A Comparison of Plant Growth Rates between an NFT Hydroponic System and an NFT Aquaponic System

Metadata

Cite key: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: W. Lennard, J. Ward
Affiliation: School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Campus, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
Journal: Horticulturae 5 (2019) 27
Date: 04/2019
Date added: 2019-11-19
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae5020027
Funding: Ashley Berrysmith of The Berrysmith Foundation (funder had no role in design, data collection/analysis, writing, or the decision to publish, per Conflicts of Interest statement, p.14)
URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae5020027
PDF: Lennard and Ward - 2019 - A Comparison of Plant Growth Rates between an NFT .pdf

Opinion

A genuinely commercial-scale, side-by-side, fish-fed (not analogue-nutrient) aquaponic-vs-hydroponic comparison, which the authors correctly note is rarer than it should be in this literature — most other comparisons (Savidov 2005, Delaide et al. 2016, Goddek & Vermeulen 2018, all discussed in the Discussion, p.10-11) use a nutrient-solution “aquaponic analogue” with no fish actively feeding. That is the paper’s real contribution. But the headline claims in the Abstract and Discussion (“in all cases, the aquaponically-grown lettuce equalled, or bettered, the hydroponic equivalent”; “the hydroponic system did not provide one case of better production than the aquaponics” among lettuce cultivars) do not survive a check against the paper’s own Tables 4 and 6: four of the 21 lettuce cultivar x season comparisons show a numerically larger hydroponic mean, two of them (Explore and Ashbrook, Winter 2010) with non-overlapping standard-error ranges, i.e. not just noise. The Discussion later quietly concedes exactly this (“the aquaponic system also began to suffer in the winter and in spring of 2010 (Tables 4 and 6)”, p.13) without ever correcting the absolute claim made earlier in the same paper. Similarly, the herb tally (“6 out of 23… better result from the hydroponic system”) undercounts by 2 against a plain read of Table 7. None of this undermines the paper’s core, better-supported point — that a fish-fed NFT aquaponic system run on a sound nutrient-ratio model (Symbioponics) can match hydroponics for most of the year — but the “always” and “never” language in the Abstract/Discussion should not be quoted without the caveat. The single-system-per-treatment design (no replicate aquaponic or hydroponic systems, only replicate plants within each) also means, as with the closely related Goddek & Vermeulen (2018) and Delaide et al. (2016) designs already in this vault, that this is scored quasi-experiment rather than experiment.

Abstract

A comparison of leafy green plant species’ (lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), dill (Anethum graveolens L.), rocket (Eruca sativa), coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.), and parsley (Petroselinum crispum)) growth rates was performed between an Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) hydroponic system, using standard commercial nutrient solution, and an NFT aquaponic system, using fish waste from Grass Carp, (Ctenopharyngodon idella) which provided the majority of the nutrients required by the plants. The results demonstrated that the aquaponic method performed well, and, in many cases, the growth rates produced were similar to those of the hydroponic method. Lettuce growth was compared across three seasons (summer, winter, and spring), and, in all cases, the aquaponically-grown lettuce equalled, or bettered, the hydroponic equivalent. Herb growth was compared over a five-month period (February to June—summer/autumn), and in 17 out of 23 comparisons, the aquaponic method produced results similar to those of the hydroponic method. Thus, while the NFT method may not be the most appropriate technical approach for aquaponic integration, the results suggest that the overall aquaponic method has the potential to produce plant growth rates at least equal to those of standard hydroponics.

Summary

Lennard and Ward ran a semi-commercial, side-by-side comparison of an NFT hydroponic system and an NFT aquaponic system in the same greenhouse at a commercial herb nursery (Tasman Bay Herbs, Riwaka, New Zealand), from December 2009 to December 2010. Both plant arrays were identical NFT channel designs; the aquaponic array’s nutrients came from an integrated recirculating Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) system managed with a specific fish-to-plant nutrient-ratio model (“Symbioponics”), while the hydroponic array used a standard commercial nutrient solution with automated pH/EC dosing. Three seasonal head-lettuce trials (7 cultivars each, summer/winter/spring 2010) and 23 sequential herb-crop comparisons (dill, rocket, coriander, parsley; February-June 2010) measured leaf fresh-weight gain (mean +/- SE) in each system, and 10 of the herb crops were additionally graded blind for saleable quality by nursery staff. Lettuce grew equal to or (usually substantially) better in the aquaponic system in most cultivar x season comparisons, and herbs matched or exceeded hydroponic growth in the majority of comparisons made before the onset of the Southern Hemisphere winter. A major, acknowledged limitation is that the greenhouse had no active heating or cooling — only automated passive venting — so the high-surface-area NFT channels tracked ambient air temperature; when winter water temperatures fell below the ~16 degC Grass Carp need to feed properly, fish feeding (and therefore aquaponic nutrient supply) collapsed, and aquaponic plant growth fell behind hydroponic growth for several herb crops and, less consistently, for some lettuce cultivars in winter and spring. The paper argues this points to a poor match between NFT (low water volume, high surface area) and temperature-sensitive fish rather than a flaw in aquaponics generally, and recommends against NFT for aquaponic systems using such fish unless the greenhouse has real climate control.

Experiment data

Location: Gable-roofed, ridge-vented, dual-layer-film greenhouse (9 m x 24 m) at a commercial hydroponic herb business, Tasman Bay Herbs (TBH), Riwaka, South Island, New Zealand. Aquaponic and hydroponic NFT plant arrays occupied one half of the greenhouse floor each, side-by-side; fish/nutrient room partitioned off separately (p.2-3, Fig. 1).

Design: One aquaponic NFT system (Grass Carp RAS: culture tanks, swirl sedimentation filter, 100 um static screen filter, trickling biofilter, sump, plus a separate aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor for captured solids) vs one hydroponic NFT system (2000 L sump, Bluelab Dosetronic automated part-A/B + acid dosing), both feeding identical NFT channel arrays (4 benches x 10 channels x 6 m, 150 mm hole centres, 1800 total holes, 28.8 m2 total hydroponic production area — aquaponic array stated to be “of the same design,” p.3). Not independently replicated at the system level: one aquaponic system and one hydroponic system, each servicing many NFT channels/plants — replicate counts below (n=30, n=20) are plants within each single system, not independent system-level replicates (this is why the paper is scored quasi-experiment, not experiment — see Extraction notes).

