Common chicory production in aquaponics and in soil fertilized with aquaponic sludge
Metadata
- Cite key: lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: Guilherme Luis Lenz, Arcângelo Loss, Cledimar Rogério Lourenzi, Diogo Luiz de Alcantara Lopes, Lucas de Matos Siebeneichler, Gustavo Brunetto
- Affiliation: Programa de Pós-graduação em Agroecossistemas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Chapecó, SC, Brazil; Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
- Journal: Scientia Horticulturae 281 (2021) 109946
- Date: 04/2021 (Received 24 May 2020; Accepted 13 January 2021; Available online 30 January 2021)
- Date added: 2026-07-29
- DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109946
- Funding: CAPES (Finance Code 001); CNPq research productivity grants to Arcângelo Loss, Cledimar Lourenzi and Gustavo Brunetto
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109946
- PDF:
1-s2.0-S0304423821000534-main.pdf
Opinion
Methodologically sound within a Brazilian agronomy tradition (Lilliefors/Bartlett normality checks, ANOVA + Tukey, CV% reporting), but the write-up is sloppy: the replicate count is stated two different ways (n=6 in the design paragraph vs n=3 in the Table 3 caption), and the prose in section 3.2.1 misquotes its own Table 3 numbers when comparing floating vs substrate yields. The aquaponics arm is genuinely useful for the floating-vs-substrate comparison and tissue mineral data, but has zero fish-performance data (no FCR, survival, weight gain — the fish are treated purely as an effluent source). The soil-sludge arm is a cleaner, more conventional fertilization trial and is the paper’s stronger contribution. Would cite for the “substrate accumulates OM and reverses the yield ranking in cycle 2” finding and for the sludge-as-soil-fertilizer angle, but would independently re-verify the tissue tables before using specific numbers.
Abstract
This study assessed the common chicory performance in aquaponics and soil fertilized with aquaponics sludge. The experimental setup consisted of an aquaponic system for farming tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and cultivating common chicory (Cichorium intybus), with two interdependent cultivation lines. The aquaponics component consisted of two treatments with six repetitions, comparing the two cultivation methods of (1) floating rafts and (2) substrate. The soil production of the plants consisted of three treatments with three repetitions: (1) fertilization with aquaponic sludge; (2) chemical fertilization (NPK); and (3) control (without fertilization). The sludge (80 L) was collected twice weekly from the bottom of two clarifiers, homogenized, and later applied to the soil. The results of the productive performance and the composition of the plant tissue were evaluated, comparing phyto-technical parameters (NL: number of leaves; LLL: longer leaf length; FM: fresh matter; and DM: Dry matter) of each plant between treatments in the soil and between treatments in aquaponics, and a comparison between cycles for each treatment. Higher yields (g plant⁻¹) were obtained in the aquaponics system with the floating method when compared to the substrate method for the common chicory in the first cycle. In the second cycle, there was a higher yield of vegetables with the substrate method perhaps due to the accumulation of organic matter in the substrate. The vegetables grown in the floating method accumulated higher concentrations of N, P and K in the leaf tissues in both cycles. The production of common chicory in the soil during the first cycle showed no differences between the Sludge and NPK treatments, and both were superior to the Control for all phyto-technical parameters. Differences were shown for the LLL, FM and DM for the second cycle, with higher values shown for plants fertilized with sludge when compared to those treated with NPK or in the Control. These results suggest a cumulative effect of nutrients in the soil after successive sludge applications combined with the mineralization of nutrients, making them available in soil solution. Higher P concentrations in the leaf tissue of the common chicory in the treatment with sludge fertilization suggests higher absorption rates of this element. The aquaponic sludge can be used to fertilize vegetables in the soil and obtain yields similar to and possibly higher than those of mineral fertilization.
Summary
The authors ran two linked but structurally separate experiments in Santa Catarina, Brazil (2018). Experiment 1 (aquaponics): a recirculating tilapia system with two identical lines fed two hydroponic-method treatments — floating raft (DWC) and substrate (expanded clay) — over two 30-day chicory cycles (autumn and winter), with no supplemental nutrients and no separate fish-growth measurements taken; only water/sludge chemistry and plant yield/tissue-mineral data were collected. Experiment 2 (soil): sludge skimmed from the aquaponic clarifiers was compared against NPK mineral fertilizer and an unfertilized control as a soil amendment for the same crop, also over two 30-day cycles. In aquaponics, floating out-yielded substrate in cycle 1 but substrate out-yielded floating in cycle 2, which the authors attribute to organic-matter buildup in the substrate media changing nutrient availability between cycles; floating also consistently gave higher leaf N, P and K. In soil, sludge fertilization matched or exceeded NPK for most growth parameters, especially in cycle 2, supporting the paper’s main practical claim that clarifier sludge is a viable soil fertilizer rather than a waste product to discard. The paper reports no fish performance data at all (no FCR, survival, or biomass), which limits its use for anything beyond the plant/water-chemistry side of aquaponics.
Experiment data
- Location: Paulo Lopes, Santa Catarina, Brazil (altitude 17.0 m)
- Design: Aquaponics arm — completely randomized, 2 treatments (floating raft vs substrate), replicate count internally inconsistent (see Extraction notes: ⚠️MATERIAL, Table 3 caption says n=3, design text says n=6). Soil arm — randomized block, 3 treatments (control, sludge, NPK) × 3 replications (not extracted to trials.csv per schema — reviews/non-aquaponic arms excluded).
- Replicates / n: Aquaponics: 3 (per Table 3 caption, used as authoritative — see ⚠️MATERIAL below). Soil: 3.
- Duration: Two 30-day cultivation cycles (Cycle 1: 25 May–22 Jun 2018, autumn; Cycle 2: 17 Jul–16 Aug 2018, winter). Cycle 1’s stated dates compute to 28 calendar days, not 30 (⚠️MINOR, see Extraction notes).
- Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Common chicory (Cichorium intybus)
- Statistics: Lilliefors test (normality), Bartlett test (homogeneity), ANOVA (F test), Tukey test p<0.05 (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995)
- Plant fresh weight: Floating 18.07 g plant⁻¹ (cycle 1) → 7.07 g plant⁻¹ (cycle 2); Substrate 11.71 g plant⁻¹ (cycle 1) → 14.28 g plant⁻¹ (cycle 2) — values per Table 3, ranking reverses between cycles
- Leaf tissue N: Floating 38.03 / 37.18 g kg⁻¹ (cycle 1/2); Substrate 32.20 / 32.21 g kg⁻¹ (cycle 1/2) — floating consistently higher
- NO3-N (water): 12.75 mg L⁻¹ (cycle 1) vs 15.33 mg L⁻¹ (cycle 2), trial means, shared by both hydroponic methods (same recirculating water)
Aquaponics: growth and yield (floating vs substrate)
This paper: Floating out-performed substrate on NL, FM and DM in cycle 1 (autumn); the ranking reversed in cycle 2 (winter), where substrate out-performed floating on the same parameters. The authors’ explanation: organic matter accumulated in the substrate’s expanded-clay media over cycle 1 (not washed between cycles), which may have suppressed uptake in cycle 1 but released nutrients gradually and boosted uptake in cycle 2. Floating consistently gave higher leaf-tissue N, P and K in both cycles, attributed to the substrate’s expanded clay impairing root nutrient uptake and to solids/OM binding nutrients at the substrate interface.
Compared with:
- #todo Delaide et al. 2016 — lettuce grown in aquaponics (with/without supplementation) outperformed hydroponics, also attributed to dissolved OM and rhizosphere effects. (p.8)
- #todo Rakocy 2007 — commercial aquaponics K and Ca levels much higher than this study’s, attributed to biweekly KOH/Ca(OH)₂ dosing absent here. (p.6)
- #todo Pineda-Pineda et al. 2015 — NFT aquaponic lettuce at similar fish/plant density recorded NO3-N 31–105 mg L⁻¹, well above this study’s 12.75–15.33 mg L⁻¹ range; different hydroponic sub-system (NFT vs floating/substrate) offered as the explanation. (p.6)
Sludge chemistry and nutrient retention
This paper: Nutrient retention in the sludge (% of feed input recovered) in decreasing abundance: N > Ca > P > K > Mg > Zn > Cu (per Conclusions); specific retentions: P 16.24%, Zn 22.66%, Cu 21.44%, Ca 13.75%, N 7.32%, Mg 7.09%, K 1.86%. These are described as lower than comparable RAS/aquaponics studies overall.
Compared with:
- #todo Seawright et al. 1998 — reported much higher retentions (8–15% N, 33–59% P, 3–6% K, 48–90% Ca, 14–24% Mg, 143–226% Zn, 71–169% Cu) in an integrated aquaculture-hydroponics system, attributed to less frequent (weekly) solids removal and use of mineral fertilizers. (p.6-7)
- #todo Strauch et al. 2018 — RAS catfish sludge, low K content corroborating this paper’s low-K finding; used as basis for adequate-growth nutrient benchmarks. (p.6)
- #todo Goddek et al. 2016, Goddek et al. 2018 — anaerobic/aerobic mineralization of aquaponic sludge for hydroponic supplementation; Goddek 2018 sludge Ca/Mg concentrations (173.35 / 39.35 mg L⁻¹) much higher than this study’s, attributed to smaller sample volume (3.3 L vs 80 L here). (p.6)
- #todo Gravel et al. 2015 — trout RAS sludge P at 35 mg L⁻¹ (vs this study’s 20.03–22.96 mg L⁻¹), attributed to higher-P diet (1% vs 0.5% here). (p.6)
- #todo Monsees et al. 2017 — suggested K is retained in sludge via feed input; this study’s data instead suggest sludge K tracks dissolved water K rather than accumulating. (p.6)
Soil cultivation with aquaponic sludge (secondary arm, note only — no trials.csv rows)
This paper: Randomized block design, 3 treatments (Control, NPK, Sludge) × 3 replications, beds of 0.8×1.8 m (1.44 m²), 8 plants m⁻², two 30-day cycles. NPK and Sludge treatments both significantly outperformed Control on all phytotechnical parameters (NL, LLL, FM, DM) in both cycles. NPK vs Sludge: no difference in cycle 1 except LLL (Sludge larger); in cycle 2, Sludge outperformed NPK on all parameters except NL. Leaf tissue: N — NPK > Sludge in cycle 1, reversed (Sludge > NPK) in cycle 2; P — Sludge > NPK in cycle 1, no difference in cycle 2 (paper notes NPK applied ~9× more P than Sludge treatment: 3.60 g m⁻² vs 0.40 g m⁻², yet leaf P converged by cycle 2); K — Sludge treatment consistently lowest of the three; Ca — no NPK/Sludge difference either cycle, both > Control; Mg — no difference cycle 1, Sludge higher cycle 2; Cu — no difference cycle 1, Control=NPK>Sludge cycle 2; Zn — Sludge>NPK>Control cycle 1, Sludge>(NPK=Control) cycle 2.
