). Meta/Type/Experiment reused per SCHEMA.md.

New wikilink targets introduced: [[H. Lee]], [[K. Choi]], [[M. Jang]], [[E. Choi]] (none pre-existed in the vault; checked against existing [[J. Lee]] — a different individual, no collision). [[Peucedanum japonicum]], [[Cyprinus carpio]], [[Performance Index (PIABS)]] — checked, none pre-existed.

Source: Lee et al. - 2022 - Photosynthesis, growth and yield characteristics o.pdf

Data Tables

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

Trial Parameters

leePhotosynthesisGrowthYield2022-T1

Fish

FieldValue
FishKoi (Cyprinus carpio L.)
Initial Stock density10.6
P1.91
K0.08
% of body weight1
Feed routineTwice daily, 1% of fish body weight/day
Feed regimePremium 1C (Woosung Inc., Seoul, Korea); guaranteed analysis: moisture <=8.8%, [unclear label, see remarks] 47.21%, crude fat 6.82%, crude fiber 1.21%, ash 10.93%, Ca 2.62%, P 1.91%, Mg 0.22%, K 0.08%, Fe 0.04%; ingredient composition per p.2 (machine-translation garbled, approximate): animal protein sources (fishmeal, fish solubles) >=64%; plant protein sources (soybean meal, corn gluten meal) >=20%; grains <=10%; supplements (vitamins C/E, choline chloride, emulsifier) 5%; fats/oils (fish oil) >=1.0%

Water

FieldValue
Water volume in the system367.5 (L, fish/breeding tank only; AP plant bed adds a separate 95 L, see remarks)
Water typeTap water (dechlorinated/aged >=24h before use), AP; HP: tap water first 10 days after sowing, then commercial nutrient solution
Aq pH4.0-7.1 (range only, no trial mean reported; Fig. 2A, Abstract)
EC1.3-1.5 (dS/m, range only, no trial mean reported; Abstract; AP loop later reported ~1.53-1.56 dS/m after 49 DAT, see remarks)
Water temperature18.6-24.7 (degC, range only [min-max], no trial mean; p.2, underlying series ‘data not submitted’)
TAN / NH4-N17-35 (mg/L, range only, no trial mean reported; p.5)
NO3-N120-242 (mg/L, range only, no trial mean reported; p.5)

Plant

FieldValue
PlantPeucedanum japonicum T.
DetailsPerennial Umbelliferae; Korean common names Sikbangpung/Haebangpung; leaves used as sprouts/ssamchae/dried vegetable/powder/pickles/tea, roots used as herbal medicine; seed source Gangwon-do Wild Vegetable Research Institute; seeds disinfected 70% alcohol 1 min, soaked 24h, cold-stratified 4C >=14 days; sown in 128-hole vermiculite trays, transplanted 33 days after sowing. NOTE: the paper’s own machine-translated title/running text repeatedly mislabels this species ‘wild vegetable perilla’ - it is not Perilla frutescens, see Extraction notes.
Plant CategoryWild vegetable (Umbelliferae, perennial) (p.1-2)
Days Plant after transplant74
SPAD (aquaponics)46.57 (74 DAT, Table 3; earlier timepoints 48.16 @34DAT, 51.90* @54DAT[significant] in remarks)
Plant height40.93 (cm, 74 DAT, no SD reported)
Leaf countUNCLEAR (74 DAT AP value merged/garbled with leaf width in Table 3, see WARN-BLOCK)
Plant fresh weight91.69 (g/plant, shoot only, 74 DAT, Table 4; root value 61.07 g/plant in remarks; WARN-CHECK)
Plant dry matter11.87 (g/plant, shoot dry weight, 74 DAT, Table 4 - not a %; root value 2.97 g/plant, moisture content 87.17% in remarks)