Replicates / n: 20 seedlings sampled at planting (initial leaf fresh weight, per system); 30 plants randomly sampled at harvest per system per trial (individual leaf biomass increase, p.4).

Duration: Overall trial window December 2009-December 2010. Three seasonal lettuce trials: Summer 2010 (48 days, seed-to-harvest), Spring 2010 (54 days), Winter 2010 (104 days). Twenty-three sequential herb comparisons, each 31-68 days seed-to-harvest, run February-June 2010 (no further herb comparisons achieved after June 2010 due to the winter fish-feeding collapse, p.9-10).

Organisms: Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) (aquaponic nutrient source only — fish growth/production data collected but explicitly not reported in this paper, p.4); Lactuca sativa cvs. Gaugin, Princess, Explore, Ashbrook, Satre, Robinio, Obregon; Anethum graveolens (dill); Eruca sativa (rocket); Coriandrum sativum (coriander); Petroselinum crispum (parsley).

Statistics: Descriptive only — mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain per system, plus a percentage-difference figure per crop/cultivar (Tables 2, 4, 6, 7). No inferential test (t-test, ANOVA, p-value) is reported anywhere in Methods or Results, and no stated criterion for what counts as the aquaponic system having “equalled or bettered” hydroponics (see WARN-CHECK below).

Lettuce (44-trial breakdown, 21 of the 44 rows in trials.csv): aquaponic matched or exceeded hydroponic top-weight in 17 of 21 cultivar x season comparisons; hydroponic was numerically larger in 4 (Spring: Robinio 118.73+/-10.80 HYD vs 100.27+/-17.87 AP; Winter: Explore 709.47+/-29.67 HYD vs 625.93+/-34.81 AP; Ashbrook 497.67+/-25.98 HYD vs 453.17+/-27.37 AP; Obregon 354.87+/-20.50 HYD vs 341.53+/-21.23 AP) — see WARN-MATERIAL below, this contradicts the Abstract/Discussion’s “in all cases equalled or bettered” claim.

Herbs (23 of the 44 rows): aquaponic matched or exceeded hydroponic top-weight in 15-17 of 23 crop-period comparisons depending on counting convention; paper’s own stated tally is “17 out of 23… aquaponic method produced results similar to… hydroponic” / “6 out of 23… better result from the hydroponic system” (p.9-10) — a plain read of Table 7’s raw means gives 8, not 6, hydroponic-better rows (see WARN-CHECK below).

Herb quality: 9 of 10 blind-graded herb crops showed a higher saleable-product percentage for aquaponic than hydroponic (Table 8, p.10).

Lettuce production (Tables 1-6)

This paper: Three seasonal comparisons, 7 head-lettuce cultivars each. Summer 2010 (48 d): aquaponic exceeded hydroponic in all 7 cultivars, by 15-111% (Table 2). Spring 2010 (54 d): aquaponic exceeded hydroponic in 6 of 7 cultivars (4-38%), but cv. Robinio was hydroponic-larger (118.73+/-10.80 g HYD vs 100.27+/-17.87 g AP; Table 4). Winter 2010 (104 d, the longest and coldest trial): aquaponic exceeded hydroponic in only 4 of 7 cultivars (Gaugin, Princess, Satre, Robinio); Explore, Ashbrook, and Obregon were all hydroponic-larger (Table 6) — this is the season in which the aquaponic system’s fish feeding, and therefore nutrient supply, had collapsed due to low water temperature (see below). All 44 individual cultivar/species values (mean +/- SE, both systems) are recorded in out/lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019.trials.csv, one row per cultivar/season or per herb crop-period, since the paper reports genuine per-arm results in Tables 2/4/6/7 rather than a single pooled figure.

Compared with:

todo Pantanella et al. 2010 — Romaine lettuce growth compared across aquaponic (4 stocking densities) vs standard hydroponic nutrient solution; no significant difference at higher fish stocking densities, cited (p.9) as one of the few other studies comparing full aquaponic systems (with fish) to hydroponics.
todo Savidov 2005 — aquaponic-derived nutrient solution (no fish present during the test itself) produced equal-or-greater shoot weight than hydroponic solution for cucumber, tomato, basil, rosemary, Echinacea; cited (p.10) as an “aquaponic analogue,” not a fully operating system.
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016 — already in this vault; cited (p.11) for comparing nutrient-complemented RAS water (“aquaponic analogue”) and “decoupled aquaponic analogue” water to a hydroponic control, again without fish present during testing.
goddekComparisonLactucaSativa2018 — already in this vault; cited (p.11, as “Goddek and Vermuelen”) for a hydroponic-analogue vs aquaponic-analogue (30% RAS + 70% rainwater) lettuce comparison, again an analogue without actively-feeding fish.

Herb production and quality (Tables 7-8)

This paper: Four herb species (dill, rocket, coriander, parsley) compared across 23 sequential crop-periods, February-June 2010 (31-68 days seed-to-harvest each). Aquaponic top weight matched or exceeded hydroponic in the majority of comparisons through April, but from May 2010 onward — as Southern Hemisphere autumn/winter set in and the aquaponic system’s water temperature fell below the ~16 degC Grass Carp need for normal feeding (p.13) — most remaining rocket and coriander comparisons flipped to hydroponic-larger (Rocket-May, Coriander-May(3), Coriander-May(4), Rocket-June, Rocket-June(2), Coriander-June). No herb comparisons were attempted after June 2010 (p.9-10). Separately, 10 of the 23 crop-periods were blind-graded for saleable quality by TBH picking staff (Table 8): aquaponic herbs scored a higher saleable percentage in 9 of 10 (all but “Pit-May(2) 2010,” 29% HYD vs 26% AP) — the strongest single result in the paper, since it is an independent, staff-blinded measure rather than a plant-weight metric that could be confounded by growth-stage differences.