Compared with:
- #todo Castro et al. 2006 — fish-pond effluent irrigation of tomato improved growth/fruiting via N and P despite low effluent N concentration; cited to support the low-dose-but-effective sludge mechanism. (p.10)
- #todo Yeo et al. 2004 — RAS sludge conditions soil and releases nutrients slowly; this paper’s results explicitly said to corroborate that. (p.10)
- #todo Cerozi and Fitzsimmons 2017 — modeled 13.1% of aquaponic P as unavailable, sequestered in solids/sludge; used to explain this study’s low dissolved-P efficiency. (p.8)
- #todo de Almeida et al. 2013 — chicory (almeirão) leaf P under complete Hoagland solution (6.70 g kg⁻¹) vs P-omitted solution (2.00 g kg⁻¹), used as an external benchmark for this paper’s leaf P values (1.73–2.25 g kg⁻¹). (p.8)
Citations to chase
- #todo Delaide et al. (2016) — aquaponic vs hydroponic lettuce, OM/rhizosphere growth-promotion mechanism
- #todo Rakocy (2007) — commercial aquaponics guidelines, K/Ca dosing benchmarks
- #todo Pineda-Pineda et al. (2015) — NFT aquaponic lettuce, NO3-N benchmark at matched densities
- #todo Seawright et al. (1998) — integrated aquaculture-hydroponics nutrient retention benchmarks
- #todo Strauch et al. (2018) — RAS catfish sludge composition
- #todo Goddek et al. (2016, 2018) — sludge mineralization for hydroponic supplementation
- #todo Gravel et al. (2015) — trout RAS sludge P vs diet P content
- #todo Monsees et al. (2017) — sludge nutrient mobilization, K retention claim
- #todo Castro et al. (2006) — fish effluent irrigation of tomato
- #todo Cerozi and Fitzsimmons (2017) — P dynamics/mass balance modelling in aquaponics
- #todo de Almeida et al. (2013) — chicory (almeirão) leaf P under nutrient-omitted Hoagland solutions
Extraction notes
Severity-tagged contradictions found on this re-extraction pass (2 ⚠️MATERIAL, 2 ⚠️MINOR — 0 BLOCK, quality: ok set in frontmatter per the SCHEMA.md scoring table: 0 BLOCK and <=2 MATERIAL):
Reclassification update: the site-coordinate item below was originally flagged ⚠️BLOCK and left UNCLEAR. Re-reviewed against SCHEMA.md’s coordinate-recovery rule and RESOLVED (not BLOCK, not CHECK) — recorded as -27.96, -48.75 in trials.csv, confirmed geographically consistent with the paper’s own stated site (Paulo Lopes, SC). This dropped the paper’s BLOCK count from 1 to 0, changing quality: from suspect to ok. See REVIEW.md’s “Resolved” section for the full reasoning.
- ⚠️MATERIAL — Replicates (n): Section 2.1 states “two treatments (floating rafts and substrate) and six replications for each treatment,” but Table 3’s own caption states “(n = 3),” and section 2.1.1’s equipment list (six plant-cultivation tanks per line, two lines) doesn’t cleanly resolve to either number without assumptions. Table 3’s n=3 is used in trials.csv as the value directly tied to the reported statistics; the “six replications” phrase is treated as the less reliable of the two and is unresolved beyond that. Verify against Lenz (2019) thesis before citing n.
- ⚠️MATERIAL — Plant fresh weight / dry matter / leaf count narrative vs Table 3: Section 3.2.1 prose states floating “(18.07 g plant⁻¹)” vs substrate “(7.07 g plant⁻¹)” in cycle 1, and substrate “(11.71 g plant⁻¹)” vs floating “(14.28 g plant⁻¹)” in cycle 2 — but Table 3 actually gives Floating C1=18.07, Floating C2=7.07, Substrate C1=11.71, Substrate C2=14.28. The prose has cross-paired a floating-cycle-1 value against a substrate-cycle-2 value (and vice versa) rather than comparing same-cycle values. Table 3’s own Tukey letter groupings are internally self-consistent with its own numbers, so Table 3 was used as authoritative for all FM/DM/NL cells; the prose narrative appears to have a transcription/copy-paste error. Direction of the qualitative claim (floating wins cycle 1, substrate wins cycle 2) is unaffected.
- ⚠️MINOR — Water recycle flow rate: “total flow of approximately 1900 L h⁻¹ (850 L h⁻¹ for each line)” — 850×2=1700, not 1900 (~12% short). Cross-check: stated renewal rate 3.45 h × 1900 L h⁻¹ ≈ 6552 L ≈ the stated total volume (6570 L), consistent; but 6570 L / 1700 L h⁻¹ ≈ 3.86 h, which does not match the stated 3.45 h renewal rate. The 1900 L h⁻¹ total figure is therefore used in trials.csv (internally consistent with volume and renewal rate); the “850 per line” figure appears to be the imprecise one.
- ⚠️MINOR — Cycle 1 duration: The paper repeatedly calls both cycles “30-day cycles” (section 2.1, section 2.2.3), but Cycle 1’s own stated start/end dates (25 May–22 Jun 2018) compute to 28 calendar days (29 if counted inclusively), 1–2 days short of 30. Cycle 2’s dates (17 Jul–16 Aug 2018) do span exactly 30 days. Recorded as 30 in trials.csv per the paper’s explicit repeated statement; discrepancy noted for verification.
- RESOLVED (was ⚠️BLOCK) — Site coordinates: “latitude 27°96′′ S, longitude 48°75′′ W” (section 2.1) — 96 and 75 are impossible values for minutes or seconds (max 59 in sexagesimal notation), the classic case of decimal degrees mistakenly written with a DMS symbol. Read as decimal (-27.96, -48.75) and confirmed geographically consistent with the paper’s own stated site, Paulo Lopes, Santa Catarina, Brazil (real-world ≈ -27.97, -48.70, within ~6 km). Recorded as
-27.96, -48.75in trials.csv Lat/Long per SCHEMA.md’s coordinate-recovery rule rather than leftUNCLEAR.
[not reported] fields (grouped by field name): Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration, Total Feed (kg), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature (last three: paper explicitly defers these to the Lenz (2019) master’s thesis, “data available in Lenz (2019)” — never given a value in this paper), NO2-N (analyzed per Methods but never reported anywhere in Results), TAN/NH4-N (shown only in a Fig. 2 bar chart, no text/table number — corrected to NR under the new figure rule), Plants/m², SPAD, Plant height (paper reports leaf length LLL, a different metric, not whole-plant height), pHOptimal, FUE AP/WUE, Average room Temperature, Tissue nitrate AP (paper measured total leaf N, not nitrate specifically).
[unclear] fields: none.
Scanned PDF check: this PDF has a clean text layer (not a scan); no OCR issue, not added to NEEDS_OCR.md.
New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Chicory, Meta/Region/South-America (none pre-existed in the vault; TAGS.md does not exist yet in this vault).