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeFloating raft / DWC with net-pot + Hydroball media inserts (Fig.1); HP explicitly labeled ‘Hydroponic system (DWC)’ in Fig.1 caption
Media DetailsNet pots (10x6.8x7cm) filled with 200g Hydroball per pot; Styrofoam floating plate 1.4m x 0.6m, 5 rows x dia.7 holes; total Hydroball in AP plant bed 12kg (60 plants), HP plant bed 2.4kg (12 plants); plant bed water volume 95L for both AP and HP
Air supplementY (Air pump (LP-60A, Kosung Valve Co., Korea): 8 low-pressure diffusers/plant cultivation bed, 2/rearing (fish) tank, continuous 24h; DO target stated but garbled by machine translation, see remarks (Dissolved Oxygen UNCLEAR))
pH BuffersN (Explicitly not corrected: ‘In this experiment, natural changes were not corrected’ (AP, p.4); HP ‘pH was not corrected with KOH’ (p.4). A separate passage describing oyster-shell fossil-fertilizer alkalization appears in the Discussion but its applicability to this trial vs. general background practice is unclear given translation garbling - see Extraction notes.)
Climate controlY (Constant-temperature/humidity plant-factory room, setpoint 20 +/- 1 degC, RH 50 +/- 5%, Department of Agriculture, Korea National Open University)
Artificial LightingY (White LED; post-transplant growth room (AP & HP beds, Fig.1): 200 umol/m2/s, photoperiod 12h/12h until 7 DAT then 16h/8h; pre-transplant seedling stage: White LED 180 umol/m2/s, 12h/12h; separate photosynthesis-measurement chamber used red+blue LED adjusted to PAR 200 umol/m2/s for LI-6400XT readings only)
Nutrient supplementedY (HP only: Mulpure two-part commercial nutrient solution (Daeyu Co., Korea) - Solution A: N5.5%,K4.5%,Ca2%,B0.00014%,Fe0.03%,Zn0.0001%,Mo0.0002%; Solution B: N2.5%,P2.2%,K5.3%,kaolin1%,Mo0.007%,B0.05%,Zn0.003%,Cu0.0007%; maintained EC1.3dS/m, pH6.5. AP: no nutrient solution, fish-waste mineralization only.)
EquipmentSubmersible pump GSP-100G (GMPUMP Co., Korea); air pump LP-60A (Kosung Valve Co., Korea); multiparameter meter PC Tester 35 (Oakton, USA); ion analyzer Auto CG200 (Cleangrow, UK); photosynthesis system LI-6400XT (Li-COR, USA); chlorophyll fluorometer FP110/D (Photon Systems Instruments, Czech Republic); SPAD-502 (Konica Minolta, Japan); electronic balance HS410A (Yousheng, China); leaf area meter LI-3100 (LI-COR, USA); drying oven HB-504F-0 (Hanbaek Science, Korea)
Control ParametersRoom temp 20 +/- 1 degC, RH 50 +/- 5%; HP EC/pH setpoint 1.3 dS/m & pH 6.5; light 200 umol/m2/s (post-transplant); DO target garbled in source, see remarks
CombinationKoi (Cyprinus carpio) and Peucedanum japonicum T.; aquaponics (AP) vs. hydroponic DWC (HP) comparison

Site

FieldValue
RegionEast Asia
CountrySouth Korea
Average room Temperature20 +/- 1 (degC, growth-room setpoint, both AP & HP; RH 50 +/- 5%)

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitcm (morphology); g/plant (fresh/dry weight); mg/L (water ions); dS/m (EC); SPAD units; umol CO2/m2/s (photosynthesis, NO COLUMN)
Statistic Detailst-test (SAS v9.4, Cary NC USA); significance p<0.05; growth/photosynthesis = mean of 6 replicates, chlorophyll fluorescence = mean of 3 replicates
Statistically analysedY
Replicates (n)6 (growth/photosynthesis); chlorophyll fluorescence sub-measurements n=3, see remarks
AP91.69
HYD78.82