Compared with:

todo Lennard 2005 (PhD thesis, RMIT University) — earlier lab-scale optimisation of the aquaponic system/nutrient-ratio approach this paper’s aquaponic design descends from; reported identical Green Oak lettuce yield per m2 for an optimised aquaponic model (5.77 kg/m2) vs standard hydroponic model (5.46 kg/m2), and 97% nitrogen removal vs a fish-only control (p.11-12).
todo Rakocy et al. 2004 — Aquaponic production of Tilapia and Basil, cited (p.14) alongside Lennard’s own thesis and Rakocy & Hargreaves 1993 as evidence that aquaponic fish production can equal standard recirculating aquaculture.
lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021 — already in this vault (chicory, not directly cited by Lennard & Ward, added here only as an existing vault note on a related leafy-crop AP/HYD comparison for cross-linking).

System-design limitation: NFT and temperature-sensitive fish

This paper: The trial greenhouse used only automated passive venting (roll-up walls + ridge vents, AutoVent 1/Autogrow, triggered fully open at 22 degC air temperature) — explicitly no active heating or cooling (p.13). Because NFT channels have a high surface-area-to-water-volume ratio, both plant arrays acted as “large radiators of water temperature” (p.13), so winter water temperatures fell in both systems. This did not affect the hydroponic plants directly (nutrient solution unaffected by temperature within the observed range), but Grass Carp require water above ~16 degC for normal feeding [refs 41-42 in paper]; falling water temperature substantially reduced daily fish feed additions (Figure 3) from roughly 400-900 g/day in the warmer months to near zero for stretches of the winter, cutting aquaponic nutrient supply and — the paper argues — explaining the aquaponic underperformance seen in the winter/spring lettuce cultivars and the May-June herb crops. The paper recommends against NFT for aquaponic systems using temperature-sensitive fish species unless the greenhouse has genuine climate control, and notes the reverse risk (NFT overheating cold-water species such as salmonids in summer) as an open design question (p.13-14).

Compared with:

todo Edwards 1974 — weed preference and growth of young grass carp in New Zealand, source (with Stanley et al. 1978) for the ~16 degC minimum feeding-temperature claim used to explain the winter nutrient collapse.

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Type classification: quasi-experiment. Original data collected (plant weight comparisons, blind quality grading) so it is primary research, not a review — but the design compares exactly one aquaponic system against exactly one hydroponic system (p.3, Fig. 1: “the two production technologies were placed in the same greenhouse space”), with no randomised or replicated allocation of the treatment across independent systems. The n=30/n=20 sample sizes are individually-measured plants within each single system, not independent system-level replicates. This matches SCHEMA.md’s test for quasi-experiment (“treatments compared but without randomisation or true replication”) and is consistent with how this vault already classifies the structurally identical Delaide et al. (2016) and Goddek & Vermeulen (2018) designs (both quasi-experiment).

Trial-row granularity: trials.csv contains 44 rows (21 lettuce cultivar x season + 23 herb species x crop-period), not one row per season/paper. Tables 2, 4, 6, and 7 all report genuine per-arm results (a distinct cultivar or species/date with its own mean +/- SE in both systems), which SCHEMA.md’s row-definition rule treats as evidence of a distinct trial arm, and matches how this vault’s fosterEffectAquaponicHydroponic2018 extraction split multiple species tested under one nominal “treatment” into separate rows. Aggregating to one row per season would have required either fabricating a summary statistic across 7 cultivars (no derivation allowed) or discarding the very data needed to show the contradictions below.

[not reported]:

All fish-performance data: stocking density, feed composition (protein/N/P/K), feed rate as % body weight, initial/final fish size, total feed (kg), fish biomass created, survival, weight gain, FCR, SGR, fish trial duration. The paper states explicitly (p.4) that fish data were collected but withheld from this publication.
Numeric trial-mean or range for pH, EC/conductivity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, average room temperature — all four water-parameter figures (2-5) are unlabelled daily time-series charts with no value given in the running text.
Plants/m2 — 1800 total holes and 28.8 m2 total hydroponic area are both stated (p.3), so density is arithmetically obtainable, but is not itself stated and was not computed (no-derivation rule).
“Days Plant after transplant” (schema wants transplant-to-harvest) — the paper’s stated day-counts (Table 1/3/5, and the bracketed numbers in Table 7) are all seed-to-harvest instead (Table 7 caption, p.9, states this explicitly); recorded NR rather than deriving a transplant-to-harvest interval from the stated calendar dates.
Plant height, leaf count, SPAD, plant dry matter, tissue nitrate (AP or HYD) — only fresh weight (leaf biomass gain) was measured.
Water volume in the system (hydroponic sump given as 2000 L, p.3; aquaponic total system volume never stated), water recycle flow rate (L/min), daily water exchange rate, Lat/Long coordinates for Riwaka (only the place name is given).
Whether any inferential statistical test (t-test, ANOVA) was applied to the AP-vs-HYD comparisons — only descriptive mean +/- SE and a percentage-difference figure are reported.

[unclear]:

Whether the “Total culture days” in Tables 1/3/5 and the bracketed day-counts in Table 7 are meant to include the pre-NFT seedling/germination-bench period identically for both systems — the Methods (p.4) state seedlings were produced “in the nutrient solution of the respective culturing system… on standard ebb and flow seedling production tables” before being moved to NFT, so this appears consistent, but no explicit statement confirms the germination-bench duration was identical between the two systems for every individual trial.

Contradictions:

WARN-MATERIAL lettuce “always equalled or bettered” claim (4 instances): Abstract states “in all cases, the aquaponically-grown lettuce equalled, or bettered, the hydroponic equivalent”; Discussion (p.9-10) states “Among the lettuce cultivars, in all of the comparisons, the hydroponic system did not provide one case of better production than the aquaponics.” Table 4 (Spring 2010, p.8) reports cv. Robinio: Hydroponic 118.73+/-10.80 g > Aquaponic 100.27+/-17.87 g. Table 6 (Winter 2010, p.8) reports cv. Explore: Hydroponic 709.47+/-29.67 g > Aquaponic 625.93+/-34.81 g (SE ranges do not overlap: 679.8-739.1 vs 591.1-660.7); cv. Ashbrook: Hydroponic 497.67+/-25.98 g > Aquaponic 453.17+/-27.37 g (SE ranges do not overlap: 471.7-523.7 vs 425.8-480.5); cv. Obregon: Hydroponic 354.87+/-20.50 g > Aquaponic 341.53+/-21.23 g (SE ranges overlap: 334.4-375.4 vs 320.3-362.8). Explore and Ashbrook (Winter) are clear, statistically-separated counter-examples, not measurement noise; Robinio (Spring) and Obregon (Winter) have overlapping SE ranges and could plausibly have been judged “equal” by the authors. The Discussion later partially concedes the winter/spring lettuce underperformance elsewhere in the same paper (“the aquaponic system also began to suffer in the winter and in spring of 2010 (Tables 4 and 6)”, p.13) without revising the absolute claim made in the Abstract and earlier in the Discussion. Recorded: the table values as-is in each of the four affected trials.csv rows (Spring-Robinio = T13, Winter-Explore = T17, Winter-Ashbrook = T18, Winter-Obregon = T21); the narrative overclaim is flagged, not silently resolved. Affects: reliability of the paper’s headline claim about lettuce; contributes to this paper’s quality: caution score.
WARN-CHECK herb-comparison tally (6 vs. 8): Discussion (p.9-10) states “6 out of 23 comparisons resulted in a better result from the hydroponic system… [all] within the Southern Hemisphere in the months of May and June.” A plain read of Table 7’s raw means gives 8 rows where the hydroponic mean is numerically larger: the six the Discussion names (Rocket-May, Coriander-May(3), Coriander-May(4), Rocket-June, Rocket-June(2), Coriander-June) plus Dill-Feb 2010 (Hydroponic 10.9+/-0.7 > Aquaponic 10.5+/-1.1) and Dill-April(3) 2010 (Hydroponic 17.1+/-1.1 > Aquaponic 14.8+/-1.1) — both outside the May/June window the Discussion attributes the effect to. No criterion is stated anywhere for how “better” was judged (raw mean comparison vs. requiring separated SE ranges), so both the paper’s count (6) and the raw-table count (8) are defensible under different implicit definitions; this is a genuine CHECK, not a resolvable error. Recorded: table values as-is (T22 Dill-Feb, T32 Dill-April(3)); both candidate tallies documented here for the user to resolve. Does not affect the quality score (CHECK is exempt).
WARN-MINOR arithmetic mismatch, Table 7 “Difference (%)” column (2 instances, no schema-cell impact): “Rocket—May (2) 2010” (T35) lists means 56.4+/-3.9 (HYD) / 62.5+/-3.1 (AP) with a stated difference of “94,” but recomputing from the same base-value convention used consistently elsewhere in the table gives (62.5-56.4)/56.4 = ~11%. “Parsley—May (2) 2010” (T37) lists means 34.1+/-3.9 (HYD) / 58.6+/-7.4 (AP) with a stated difference of “56,” but the same convention gives (58.6-34.1)/34.1 = ~72%. Both recomputations are evidence only (not entered in any cell); the underlying mean +/- SE values are internally consistent with neighbouring table rows and are recorded as-is in AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight. No trials.csv column captures the “Difference (%)” figure itself, so this does not affect the quality score.
WARN-CHECK culture-duration basis (systemic, all 44 rows): the paper’s stated day-counts (Table 1/3/5 “Total culture days”; Table 7’s bracketed numbers) are explicitly seed-to-harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9), not transplant-to-harvest as the trials.csv schema’s “Days Plant after transplant” column specifies. For the three lettuce trials a transplant-to-harvest interval could be calculated from the stated calendar dates (e.g. Summer: 25 Jan-25 Feb = 31 days, vs. the stated 48-day seed-to-harvest figure), but this was not computed per the no-derivation rule; “Days Plant after transplant” is recorded NR throughout, with the seed-to-harvest figure kept in each row’s remarks instead.

Severity tally for this paper: 0 BLOCK, 4 MATERIAL, 2 CHECK (+1 systemic CHECK across all rows), 2 MINOR -> quality: caution (3-4 MATERIAL per SCHEMA.md’s scoring table; CHECK and MINOR are exempt from scoring).

Judgment calls (not severity-tagged, but worth recording):

Fish Category recorded as “Asiatic carp species (p.4)” — the paper’s own descriptive phrase, not a substituted taxonomic classification, per SCHEMA.md’s rule that category fields take the paper’s own wording.
Remineralization and pH Buffers scored Y (with details) since the paper explicitly describes both mechanisms (aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor for fish solids, p.4; variety-specific aquaponic pH buffer formulations under the Symbioponics approach, p.12). Climate control also scored Y, but with a detail note clarifying this means automated passive venting only — the paper explicitly states there was no active heating or cooling (p.13), which is in fact the central limitation the Discussion revolves around, so recording a bare N or NR would have obscured a load-bearing methodological detail.
Combination (no controlled vocabulary defined in SCHEMA.md — flagged there as an open question) filled per-row as “Grass Carp + [this row’s plant],” the most literal reading of what the column plausibly wants; flagged here in case this is not the intended semantics.
Statistically analysed recorded NR rather than N: the paper never explicitly states that no significance test was performed, it simply never mentions one — per the paired-column convention (N = paper states absence; NR = paper is silent), silence goes to NR.
Water panel (Figures 2-5) is flagged as too valuable to discard (per SCHEMA.md’s instruction) — the paper’s central mechanistic explanation for the winter aquaponic underperformance (falling water temperature -> reduced fish feeding -> reduced nutrient supply) depends on exactly these charts, but none of them state a numeric trial-mean or range in text, so nothing beyond an explicit caveated approximate visual impression (see WATER_NOTE in every trials.csv row’s remarks) could be extracted without reading pixel positions off unlabelled charts, which was judged too close to guessing to enter in a cell.

NO COLUMN (full detail in trials.csv Experimental Remarks, repeated per relevant row):

Paper’s own reported “Difference (%)” figure for every lettuce cultivar/season and herb crop-period (Tables 2, 4, 6, 7) — no dedicated schema column exists for this summary statistic, so it is carried in remarks alongside the AP/HYD means it was computed from.
Table 8 subjective/blind quality grading (% of harvested crop judged saleable by TBH staff) for the 8 herb crop-periods that have a matching Table 7 weight row, plus two crop-periods (“Pit—May 2010,” 38% HYD/60% AP; “Pit—May (2) 2010,” 29% HYD/26% AP) that appear only in Table 8 with no matching species in Table 7 or in the paper’s stated list of four herb species (dill, rocket, coriander, parsley) — “Pit” does not correspond to any named crop in this study; likely a typesetting/transcription artifact in the original publication. Not given its own trials.csv row (no weight data exists for it to anchor a row), flagged here instead as an unresolved species-identity anomaly.
150 mm NFT hole centres, 1800 total holes, 28.8 m2 total hydroponic production area (p.3) — retained as the raw inputs behind the un-derived Plants/m2 figure.