New wikilink targets introduced (none pre-existed — notes/ was empty before this extraction): Guilherme Luis Lenz, Arcângelo Loss, Cledimar Rogério Lourenzi, Diogo Luiz de Alcantara Lopes, Lucas de Matos Siebeneichler, Gustavo Brunetto, Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Common chicory (Cichorium intybus), Plant fresh weight, Leaf tissue N, NO3-N (water), Aquaponic sludge is a viable soil fertilizer, not just waste, Substrate hydroponic media can reverse a floating-raft yield advantage across cultivation cycles due to organic matter accumulation, Floating raft systems give faster nutrient uptake than gravel/substrate systems in aquaponics.
Source: 1-s2.0-S0304423821000534-main.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| N | 5.946 |
| P | 0.562 |
| K | 0.496 |
| % of body weight | 1.5 |
| Feed regime | Commercial pellets; blend of ~75% 6-mm diameter (32% CP) + 25% 4-mm diameter (38% CP), fed at 1.5% of fish biomass per day (60 g feed m-2 plant day-1; ~0.95 kg/day total for the system) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 31.7 |
| Water volume in the system | 6570 |
| NO3-N | 12.75 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Common chicory (Cichorium intybus) |
| Details | Harvested at end of Cycle 1 (25 May-22 Jun 2018, autumn); four central plants per experimental unit sampled |
| Plant Category | Herbaceous plant (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Leaf count | 9.00 |
| Plant fresh weight | 18.07 |
| Plant dry matter | 1.61 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft / deep water culture (DWC) |
| Media Details | 225x75x40cm plastic U-shaped tank; DWC floating rafts; 12 seedlings/tray; spacing 0.25x0.30m between plants |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Aquaponic system in continuous production since November 2017 (fish stocked, biofilter/nitrification established) prior to the two 30-day chicory cycles in 2018) |
| Air supplement | Y (Radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h full flow) to fish tanks and biofilter only; explicitly not added to the hydroponic/plant cultivation tanks (p.3)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Dolomitic limestone added to the system: 120 g on day 12 of cycle 1; 20 g before start of cycle 2 (p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states explicit absence of nutrient supplementation throughout the cultivation cycles (p.6); K and P in water below hydroponic recommendations attributed to this) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (8000 L/h); radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h); digital pH-meter; oximeter; Photocolorimeter AT-100P (Alfakit, Florianopolis); atomic absorption spectrometer; CHN elementary auto-analyzer coupled to mass spectrometer (Carlo Erba/Delta Plus); Imhoff cone; muffle furnace; precision electronic balance; forced-air drying oven (60C) |
| Control Parameters | pH maintained via dolomitic limestone dosing; aeration to fish tanks/biofilter only; continuous recirculation (system renewal rate 3.45h); feed rate fixed at 1.5% fish biomass/day |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and common chicory; floating raft (DWC) vs substrate (expanded clay) hydroponic method comparison across two 30-day cultivation cycles; no true hydroponic-only control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -27.96 |
| Long | -48.75 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (FM/DM); count (leaf number); g kg-1 DM (leaf N,P,Mg); mg kg-1 DM (leaf Zn) |
| Statistic Details | Lilliefors test (normality); Bartlett test (homogeneity); ANOVA F-test; Tukey test p<0.05 (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = aquaponic floating-raft (DWC) method, first (autumn) cultivation cycle (25 May-22 Jun 2018). Paired comparison = T3 (substrate method, same cycle, same shared water loop) and T2 (floating method, second cycle). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper (the soil-sludge arm is a separate non-aquaponic experiment, not included in trials.csv). | WARN-MATERIAL Replicates (n): Section 2.1 states ‘two treatments… and six replications for each treatment’, but Table 3’s own caption states ‘(n = 3)’, and section 2.1.1 describes only six plant-cultivation tanks per line (would give 3 floating + 3 substrate per line). Table 3’s n=3 used here as the value directly tied to the reported ANOVA/Tukey values; the ‘six replications’ phrase is treated as the less reliable of the two. UNRESOLVED which is the true design; verify against Lenz (2019) thesis before citing n. | WARN-MATERIAL Plant fresh weight/dry matter/leaf count: Body text (3.2.1) states floating ‘(18.07 g plant-1)’ vs substrate ‘(7.07 g plant-1)’ in cycle 1, and substrate ‘(11.71 g plant-1)’ vs floating ‘(14.28 g plant-1)’ in cycle 2 - these prose pairings do NOT match Table 3, which gives Floating C1=18.07, Floating C2=7.07, Substrate C1=11.71, Substrate C2=14.28 (the prose cross-pairs a Floating-C1 value against a Substrate-C2 value and vice versa). Table 3’s own letter groupings are internally self-consistent with its own numbers, so Table 3 is used as authoritative for FM/DM/NL cells; prose narrative appears to be a transcription error. Direction of the qualitative claim (floating wins cycle 1, substrate wins cycle 2) is unaffected. | WARN-MINOR Water recycle: ‘total flow of approximately 1900 L h-1 (850 L h-1 for each line)’ - 850x2=1700, not 1900 (~12% short). Recomputed check: stated renewal rate 3.45h x 1900 L/h = 6552L, close to stated total volume 6570L (consistent); 6570/1700=3.86h, does not match stated 3.45h. 1900 L/h total used (internally consistent); per-line figure appears imprecise. | WARN-MINOR Days Plant after transplant: harvest stated as ‘At the end of each experimental cycle (30 days)’ and both cycles called ‘30-day cycles’, but Cycle 1’s own stated dates (25 May-22 Jun 2018) compute to 28 calendar days (29 inclusive), 1-2 days short of 30. Recorded as 30 per the paper’s explicit repeated statement; discrepancy noted for verification. (Cycle 2 dates, 17 Jul-16 Aug 2018, do span exactly 30 days.) | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (recovered per SCHEMA.md coordinate rule): paper states ‘latitude 27 deg 96 min S, longitude 48 deg 75 min W’ — 96 and 75 are impossible DMS minute values (max 59), the classic case of decimal degrees mistakenly written with a DMS symbol (‘27 deg 96 min S’ means -27.96). Read as decimal: -27.96, -48.75. Confirmed geographically consistent with the paper’s own stated site, Paulo Lopes, Santa Catarina, Brazil (real-world approx -27.97, -48.70) — within 0.01-0.05 deg, i.e. under 6 km. Not BLOCK: the reading is determinate and confirmed against the paper’s own place name, per the general principle that BLOCK is for values that cannot be determined, not values written oddly. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed N/P/K converted from Table 1 ‘Feed per day’ row (g kg-1 DM) to percent: N 59.46 g/kg to 5.946%; P 5.62 g/kg to 0.562%; K 4.96 g/kg to 0.496%. Water recycle converted 1900 L/h to 31.7 L/min. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (fish classified by size/weight and stocked accordingly, but no kg/m3 or count given); FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (no fish growth data reported anywhere in this paper); Total Feed kg (only a per-day rate given - 0.95 kg/day, 1.5% of biomass/day - not a cycle total; computing one would be derivation); Fish trial duration (fish in continuous production since Nov 2017, no fish-specific trial window given); Plants/m2 (only inter-plant spacing given, 0.25x0.30m; computing density would be derivation). | NO COLUMN: Longer leaf length (LLL), Table 3: Floating C1=17.21cm, C2=12.42cm; Substrate C1=17.85cm, C2=17.71cm - does not fit ‘Plant height’ (LLL is leaf length, not whole-plant height), left out of that column to avoid misrepresenting the metric. Dissolved P in water (5.19 mg/L cycle1, 3.42 mg/L cycle2) and dissolved K in water (13.15 mg/L average) - no column exists for water P or K. | Fish Category left NR: fish classified by size into different tanks with different feeds, no single life-stage term used for the population as a whole. | Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Water temperature: measured daily per Methods but paper explicitly defers values to Lenz (2019) thesis (‘data available in Lenz (2019)’) - not reported in this paper, hence NR. | TAN/NH4-N: NH3 shown only in Fig.2 bar chart by week; no trial-mean or text/table number anywhere - NR per the new figure rule. | NO2-N: nitrite analysis listed as a method (2.2.1) but no value, chart or table appears anywhere in Results - genuinely not reported. | NO3-N: trial means ARE given in text (12.75 mg/L cycle1, 15.33 mg/L cycle2) - not figure-derived; no SD given. Floating and substrate share the same recirculating water within a cycle (paper: ‘the hydroponic compartment contained both the floating raft and substrate method together in the same production unit’), so the same water-quality values are used for both treatments within a cycle. | AP/HYD/Tissue nitrate HYD = NA: no hydroponic-only (non-aquaponic) control arm exists; both treatments are aquaponic methods. Tissue nitrate AP = NR: paper measured total leaf N (CHN analyzer) and P/K/Ca/Mg/Cu/Zn, never nitrate specifically in tissue. | Nutrient supplemented = N: paper explicitly states ‘absence of supplementation throughout the cultivation cycles’ (p.6) - explicit absence, not mere silence. | Mineral leaf-tissue values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Cu,Zn) recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv, not here.
lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| N | 5.946 |
| P | 0.562 |
| K | 0.496 |
| % of body weight | 1.5 |
| Feed regime | Commercial pellets; blend of ~75% 6-mm diameter (32% CP) + 25% 4-mm diameter (38% CP), fed at 1.5% of fish biomass per day (60 g feed m-2 plant day-1; ~0.95 kg/day total for the system) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 31.7 |
| Water volume in the system | 6570 |
| NO3-N | 15.33 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Common chicory (Cichorium intybus) |
| Details | Harvested at end of Cycle 2 (17 Jul-16 Aug 2018, winter); four central plants per experimental unit sampled |
| Plant Category | Herbaceous plant (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Leaf count | 8.00 |
| Plant fresh weight | 7.07 |
| Plant dry matter | 0.93 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft / deep water culture (DWC) |
| Media Details | 225x75x40cm plastic U-shaped tank; DWC floating rafts; 12 seedlings/tray; spacing 0.25x0.30m between plants |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Aquaponic system in continuous production since November 2017 (fish stocked, biofilter/nitrification established) prior to the two 30-day chicory cycles in 2018) |
| Air supplement | Y (Radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h full flow) to fish tanks and biofilter only; explicitly not added to the hydroponic/plant cultivation tanks (p.3)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Dolomitic limestone added to the system: 120 g on day 12 of cycle 1; 20 g before start of cycle 2 (p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states explicit absence of nutrient supplementation throughout the cultivation cycles (p.6); K and P in water below hydroponic recommendations attributed to this) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (8000 L/h); radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h); digital pH-meter; oximeter; Photocolorimeter AT-100P (Alfakit, Florianopolis); atomic absorption spectrometer; CHN elementary auto-analyzer coupled to mass spectrometer (Carlo Erba/Delta Plus); Imhoff cone; muffle furnace; precision electronic balance; forced-air drying oven (60C) |
| Control Parameters | pH maintained via dolomitic limestone dosing; aeration to fish tanks/biofilter only; continuous recirculation (system renewal rate 3.45h); feed rate fixed at 1.5% fish biomass/day |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and common chicory; floating raft (DWC) vs substrate (expanded clay) hydroponic method comparison across two 30-day cultivation cycles; no true hydroponic-only control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -27.96 |
| Long | -48.75 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (FM/DM); count (leaf number); g kg-1 DM (leaf N,P,Mg); mg kg-1 DM (leaf Zn) |
| Statistic Details | Lilliefors test (normality); Bartlett test (homogeneity); ANOVA F-test; Tukey test p<0.05 (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = aquaponic floating-raft (DWC) method, second (winter) cultivation cycle (17 Jul-16 Aug 2018). Paired comparison = T4 (substrate method, same cycle, same shared water loop) and T1 (floating method, first cycle). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Replicates (n): Section 2.1 states ‘two treatments… and six replications for each treatment’, but Table 3’s own caption states ‘(n = 3)’, and section 2.1.1’s tank count (six plant tanks per line) doesn’t cleanly resolve either number. Table 3’s n=3 used here (tied directly to the reported statistics); the ‘six replications’ phrase treated as less reliable. UNRESOLVED; verify against Lenz (2019) thesis. | WARN-MATERIAL Plant fresh weight/dry matter/leaf count: Section 3.2.1 prose pairs floating ‘(18.07)’ vs substrate ‘(7.07)’ for cycle 1 and substrate ‘(11.71)’ vs floating ‘(14.28)’ for cycle 2 - these do NOT match Table 3 (Floating C1=18.07, C2=7.07; Substrate C1=11.71, C2=14.28); prose cross-pairs mismatched cycles. Table 3’s letter groupings are internally self-consistent, so Table 3 (this trial: Floating C2 FM=7.07, DM=0.93, NL=8.00) is used as authoritative. Direction of the qualitative claim is unaffected. | WARN-MINOR Water recycle: total flow ‘approximately 1900 L h-1 (850 L h-1 for each line)’ - 850x2=1700 not 1900 (~12% short); renewal-rate cross-check (3.45h x 1900=6552L approx. stated 6570L total volume) favors the 1900 total figure as the internally consistent one; used here (31.7 L/min). | WARN-MINOR Days Plant after transplant: this trial’s own cycle (17 Jul-16 Aug 2018) spans exactly the stated 30 days, no issue for THIS trial; noted only because the paired Cycle-1 trials (T1/T3) show a 28-29 day computed span against the same ‘both cycles were 30 days’ claim - see T1/T3 remarks. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (recovered per SCHEMA.md coordinate rule): paper states ‘latitude 27 deg 96 min S, longitude 48 deg 75 min W’ — 96 and 75 are impossible DMS minute values (max 59), the classic case of decimal degrees mistakenly written with a DMS symbol (‘27 deg 96 min S’ means -27.96). Read as decimal: -27.96, -48.75. Confirmed geographically consistent with the paper’s own stated site, Paulo Lopes, Santa Catarina, Brazil (real-world approx -27.97, -48.70) — within 0.01-0.05 deg, i.e. under 6 km. Not BLOCK: the reading is determinate and confirmed against the paper’s own place name, per the general principle that BLOCK is for values that cannot be determined, not values written oddly. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed N/P/K from Table 1 ‘Feed per day’ (g kg-1 DM) to percent: N 5.946%, P 0.562%, K 0.496%; water recycle 1900 L/h to 31.7 L/min. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (no fish growth data reported in this paper); Total Feed kg (only a daily rate given, not a cycle total); Fish trial duration (fish in continuous production since Nov 2017); Plants/m2 (only spacing given, not density). | NO COLUMN: Longer leaf length (LLL) Floating C2=12.42cm (C1=17.21cm); dissolved P in water 3.42 mg/L (cycle2); dissolved K in water 13.15 mg/L average - no column exists for water P or K. | Fish Category left NR (mixed size classes, no single population-level term). | Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Water temperature: measured daily but values deferred to Lenz (2019) thesis, not given in this paper - NR. | TAN/NH4-N: Fig.2 bar chart only, no text/table number - NR per new figure rule. | NO2-N: analyzed per Methods but never reported with a value anywhere - NR. | NO3-N: cycle 2 trial mean = 15.33 mg/L (text-stated, not figure-derived), shared with T4 (same water, same cycle). | AP/HYD/Tissue nitrate HYD = NA: no hydroponic-only control arm exists. Tissue nitrate AP = NR: paper measured total leaf N, not nitrate specifically. | Nutrient supplemented = N: paper explicitly states absence of supplementation (p.6), not mere silence. | Mineral leaf-tissue values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Cu,Zn) recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv.
lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| N | 5.946 |
| P | 0.562 |
| K | 0.496 |
| % of body weight | 1.5 |
| Feed regime | Commercial pellets; blend of ~75% 6-mm diameter (32% CP) + 25% 4-mm diameter (38% CP), fed at 1.5% of fish biomass per day (60 g feed m-2 plant day-1; ~0.95 kg/day total for the system) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 31.7 |
| Water volume in the system | 6570 |
| NO3-N | 12.75 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Common chicory (Cichorium intybus) |
| Details | Harvested at end of Cycle 1 (25 May-22 Jun 2018, autumn); four central plants per experimental unit sampled |
| Plant Category | Herbaceous plant (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Leaf count | 7.00 |
| Plant fresh weight | 11.71 |
| Plant dry matter | 1.06 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Substrate (expanded clay) |
| Media Details | 225x75x40cm plastic U-shaped tank filled with expanded clay (~5cm upper layer to avoid inundation); agricultural plastic boxes to fix seedlings; spacing 0.20x0.30m between plants |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Aquaponic system in continuous production since November 2017 (fish stocked, biofilter/nitrification established) prior to the two 30-day chicory cycles in 2018) |
| Air supplement | Y (Radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h full flow) to fish tanks and biofilter only; explicitly not added to the hydroponic/plant cultivation tanks (p.3)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Dolomitic limestone added to the system: 120 g on day 12 of cycle 1; 20 g before start of cycle 2 (p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states explicit absence of nutrient supplementation throughout the cultivation cycles (p.6); K and P in water below hydroponic recommendations attributed to this) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (8000 L/h); radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h); digital pH-meter; oximeter; Photocolorimeter AT-100P (Alfakit, Florianopolis); atomic absorption spectrometer; CHN elementary auto-analyzer coupled to mass spectrometer (Carlo Erba/Delta Plus); Imhoff cone; muffle furnace; precision electronic balance; forced-air drying oven (60C) |
| Control Parameters | pH maintained via dolomitic limestone dosing; aeration to fish tanks/biofilter only; continuous recirculation (system renewal rate 3.45h); feed rate fixed at 1.5% fish biomass/day |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and common chicory; floating raft (DWC) vs substrate (expanded clay) hydroponic method comparison across two 30-day cultivation cycles; no true hydroponic-only control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -27.96 |
| Long | -48.75 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (FM/DM); count (leaf number); g kg-1 DM (leaf N,P,Mg); mg kg-1 DM (leaf Zn) |