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = aquaponic (AP) treatment (30 koi Cyprinus carpio, 10.6 kg/m3, 367.5 L breeding tank; 60 plants of Peucedanum japonicum T. on a floating-raft/DWC bed with Hydroball-filled net pots). Paired control = hydroponic DWC (HP) treatment, 12 plants, same bed dimensions, Mulpure commercial nutrient solution, recorded in the HYD columns. Only one aquaponic treatment in this paper, so one row. | MACHINE TRANSLATION CAVEAT: every page of this PDF is watermarked ‘Machine Translated by Google’; large stretches of running text are visibly scrambled (paragraphs reordered/interleaved between the original two print columns; one table cell has two numeric columns concatenated). Several cells below are UNCLEAR specifically because translation garbling prevented confident parsing, not because the paper itself reports conflicting data - noted explicitly where it applies. | WARN-CHECK Protein: p.2 feed proximate list reads ‘moisture 8.8% or less, White matter 47.21%, crude fat 6.82%, crude fiber 1.21%, ash 10.93%’ then ‘Ca 2.62%, P1.91%, Mg0.22%, K0.08%, Fe0.04%’. ‘White matter’ is not a standard feed-analysis term; its position (after moisture, before crude fat/fiber/ash) matches the conventional guaranteed-analysis order moisture/crude-protein/crude-fat/crude-fiber/crude-ash, suggesting a mistranslation of crude protein. No corroborating second value anywhere else in the paper. Recorded Protein=UNCLEAR rather than asserting the inferred label; raw value 47.21 preserved here. P (1.91%) and K (0.08%) are unambiguously labelled and recorded directly; N not stated, not derived from the uncertain protein figure. | WARN-BLOCK Leaf count/Leaf width, 74 DAT, AP (Table 3): the 74DAT AP row prints Leaf width and Leaf number as one run-together string ‘15.569.2’ with no separator; every other row shows them as distinct values (e.g. HP 74DAT: width 14.37 / number 9.5). No basis to determine the split point (candidates 15.56/9.2, 15.5/69.2, 15/569.2; none corroborated elsewhere). Recorded Leaf count = UNCLEAR. Leaf width has no dedicated column (also UNCLEAR, see NO COLUMN). Downstream: confined to this one row/DAT; HP 74DAT (9.5) and all other DAT rows for both treatments unaffected. | WARN-MATERIAL Authorship (3rd author surname): PDF running header (7 of 9 pages) reads ’…Maehee Jang…’; page-1 title-block secondary rendering reads ’…Mae-Hee Chiang3…’ (1 occurrence); zotero-export.csv also has ‘Chiang, Mae-Hee’. Per vault rule, Zotero preferred for Author(s)/frontmatter (‘Chiang’); PDF’s more-frequent ‘Jang’ spelling used for the note’s wikilink target. Unresolved which is the journal’s official form; no trial-data cell affected. | WARN-MATERIAL RGR/dry-weight significance (p.8 ‘briefs’ summary block): states ‘…the relative growth rate and dry matter weight of above and below ground areas were significant. There was no difference.’ This literally contradicts the Abstract (‘no significant difference in the fresh and dry weights of leaf and root’), the body Results/Discussion p.7 (‘no significant difference in the above-ground and underground relative growth rates (RGR)… no significant difference in the [dry] weight’), and Table 4 (Shoot/Root fresh & dry weight columns carry no significance asterisk; only LAR is asterisked). Two of three sources plus the table’s own asterisk convention agree on ‘not significant’; the briefs-block phrasing read as a garbled double-negative (translation seam) rather than a genuine fourth data point. Recorded as NOT significant, consistent with Table 4 and the values used in Plant dry matter/Plant fresh weight. | WARN-CHECK Plant fresh/dry weight, shoot vs root vs whole-plant: Table 4 (74DAT) gives Shoot fresh wt (AP 91.69/HP 78.82 g/plant) and Root fresh wt (AP 61.07/HP 50.80 g/plant) separately, likewise dry wt (Shoot AP 11.87/HP 10.66 g; Root AP 2.97/HP 3.10 g) - no single whole-plant figure stated anywhere. Shoot values recorded in Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter/AP/HYD as clearest single basis (typical marketable/above-ground yield convention); root values preserved here. Add to REVIEW.md per SCHEMA.md. | WARN-MINOR Plant trial duration 74 vs 75 days: Tables 3-4 and Fig.4 consistently use 74 DAT; Fig.5’s photo caption alone says ‘grown…for 75 days after transplanting’. Recorded Days Plant after transplant=74 (used by every numeric table); likely a 1-day photo-vs-harvest offset, not a real conflict. | WARN-MINOR Light intensity 200 vs 180 umol/m2/s: post-transplant growth bed lighting = White LED 200 umol/m2/s (Fig.1 diagram, both AP & HP). A separate passage (’…White LED (180umol-m-2-s-1)… Tap water supplied for 10 days after sowing’) sits in the pre-transplant seedling-raising paragraph, most plausibly describing the SEEDLING stage before the 33-day transplant, not a second figure for the same phase. Not treated as a contradiction; both recorded against their respective growth stages. | WARN-MINOR LAR percentage: text states ‘36.43% higher’ in AP; Table 4 AP(175)/HP(128) computes to 36.7% higher - rounding, no cell impact. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required, all values used in their native stated units. | NO COLUMN (no dedicated trials.csv column): Petiole length 74DAT AP 20.78*/HP 13.32 cm (the paper’s single significant growth-morphology difference, ‘56% longer’ per Abstract); Leaf length 74DAT AP 10.08/HP 9.73 cm; Leaf width 74DAT: UNCLEAR (garbled with leaf count, see WARN-BLOCK); Root fresh weight 74DAT AP 61.07/HP 50.80 g/plant; Root dry weight 74DAT AP 2.97/HP 3.10 g/plant; Moisture content 74DAT AP 87.17%/HP 86.68% (Table 4); S/R ratio 74DAT AP 4.00/HP 3.44; Leaf area 74DAT AP 2,152/HP 1,721 cm2 (mean of 6 reps); LAR 74DAT AP 175*/HP 128 cm2 dw g-1 (significant, ‘36.43% higher’); RGR (Fig.4): bar chart only, no numeric value in text/table, stated ns - not extracted per ‘never read a value off a figure’; Gas exchange Table1 (33/38 DAT, mean of 6 reps, all ns): Photosynthesis(Pn,umolCO2/m2/s) AP8.19/7.95,HP8.52/7.48; Stomatal conductance(Gs,mol H2O/m2/s) AP0.62/0.46,HP0.61/0.62; Internal CO2(Ci,umolCO2/m2/s) AP355/345,HP352/355; Transpiration(Tr,mol H2O/m2/s) AP4.78/5.15,HP4.73/6.32; leaf-level WUE(umolCO2/mmolH2O) AP0.172/0.161,HP0.180/0.118 - routed here rather than the WUE column because it is an instantaneous leaf-gas-exchange ratio paired with Pn/Gs/Ci/Tr in the same table, not a whole-system/crop water-use metric; Chlorophyll fluorescence Table2 (34/74 DAT, mean of 3 reps): Fv/Fm AP0.84/0.85,HP0.86/0.84(ns); PIABS AP8.7/8.7,HP12.5*/9.9*z(significant both DAT, see Experiment data); ABS/RC AP1.45/1.34,HP1.28/1.29(ns); TRo/RC AP1.22/1.14,HP1.10/1.09(ns); ETo/RC AP0.85/0.76,HP0.80/0.77(ns); DIo/RC AP0.23/0.20,HP0.18/0.21(ns). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR; SGR; N(feed); Fish size initial/final (only total fish weight 4.45kg/30 fish given, no per-fish weight stated); Total Feed(kg); Fish biomass created; Fish survival rate; Fish weight gain; Fish trial duration(days) (fish reared before transplant but no total days stated); Water recycle flow rate (pump model GSP-100G given, not restated); Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate (only evapotranspiration top-up described); pHOptimal; FUE AP; FUE HYD; system-level WUE; NO2-N (listed as measured but no value/range anywhere in Results/Fig.3); Plants/m2 (only absolute counts 60 AP/12 HP and bed 0.7x1.5m given, not a stated density); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no plant-tissue nitrate analysis, only water-column NO3-N); Lat/Long; Biological system already in use; Iron supplemented; Remineralization - paper silent on all (not stated absent), NR in both flag and paired Details columns. | Fish Category left NR: koi described only via citation (‘easier to cultivate than other ornamental fish’, Kim and Lee 2015) implicitly framing koi as ornamental, but paper does not itself categorise its study animal - judgment call per Alcarraz precedent. | pH Buffers: paper explicitly states ‘In this experiment, natural changes were not corrected’ (AP, p.4) and HP ‘pH was not corrected with KOH’ (p.4) -> recorded N. A separate Discussion passage describes oyster-shell fossil-fertilizer alkalization (10kg/60L water, pH6.0 target) immediately adjacent to citations of general aquaculture practice (Masser et al. 1992); ambiguous under machine translation whether this was actually applied in this trial or is cited background practice - set aside in favour of the paper’s own explicit ‘not corrected’ statements, noted here rather than silently discarded. | Dissolved Oxygen UNCLEAR: p.2 verbatim (machine-translated) ‘to maintain a saturated dissolved oxygen level of 9-9% during the entire cultivation period. 12mg-L-1 was maintained.’ Cannot confidently determine whether this intends % saturation, an absolute mg/L range (plausibly 9-12 mg/L, standard for aquaculture, but not reconstructable with confidence from the garbled syntax), or both; recorded UNCLEAR rather than guessing. | Water panel note (for batch report): full time-series/range water-chemistry panels reported for BOTH AP and HP (NH4-N, NO3-N, PO4-P, K, Ca, Mg; Fig.3 plus prose ranges), but trials.csv only carries AP-loop columns for general water ions (no paired HYD columns exist except Tissue nitrate AP/HYD) - HP-side ion ranges (e.g. HP NH4-N ~3.56-78.45 mg/L, NO3-N ~24-214 mg/L per badly garbled p.6 text) have no schema home and are not recorded in either CSV.

Graph View

Backlinks