Water panel excluded from plant.csv

All water-chemistry data (pH, conductivity/EC, water and air temperature, daily fish feed rate — Figures 2-5) is water chemistry, not a plant analyte, so per SCHEMA.md it is excluded from plant.csv entirely regardless of fit, and in any case none of it carries a numeric trial-mean or range stated in the text (see [not reported] above). plant.csv for this paper contains only the header row: the sole plant-side measurement in the entire study is leaf fresh-weight gain (routed to trials.csv’s Plant fresh weight/AP/HYD columns), plus the Table 8 saleability percentages (a quality/marketability outcome, not a biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate analyte, so also routed to trials.csv remarks rather than plant.csv). No tissue nitrate, mineral, biochemical, or proximate plant analysis was performed or reported anywhere in the paper.

Source: Lennard and Ward - 2019 - A Comparison of Plant Growth Rates between an NFT .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

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Gaugin’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Gaugin’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 168.0 +/- 6.13; HYD 130.83 +/- 4.83 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Gaugin’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	168.0
HYD	130.83

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T1 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Gaugin’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 28% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Princess’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Princess’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 246.63 +/- 18.59; HYD 117.0 +/- 15.76 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Princess’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	246.63
HYD	117.0

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T2 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Princess’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 111% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T3

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Explore’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Explore’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 293.78 +/- 18.56; HYD 211.86 +/- 24.51 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Explore’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	293.78
HYD	211.86

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T3 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Explore’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 39% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T4

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Ashbrook’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Ashbrook’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 266.38 +/- 12.69; HYD 220.25 +/- 23.36 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Ashbrook’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	266.38
HYD	220.25

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T4 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Ashbrook’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 21% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T5

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Satre’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Satre’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 223.56 +/- 13.01; HYD 173.11 +/- 9.43 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Satre’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	223.56
HYD	173.11

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T5 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Satre’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 29% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T6

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Robinio’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Robinio’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 204.43 +/- 25.17; HYD 177.88 +/- 10.75 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Robinio’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	204.43
HYD	177.88

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T6 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Robinio’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 15% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T7

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Obregon’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Obregon’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Summer 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 223.4 +/- 13.29; HYD 142.5 +/- 8.85 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Obregon’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	223.4
HYD	142.5

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T7 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Obregon’, Summer 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 8 January 2010, planted out 25 January 2010, harvested 25 February 2010; 48-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 57% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 48 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T8

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Gaugin’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Gaugin’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 125.33 +/- 7.17; HYD 120.47 +/- 3.89 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Gaugin’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	125.33
HYD	120.47

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T8 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Gaugin’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 4% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T9

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Princess’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Princess’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 158.33 +/- 25.0; HYD 153.0 +/- 26.54 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Princess’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	158.33
HYD	153.0

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T9 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Princess’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 4% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T10

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Explore’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Explore’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 312.11 +/- 16.87; HYD 298.72 +/- 21.21 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Explore’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	312.11
HYD	298.72

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T10 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Explore’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 5% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T11

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Ashbrook’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Ashbrook’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 184.67 +/- 31.48; HYD 133.78 +/- 18.67 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Ashbrook’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	184.67
HYD	133.78

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T11 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Ashbrook’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 38% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T12

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Satre’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Satre’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 236.13 +/- 5.78; HYD 217.53 +/- 6.88 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Satre’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	236.13
HYD	217.53

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T12 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Satre’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 9% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T13

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Robinio’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Robinio’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 100.27 +/- 17.87; HYD 118.73 +/- 10.8 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Robinio’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	100.27
HYD	118.73

Experimental Remarks: WARN-MATERIAL lettuce parity claim: Abstract states ‘in all cases, the aquaponically-grown lettuce equalled, or bettered, the hydroponic equivalent’; Discussion (p.9-10) states ‘Among the lettuce cultivars, in all of the comparisons, the hydroponic system did not provide one case of better production than the aquaponics.’ Table 4 (Spring 2010, p.8) reports cv. Robinio: Hydroponic 118.73+/-10.80 g > Aquaponic 100.27+/-17.87 g — hydroponic mean is numerically larger (~18% higher), directly contradicting both claims. SE ranges (Aq ~82.4-118.1; Hyd ~107.9-129.5) partially overlap, so this instance is arguably within measurement noise. Table value recorded as-is (defensible, itemised data); the narrative overclaim is flagged, not silently resolved. Affects: reliability of the paper’s headline ‘aquaponic always equals-or-betters hydroponic for lettuce’ claim. || TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T13 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Robinio’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 18% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T14

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Obregon’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Obregon’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Spring 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 234.87 +/- 8.17; HYD 199.53 +/- 12.6 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Obregon’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	234.87
HYD	199.53

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T14 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Obregon’, Spring 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 30 September 2010, planted out 22 October 2010, harvested 23 November 2010; 54-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 18% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T15

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Gaugin’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Gaugin’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 327.44 +/- 8.7; HYD 271.61 +/- 7.31 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Gaugin’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	327.44
HYD	271.61

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T15 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Gaugin’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 21% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T16

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Princess’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Princess’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 204.94 +/- 10.03; HYD 177.38 +/- 12.21 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Princess’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	204.94
HYD	177.38

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T16 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Princess’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 16% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T17

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Explore’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Explore’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 625.93 +/- 34.81; HYD 709.47 +/- 29.67 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Explore’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	625.93
HYD	709.47