| Statistic Details | Lilliefors test (normality); Bartlett test (homogeneity); ANOVA F-test; Tukey test p<0.05 (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = aquaponic substrate (expanded clay) method, first (autumn) cultivation cycle (25 May-22 Jun 2018). Paired comparison = T1 (floating method, same cycle, same shared water loop) and T4 (substrate method, second cycle). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Replicates (n): Section 2.1 states ‘six replications for each treatment’, Table 3 caption states ‘(n=3)’, and 2.1.1’s tank count doesn’t cleanly resolve either. Table 3’s n=3 used here (tied directly to reported statistics). UNRESOLVED; verify against Lenz (2019) thesis. | WARN-MATERIAL Plant fresh weight/dry matter/leaf count: Section 3.2.1 prose cross-pairs mismatched cycles when quoting FM values (see T1/T2 remarks for full detail); Table 3 is used as authoritative (this trial: Substrate C1 FM=11.71, DM=1.06, NL=7.00). Direction of the qualitative claim (floating wins cycle1) is unaffected. | WARN-MINOR Water recycle: total flow ‘approximately 1900 L h-1 (850 L h-1 for each line)’ - 850x2=1700 not 1900; renewal-rate cross-check favors 1900 as internally consistent (used here, 31.7 L/min); per-line figure appears imprecise. | WARN-MINOR Days Plant after transplant: as for T1, this trial’s cycle 1 dates (25 May-22 Jun 2018) compute to 28 calendar days (29 inclusive), 1-2 days short of the stated nominal 30-day cycle length used in section 2.2.3; recorded as 30 per the paper’s explicit statement; discrepancy noted for verification. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (recovered per SCHEMA.md coordinate rule): paper states ‘latitude 27 deg 96 min S, longitude 48 deg 75 min W’ — 96 and 75 are impossible DMS minute values (max 59), the classic case of decimal degrees mistakenly written with a DMS symbol (‘27 deg 96 min S’ means -27.96). Read as decimal: -27.96, -48.75. Confirmed geographically consistent with the paper’s own stated site, Paulo Lopes, Santa Catarina, Brazil (real-world approx -27.97, -48.70) — within 0.01-0.05 deg, i.e. under 6 km. Not BLOCK: the reading is determinate and confirmed against the paper’s own place name, per the general principle that BLOCK is for values that cannot be determined, not values written oddly. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed N/P/K from Table 1 ‘Feed per day’ row to percent (N 5.946%, P 0.562%, K 0.496%); water recycle 1900 L/h to 31.7 L/min. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (no fish growth data reported anywhere in this paper); Total Feed kg (only a daily rate given); Fish trial duration (fish in continuous production since Nov 2017); Plants/m2 (only spacing given, not density). | NO COLUMN: LLL Substrate C1=17.85cm; dissolved P in water 5.19 mg/L (cycle1); dissolved K in water 13.15 mg/L average - no column exists for water P or K. | Fish Category left NR (mixed size classes stocked by tank, no single population-level term). | Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Water temperature: measured daily but deferred to Lenz (2019) thesis, not given in this paper - NR. | TAN/NH4-N: Fig.2 bar chart only - NR per new figure rule. | NO2-N: analyzed per Methods but never reported with a value - NR. | NO3-N: cycle1 trial mean = 12.75 mg/L (text-stated), shared with T1 (same water, same cycle). | AP/HYD/Tissue nitrate HYD = NA: no hydroponic-only control arm exists. Tissue nitrate AP = NR: paper measured total leaf N, not nitrate specifically. | Nutrient supplemented = N: explicit absence stated (p.6), not mere silence. | Mineral leaf-tissue values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Cu,Zn) recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv.
lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| N | 5.946 |
| P | 0.562 |
| K | 0.496 |
| % of body weight | 1.5 |
| Feed regime | Commercial pellets; blend of ~75% 6-mm diameter (32% CP) + 25% 4-mm diameter (38% CP), fed at 1.5% of fish biomass per day (60 g feed m-2 plant day-1; ~0.95 kg/day total for the system) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 31.7 |
| Water volume in the system | 6570 |
| NO3-N | 15.33 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Common chicory (Cichorium intybus) |
| Details | Harvested at end of Cycle 2 (17 Jul-16 Aug 2018, winter); four central plants per experimental unit sampled |
| Plant Category | Herbaceous plant (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Leaf count | 9.00 |
| Plant fresh weight | 14.28 |
| Plant dry matter | 1.00 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Substrate (expanded clay) |
| Media Details | 225x75x40cm plastic U-shaped tank filled with expanded clay (~5cm upper layer to avoid inundation); agricultural plastic boxes to fix seedlings; spacing 0.20x0.30m between plants |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Aquaponic system in continuous production since November 2017 (fish stocked, biofilter/nitrification established) prior to the two 30-day chicory cycles in 2018) |
| Air supplement | Y (Radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h full flow) to fish tanks and biofilter only; explicitly not added to the hydroponic/plant cultivation tanks (p.3)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (Dolomitic limestone added to the system: 120 g on day 12 of cycle 1; 20 g before start of cycle 2 (p.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states explicit absence of nutrient supplementation throughout the cultivation cycles (p.6); K and P in water below hydroponic recommendations attributed to this) |
| Equipment | Submersible pump (8000 L/h); radial air blower (120W, 12 m3/h); digital pH-meter; oximeter; Photocolorimeter AT-100P (Alfakit, Florianopolis); atomic absorption spectrometer; CHN elementary auto-analyzer coupled to mass spectrometer (Carlo Erba/Delta Plus); Imhoff cone; muffle furnace; precision electronic balance; forced-air drying oven (60C) |
| Control Parameters | pH maintained via dolomitic limestone dosing; aeration to fish tanks/biofilter only; continuous recirculation (system renewal rate 3.45h); feed rate fixed at 1.5% fish biomass/day |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and common chicory; floating raft (DWC) vs substrate (expanded clay) hydroponic method comparison across two 30-day cultivation cycles; no true hydroponic-only control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | South America |
| Country | Brazil |
| Lat | -27.96 |
| Long | -48.75 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g plant-1 (FM/DM); count (leaf number); g kg-1 DM (leaf N,P,Mg); mg kg-1 DM (leaf Zn) |
| Statistic Details | Lilliefors test (normality); Bartlett test (homogeneity); ANOVA F-test; Tukey test p<0.05 (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = aquaponic substrate (expanded clay) method, second (winter) cultivation cycle (17 Jul-16 Aug 2018). Paired comparison = T2 (floating method, same cycle, same shared water loop) and T3 (substrate method, first cycle). No hydroponic-only control exists in this paper. | WARN-MATERIAL Replicates (n): Section 2.1 states ‘six replications for each treatment’, Table 3 caption states ‘(n=3)’. Table 3’s n=3 used here (tied directly to reported statistics); ‘six replications’ phrase treated as less reliable. UNRESOLVED; verify against Lenz (2019) thesis. | WARN-MATERIAL Plant fresh weight/dry matter/leaf count: Section 3.2.1 prose cross-pairs mismatched cycles when quoting FM values (see T1/T2 remarks); Table 3 used as authoritative (this trial: Substrate C2 FM=14.28, DM=1.00, NL=9.00). Direction of the qualitative claim (substrate wins cycle2) is unaffected. | WARN-MINOR Water recycle: total flow ‘approximately 1900 L h-1 (850 L h-1 for each line)’ - 850x2=1700 not 1900; renewal-rate cross-check favors 1900 as internally consistent (used here, 31.7 L/min). | WARN-MINOR Days Plant after transplant: this trial’s own cycle (17 Jul-16 Aug 2018) spans exactly the stated 30 days; the Cycle-1 discrepancy noted for T1/T3 (28-29 computed days vs stated 30) does not apply here. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY (recovered per SCHEMA.md coordinate rule): paper states ‘latitude 27 deg 96 min S, longitude 48 deg 75 min W’ — 96 and 75 are impossible DMS minute values (max 59), the classic case of decimal degrees mistakenly written with a DMS symbol (‘27 deg 96 min S’ means -27.96). Read as decimal: -27.96, -48.75. Confirmed geographically consistent with the paper’s own stated site, Paulo Lopes, Santa Catarina, Brazil (real-world approx -27.97, -48.70) — within 0.01-0.05 deg, i.e. under 6 km. Not BLOCK: the reading is determinate and confirmed against the paper’s own place name, per the general principle that BLOCK is for values that cannot be determined, not values written oddly. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: feed N/P/K from Table 1 ‘Feed per day’ row to percent (N 5.946%, P 0.562%, K 0.496%); water recycle 1900 L/h to 31.7 L/min. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (no fish growth data reported anywhere in this paper); Total Feed kg (only a daily rate given); Fish trial duration (fish in continuous production since Nov 2017); Plants/m2 (only spacing given, not density). | NO COLUMN: LLL Substrate C2=17.71cm; dissolved P in water 3.42 mg/L (cycle2); dissolved K in water 13.15 mg/L average - no column exists for water P or K. | Fish Category left NR (mixed size classes, no single population-level term). | Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Water temperature: measured daily but deferred to Lenz (2019) thesis, not given in this paper - NR. | TAN/NH4-N: Fig.2 bar chart only - NR per new figure rule. | NO2-N: analyzed per Methods but never reported with a value - NR. | NO3-N: cycle2 trial mean = 15.33 mg/L (text-stated), shared with T2 (same water, same cycle). | AP/HYD/Tissue nitrate HYD = NA: no hydroponic-only control arm exists. Tissue nitrate AP = NR: paper measured total leaf N, not nitrate specifically. | Nutrient supplemented = N: explicit absence stated (p.6), not mere silence. | Mineral leaf-tissue values (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Cu,Zn) recorded separately in plant_measurements.csv.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | N | 38.03 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 (higher than Substrate T3; also higher than T2) | p.8 text and Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | N | 37.18 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 (higher than Substrate T4) | p.8 text and Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | N | 32.20 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating T1; ns vs T4 (no cycle difference stated for substrate) | p.8 text and Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | N | 32.21 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating T2; ns vs T3 | p.8 text and Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | P | 1.73 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate | p.8 text (attribution inferred), Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | P | 2.25 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate | p.8 text (attribution inferred), Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | P | NR | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | P | NR | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | K | NR | g/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate (text: N/P/K all higher in floating both cycles) | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | K | NR | g/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | K | NR | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating; differs from T4 (text: only K differed between cycles for substrate, higher 2nd cycle) | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | K | NR | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating; higher than T3 (K differed between cycles for substrate per text) | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | Ca | NR | g/kg DM | ns vs Substrate (text: no differences between methods); higher than T2 (text: higher in 1st cycle, both treatments) | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | Ca | NR | g/kg DM | ns vs Substrate; lower than T1 | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | Ca | NR | g/kg DM | ns vs Floating; higher than T4 | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | Ca | NR | g/kg DM | ns vs Floating; lower than T3 | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | Mg | 1.60 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate (cycle 1 only per text) | p.9 text and Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | Mg | 1.39 | g/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating (cycle 1) | p.9 text and Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | Mg | NR | g/kg DM | ns vs Substrate implied (text gives only a cycle-1 difference); higher than T1 (text: Mg higher in 2nd cycle for both treatments) | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | Mg | NR | g/kg DM | ns vs Floating (cycle2); higher than T3 | Fig. 3 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | Cu | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 (Substrate higher this cycle per text) | Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | Cu | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 (Floating higher this cycle per text); higher than T1 | Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | Cu | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 (Substrate higher this cycle per text) | Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | Cu | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 (Floating higher this cycle, i.e. Substrate lower) | Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T1 | Floating | mineral | Zn | 276 | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate (both cycles per text); higher than T2 | p.9 text and Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T2 | Floating | mineral | Zn | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 higher than Substrate; lower than T1 | Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T3 | Substrate | mineral | Zn | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating | Fig. 4 |
| lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021-T4 | Substrate | mineral | Zn | NR | mg/kg DM | p<0.05 lower than Floating | Fig. 4 |