Experimental Remarks: WARN-MATERIAL lettuce parity claim: Abstract/Discussion (p.1,9-10) claim aquaponic lettuce never underperformed hydroponic. Table 6 (Winter 2010, p.8) reports cv. Explore: Hydroponic 709.47+/-29.67 g > Aquaponic 625.93+/-34.81 g. SE ranges do NOT overlap (Hyd 679.8-739.1 vs Aq 591.1-660.7), so this is a clear, statistically-separated case of hydroponic outperforming aquaponic, not measurement noise. The Discussion later partially concedes this elsewhere (‘the aquaponic system also began to suffer in the winter and in spring of 2010 (Tables 4 and 6)’, p.13) but the paper’s summary claims of universal lettuce parity (Abstract; p.9-10) remain uncorrected. Table value recorded as-is. Affects: headline claim reliability; quality score. || TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T17 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Explore’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 13% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T18

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Ashbrook’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Ashbrook’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 453.17 +/- 27.37; HYD 497.67 +/- 25.98 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Ashbrook’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	453.17
HYD	497.67

Experimental Remarks: WARN-MATERIAL lettuce parity claim: same abstract/discussion claim as above. Table 6 (Winter 2010, p.8) reports cv. Ashbrook: Hydroponic 497.67+/-25.98 g > Aquaponic 453.17+/-27.37 g. SE ranges do NOT overlap (Hyd 471.7-523.7 vs Aq 425.8-480.5), again a clear statistically-separated hydroponic advantage contradicting the ‘never worse’ claim. Table value recorded as-is. || TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T18 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Ashbrook’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 10% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T19

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Satre’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Satre’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 349.2 +/- 17.94; HYD 322.2 +/- 12.92 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Satre’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	349.2
HYD	322.2

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T19 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Satre’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 8% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T20

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Robinio’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Robinio’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 345.78 +/- 17.98; HYD 293.22 +/- 10.02 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Robinio’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	345.78
HYD	293.22

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T20 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Robinio’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 18% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T21

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce cv. ‘Obregon’ (Lactuca sativa L.)
Details	Head lettuce cultivar ‘Obregon’; NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, Winter 2010 run (Tables 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6). Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5).
Plant Category	Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.); keyword ‘Lettuce’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 341.53 +/- 21.23; HYD 354.87 +/- 20.5 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Lettuce cv. ‘Obregon’

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	341.53
HYD	354.87

Experimental Remarks: WARN-MATERIAL lettuce parity claim: same abstract/discussion claim as above. Table 6 (Winter 2010, p.8) reports cv. Obregon: Hydroponic 354.87+/-20.50 g > Aquaponic 341.53+/-21.23 g. SE ranges overlap substantially (Hyd 334.4-375.4 vs Aq 320.3-362.8), so this instance could be measurement noise, but the raw means still numerically contradict the ‘in all cases equalled or bettered’ claim. Table value recorded as-is. || TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T21 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT head lettuce production comparison, cv. ‘Obregon’, Winter 2010 (Table 1/3/5 growth-period parameters + Table 2/4/6 results). Seeded 28 April 2010, planted out 20 May 2010, harvested 10 August 2010; 104-day seed-to-harvest culture period, identical for all 7 cultivars grown side-by-side in this run. || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this cultivar/season: 4% (Table 2/4/6; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 104 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T22

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Dill (Anethum graveolens L.)
Details	Dill, production period ‘Feb 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 31-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 10.5 +/- 1.1; HYD 10.9 +/- 0.7 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Dill

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	10.5
HYD	10.9

Experimental Remarks: WARN-CHECK herb tally: Discussion (p.9-10) states exactly ‘6 out of 23 comparisons resulted in a better result from the hydroponic system’ and ties all six explicitly to ‘the months of May and June’. This row (Dill, Feb 2010) shows Hydroponic 10.9+/-0.7 > Aquaponic 10.5+/-1.1 — hydroponic numerically larger, in a month (February) NOT among the six the Discussion names. SE ranges overlap heavily (Hyd 10.2-11.6 vs Aq 9.4-11.6), so this may be why the authors did not count it, but no stated criterion for ‘better’ (raw mean vs. SE-separated) is given anywhere. Recomputed tally from Table 7 raw means: 8 of 23 rows show a numerically larger hydroponic mean (this row + Dill-April(3) + the 6 named May/June rows), not 6. Recomputation is evidence only, not entered in any cell. Values as tabulated (10.9/10.5) recorded as-is. || TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T22 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Dill, production period ‘Feb 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 31-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 4% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 31 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T23

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket (Eruca sativa)
Details	Rocket, production period ‘Feb 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 32-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 47.1 +/- 2.1; HYD 42.4 +/- 2.8 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Rocket

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	47.1
HYD	42.4

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T23 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Rocket, production period ‘Feb 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 32-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 10% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 32 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T24

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Dill (Anethum graveolens L.)
Details	Dill, production period ‘March 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 34-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 16.0 +/- 1.5; HYD 12.2 +/- 1.1 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Dill

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	16.0
HYD	12.2

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T24 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Dill, production period ‘March 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 34-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 31% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 34 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T25

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket (Eruca sativa)
Details	Rocket, production period ‘March 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 40-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 51.9 +/- 3.4; HYD 49.0 +/- 3.6 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Rocket

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	51.9
HYD	49.0

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T25 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Rocket, production period ‘March 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 40-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 6% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 40 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T26

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘March 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 46-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 60.5 +/- 6.1; HYD 16.5 +/- 1.4 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	60.5
HYD	16.5

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T26 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘March 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 46-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 267% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 46 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T27

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Dill (Anethum graveolens L.)
Details	Dill, production period ‘April 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 36-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 20.3 +/- 1.3; HYD 13.5 +/- 0.8 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Dill

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	20.3
HYD	13.5

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T27 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Dill, production period ‘April 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 36-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 50% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 36 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T28

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
Details	Parsley, production period ‘April 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 53-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 21.5 +/- 2.8; HYD 17.2 +/- 1.2 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Parsley

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	21.5
HYD	17.2

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T28 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Parsley, production period ‘April 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 53-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 25% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 53 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T29

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘April 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 46-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 28.7 +/- 3.0; HYD 11.0 +/- 0.9 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	28.7
HYD	11.0

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T29 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘April 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 46-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 160% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 46 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T30

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Dill (Anethum graveolens L.)
Details	Dill, production period ‘April (2) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 36-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 12.1 +/- 0.9; HYD 11.1 +/- 0.7 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Dill

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	12.1
HYD	11.1

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T30 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Dill, production period ‘April (2) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 36-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 9% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 36 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T31

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
Details	Parsley, production period ‘April (2) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 55-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 24.9 +/- 3.2; HYD 14.6 +/- 1.5 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Parsley

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	24.9
HYD	14.6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T31 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Parsley, production period ‘April (2) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 55-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 71% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 55 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T32

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Dill (Anethum graveolens L.)
Details	Dill, production period ‘April (3) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 40-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 14.8 +/- 1.1; HYD 17.1 +/- 1.1 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Dill

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	14.8
HYD	17.1

Experimental Remarks: WARN-CHECK herb tally: as above — this row (Dill, April(3) 2010) shows Hydroponic 17.1+/-1.1 > Aquaponic 14.8+/-1.1, a clearer separation (SE ranges 16.0-18.2 vs 13.7-15.9, barely overlapping) than the Feb row, yet April is also outside the ‘May and June’ window the Discussion (p.9-10) attributes all 6 hydroponic-better cases to. Same recomputed-tally discrepancy (8 vs stated 6) applies; see Dill-Feb-2010 row and note for full detail. || TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T32 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Dill, production period ‘April (3) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 40-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 16% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 40 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 17% saleable vs Aquaponic 27% saleable.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T33

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket (Eruca sativa)
Details	Rocket, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 39-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 29.8 +/- 1.8; HYD 44.2 +/- 3.5 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Rocket

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	29.8
HYD	44.2

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T33 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Rocket, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 39-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 48% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 39 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 32% saleable vs Aquaponic 45% saleable.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T34

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 46-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 8.0 +/- 0.8; HYD 5.3 +/- 0.6 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	8.0
HYD	5.3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T34 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 46-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 51% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 46 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 71% saleable vs Aquaponic 72% saleable.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T35

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Dill (Anethum graveolens L.)
Details	Dill, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 46-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 14.5 +/- 1.3; HYD 11.7 +/- 0.9 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Dill

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	14.5
HYD	11.7

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T35 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Dill, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 46-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 24% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 46 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T36

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket (Eruca sativa)
Details	Rocket, production period ‘May (2) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 40-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 62.5 +/- 3.1; HYD 56.4 +/- 3.9 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Rocket

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	62.5
HYD	56.4

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T36 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Rocket, production period ‘May (2) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 40-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 94% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 40 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 33% saleable vs Aquaponic 43% saleable. || WARN-MINOR arithmetic mismatch (no schema cell affected): Table 7 (p.9) reports this row’s ‘Difference (%)’ as 94, but (62.5-56.4)/56.4 = ~10.8% by the same base-value convention used consistently elsewhere in the table (recomputed from the table’s own stated means; recomputation is evidence only, not entered in any cell). The underlying means themselves (56.4+/-3.9 HYD, 62.5+/-3.1 AP) are internally consistent with neighbouring rows and are recorded as-is; only the non-schema ‘Difference (%)’ figure is anomalous.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T37

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
Details	Parsley, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 68-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 32.0 +/- 5.0; HYD 19.4 +/- 2.0 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Parsley

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	32.0
HYD	19.4

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T37 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Parsley, production period ‘May 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 68-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 65% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 68 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T38

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
Details	Parsley, production period ‘May (2) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 68-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 58.6 +/- 7.4; HYD 34.1 +/- 3.9 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Parsley

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	58.6
HYD	34.1

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T38 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Parsley, production period ‘May (2) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 68-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 56% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 68 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || WARN-MINOR arithmetic mismatch (no schema cell affected): Table 7 (p.9) reports this row’s ‘Difference (%)’ as 56, but (58.6-34.1)/34.1 = ~71.8% by the same convention used elsewhere in the table (recomputation is evidence only, not entered in any cell). Means themselves (34.1+/-3.9 HYD, 58.6+/-7.4 AP) recorded as-is.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T39

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘May (2) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 54-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 10.5 +/- 1.2; HYD 9.4 +/- 1.0 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	10.5
HYD	9.4

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T39 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘May (2) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 54-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 12% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 66% saleable vs Aquaponic 79% saleable.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T40

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘May (3) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 54-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 13.9 +/- 1.7; HYD 18.5 +/- 2.8 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	13.9
HYD	18.5

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T40 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘May (3) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 54-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 33% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 54 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 30% saleable vs Aquaponic 47% saleable.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T41

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘May (4) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 53-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 7.5 +/- 1.4; HYD 18.9 +/- 1.9 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	7.5
HYD	18.9

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T41 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘May (4) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 53-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 153% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 53 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 16% saleable vs Aquaponic 54% saleable.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T42

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket (Eruca sativa)
Details	Rocket, production period ‘June 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 39-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 17.6 +/- 1.6; HYD 41.1 +/- 2.8 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Rocket

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	17.6
HYD	41.1

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T42 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Rocket, production period ‘June 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 39-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 134% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 39 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T43

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket (Eruca sativa)
Details	Rocket, production period ‘June (2) 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 42-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 10.7 +/- 0.7; HYD 31.0 +/- 2.1 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Rocket

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	10.7
HYD	31.0

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T43 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Rocket, production period ‘June (2) 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 42-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 188% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 42 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here.

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T44

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Fish Category	Asiatic carp species (p.4)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Coriander, production period ‘June 2010’ (Table 7); NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic side-by-side comparison, 53-day seed-to-harvest culture. Seedlings of the same age/seed stock planted into both NFT arrays simultaneously; harvested and weighed at the same time (p.5). No formal herb comparisons were achieved after June 2010 (p.9, p.10) due to the winter water-temperature/fish-feeding collapse discussed below.
Plant Category	Herb / leafy herb crop; keyword ‘Herbs’ (p.1)
Plant fresh weight	AP 5.7 +/- 0.5; HYD 14.0 +/- 1.1 (g/plant, leaf fresh weight gain)

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) — identical channel design used for both hydroponic and aquaponic arrays (p.3)
Media Details	Rockwool block (seedling propagation and NFT growing medium for both AP and HYD; p.4); NFT channel array, 150 mm hole centres (p.3)
Remineralization	Y (Fish waste solids captured via swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter, placed into a separate aerated bioreactor tank for re-mineralisation/re-dissolution; nutrient-rich supernatant regularly added back to the aquaponic system sump for ‘100% utilisation of the fish waste nutrients’ (p.4).)
pH Buffers	Y (Aquaponic system: variety-specific aquaponic solution pH control buffer formulations applied per the Symbioponics(TM) management approach (p.12); exact buffer composition NR. Hydroponic system used a different mechanism — automated acid dosing (90% nitric acid / 10% phosphoric acid, Bluelab Dosetronic system, p.3), not a buffer.)
Climate control	Y (Passive venting ONLY: computer-controlled roll-up side walls + ridge vents (AutoVent 1, Autogrow systems), triggered fully open at 22C greenhouse air temperature (p.3). Explicitly NO active heating or cooling (‘did not use an active greenhouse temperature control (i.e., heating in winter, cooling in summer)’, p.13) — identified by the authors as the trial’s major technical limitation, causing the NFT water to track ambient winter air temperature and crash aquaponic fish feeding/nutrient supply (see note).)
Equipment	Bluelab Dosetronic automated part A/B + acid dosing unit (HYD, p.3); AutoVent 1 (Autogrow systems) computer-controlled roof/wall vents (both systems, p.3); swirl sedimentation filter + 100um static screen filter + trickling biofilter + aerated re-mineralisation bioreactor (AP RAS, p.3-4).
Control Parameters	Greenhouse roll-up walls + ridge vents auto-triggered at 22C air temp (both systems, passive venting only, no active heating/cooling, p.13); HYD pH via 90% nitric/10% phosphoric acid auto-dosing; AP pH via variety-specific buffer formulations (Symbioponics method, p.12); HYD nutrient sump fully ‘dumped’ and replaced approx. every 6-8 weeks (p.3).
Combination	Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) + Coriander

Site

Field	Value
Region	Riwaka, Tasman, South Island
Country	New Zealand

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (fresh leaf/‘top weight’ gain = harvest fresh weight minus mean seedling fresh weight at planting; p.4)
Statistic Details	Mean +/- standard error (SE) of leaf fresh weight gain (p.4); no inferential significance test (t-test/ANOVA/p-value) reported anywhere in Methods or Results, only descriptive mean+-SE and a percentage-difference figure per crop (Tables 2/4/6/7). No stated criterion for how ‘equalled or bettered’ was judged (mean comparison alone vs. accounting for SE overlap) — see WARN-CHECK in note.
Replicates (n)	30
AP	5.7
HYD	14.0

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T44 = hydroponic NFT vs aquaponic NFT herb production comparison, Coriander, production period ‘June 2010’ (Table 7, p.9), 53-day seed-to-harvest culture (bracketed day-count is seed-to-harvest per table caption). || Paper’s own reported percentage difference between systems for this crop-period: 146% (Table 7; not a schema column, provided for reference; NO COLUMN). || WARN-CHECK duration basis: the paper’s stated day-count for this crop is measured from SEEDING to harvest (Table 7 caption, p.9: ‘the number of days in culture, from the day of seeding to harvest’; same basis confirmed for lettuce via Table 1/3/5 date arithmetic), not from transplant/planting-out as the schema’s ‘Days Plant after transplant’ column specifies. A transplant-to-harvest interval could be derived from the stated seed/plant-out/harvest calendar dates but is not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is not computed here; ‘Days Plant after transplant’ recorded NR. Seed-to-harvest duration as stated by the paper: 53 days. || Plants/m2 not entered: paper states 1800 total NFT growth holes across a 28.8 m2 hydroponic production area at 150 mm hole centres (p.3; identical array design used for the aquaponic system). Density is arithmetically calculable (1800/28.8=62.5/m2) but not itself stated by the authors, so per the no-derivation rule it is recorded NR; raw inputs noted here for reference only. || Water chemistry (pH Fig.5, conductivity Fig.4, aquaponic air/water temp Fig.2, daily fish feed Fig.3) given only as unlabelled daily time-series charts spanning Jan-Nov 2010, no numeric trial-mean/SD/range stated in running text (‘The pH (Figure 5) was quite stable in both of the systems…’ p.5 — no value given). Recorded NR for Aq pH / EC / Water temperature / Dissolved Oxygen / TAN-NH4-N / NO2-N / NO3-N / Average room Temperature rather than reading pixel positions off charts. Approximate visual impression only, NOT entered in any cell: aquaponic water temp roughly 10-27.5C across the year (Fig.2); aquaponic conductivity roughly 500-2000 uS/cm rising through the year vs hydroponic roughly 1200-2200 uS/cm (Fig.4; consistent with Discussion p.11 stating aquaponic EC ran ‘well below’ hydroponic EC throughout); pH visually higher in aquaponic (~6.5-7.3) than hydroponic (~5.4-6.3) (Fig.5). DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N not shown in any figure or table at all — NR. || Fish culture results (stocking density, feed totals/composition, FCR, survival, growth) were collected during the trial but explicitly NOT reported in this paper (p.4: ‘The results of the fish culture and growth were collected during the entire study, but have not been reported here.’). Recorded NR (not NA) for the fish-performance block because the paper confirms the data exists, it is simply undisclosed here. || NO COLUMN: subjective quality/saleability grading (Table 8, p.10) — blind selection by TBH picking staff of harvested crop suitable for packaging and sale: Hydroponic 52% saleable vs Aquaponic 58% saleable.

Quartz 5

Explorer

A Comparison of Plant Growth Rates between an NFT Hydroponic System and an NFT Aquaponic System

A Comparison of Plant Growth Rates between an NFT Hydroponic System and an NFT Aquaponic System

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Lettuce production (Tables 1-6)

Herb production and quality (Tables 7-8)

System-design limitation: NFT and temperature-sensitive fish

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Water panel excluded from plant.csv

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T1

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T2

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T3

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T4

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T5

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T6

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T7

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T8

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T9

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T10

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T11

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T12

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T13

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T14

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T15

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T16

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T17

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T18

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T19

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T20

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T21

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T22

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T23

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T24

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T25

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T26

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T27

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T28

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T29

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T30

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T31

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T32

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T33

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T34

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T35

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T36

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T37

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T38

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T39

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T40

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T41

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T42

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T43

lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019-T44

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks