Biomass Production and Nutrient Dynamics in an Aquaponics System
Metadata
- Cite key: licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009
- Item type: Thesis (PhD Dissertation)
- Authors: J. Licamele, K. Fitzsimmons, G. Giacomelli (dissertation author: Jason David Licamele; committee/co-authors on the three constituent manuscripts: Kevin Fitzsimmons, Gene Giacomelli; committee also included Chieri Kubota and Joel Cuello, not co-authors)
- Affiliation: Department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering, University of Arizona; The Environmental Research Laboratory, 2601 E. Airport Drive, Tucson, AZ 85706 (Appendix A); Controlled Environment Agriculture Center, 1951 East Roger Road, Tucson, AZ 85719 (Appendices B & C)
- Journal: N/A — PhD Dissertation, The University of Arizona (2009). The three appendices are manuscripts prepared for/targeting Journal of the World Aquaculture Society (Appendix A), Journal of Plant Nutrition (Appendix B), and Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment (Appendix C) respectively, per their title pages — no evidence found that any were actually published in those journals.
- Date: 11/2009 (dissertation approved November 16, 2009)
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: no DOI found
- Funding: [not reported] (no funding/acknowledgements section beyond personal thanks to advisors, CEAC staff, and colleagues)
- URL: NR
- PDF:
Licamele and Licamele - BIOMASS PRODUCTION AND NUTRIENT DYNAMICS IN AN AQU.pdf
Opinion
A three-manuscript PhD dissertation (fish:plant ratio study, aquaponics-vs-hydroponics biomass/quality comparison, and a nitrogen-budget/tissue-nutrient study), all run on the same University of Arizona system lineage and clearly building on each other. The core finding — that supplemented aquaponics water can match or beat a conventional hydroponic solution for lettuce yield and greenness — is a genuinely useful, oft-cited result. However, the document is rougher than a peer-reviewed publication would be: Appendix A contains a real, unresolved internal contradiction on the 8 kg m⁻³ treatment’s FCR and fish-biomass figures (two different numbers for the same treatment, in the same appendix), a table cell that’s almost certainly a missing-digit typo, and — most seriously — the headline “grams of nitrogen per lettuce head” statistic quoted in the main Abstract and Conclusions appears to misattribute the fish-sludge nitrogen percentage (3.38%) to the lettuce tissue (whose measured N% is actually 5.22%), producing a number that isn’t arithmetically consistent with the lettuce’s own reported dry weight either way. Anyone citing the nitrogen-remediation numbers from this dissertation should re-derive them from the raw water-chemistry and feed data rather than trusting the stated “X grams of nitrogen per head/per kg fish” claims.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to prove that aquaponic systems can produce lettuce of equal growth and quality compared to hydroponic lettuce production and to determine the stocking density of fish required for plant growth. Aquaponics is the integration of recirculating aquaculture and hydroponic plant production. The project had four objectives. The first objective was to determine the biomass of fish required for plant growth to develop a fish to plant density ratio. The second objective was to compare lettuce grown with aquaponic water and a hydroponic solution under the same environmental conditions. The third objective was to compare the quality of lettuce grown with aquaponics water plus nutrient supplementation with a hydroponic solution. The fourth objective was to determine the nitrogen dynamics in the aquaponic system and to compare the nutrient composition of lettuce grown with aquaponics water with nutrient supplementation and hydroponic solution. It was determined that under the specified environmental conditions 5 kg m⁻³ of Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) fed 2% of their body weight daily yields on average 4.7 kg m⁻² of lettuce (L. sativa cv. Rex) in 35 days. There was no significant difference (p≤0.05) in biomass or chlorophyll concentration index in lettuce (L. sativa cv. Rex) grown with aquaponics water and nutrient supplements versus a hydroponic solution. The aquaponics solution generated equal biomass and chlorophyll concentration indexes compared to the hydroponic solution. Aquaponics water plus supplementation can yield L. sativa cv. Rex with equal biomass accumulation and chlorophyll concentration indexes compared to hydroponics lettuce. Nutrients added to the aquaponics system consisted of iron, manganese, and zinc. These nutrient concentrations became depleted in the aquaponics water over time and were not replenished via the fish feed. Dolomite was added to the aquaponics system every two weeks to increase the buffering capacity of the water and maintain optimal pH levels. Aquaponics lettuce had similar nutrient composition to hydroponic lettuce. One head of L. sativa cv. Rex (176.75 ± 31.03) will assimilate approximately 5.96 grams of nitrogen (3.38% per dry gram lettuce). One kilogram of fish will yield 6.4 lettuce heads (1,128 grams) and fixate 38.13 grams of nitrogen.
Summary
This dissertation reports three linked experiments run in University of Arizona aquaponics greenhouses, all pairing Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) with Butterhead lettuce (L. sativa cv. Rex). Appendix A used nine small (1,600 L) recirculating systems to compare three tilapia stocking densities (2, 5, and 8 kg m⁻³, all fed 2% body weight/day) and found that 5 kg m⁻³ produced the greenest, heaviest marketable lettuce (32 heads/m²) without nutrient accumulation running away, establishing a design ratio of roughly 0.34 kg fish biomass per kg lettuce. Appendix B then built a larger, computer-controlled greenhouse system and ran three sequential trials comparing lettuce grown in aquaponics water (with increasing micronutrient supplementation across the trials) against a conventional hydroponic nutrient solution, measuring head wet/dry weight and a chlorophyll concentration index (CCI%) as a proxy for greenness/quality; by the second and third trials, supplemented aquaponics water produced lettuce with equal-or-greater wet weight and comparable-or-better CCI% than the hydroponic control. Appendix C re-examined the third of those trials in depth, characterizing the aquaponics water’s full macro/micronutrient chemistry over time, comparing lettuce leaf tissue nutrient composition between the aquaponics and hydroponic treatments (finding higher N, P, Mg, Zn, Mn and B in the aquaponics-grown tissue), analyzing the fish sludge’s nutrient content, and constructing a simple nitrogen mass-balance model for the whole system. The dissertation concludes that a well-supplemented aquaponics system can match conventional hydroponics for lettuce yield and quality while also remediating a substantial fraction of the nitrogen introduced via fish feed, but — as documented in Extraction notes below — several of its own summary statistics (a table cell, an FCR figure, and especially the headline nitrogen-per-lettuce-head numbers) do not survive an internal consistency check.
Experiment data
- Location: University of Arizona — Environmental Research Lab (ERL) fish greenhouse (Appendix A, trial run 9/9/07–10/13/07) and the UA Controlled Environment Agriculture Center’s Aquaponics Greenhouse (UAAG) (Appendices B & C, trials run January–May 2009), Tucson, Arizona, USA
- Design: Appendix A — randomized block, 3 tilapia stocking densities × 3 tank replicates, no hydroponic control. Appendices B/C — 3 sequential paired-comparison trials, aquaponics (± increasing Biomin® Fe/Zn/Mn supplementation) vs. hydroponic nutrient solution, same greenhouse/system across all 3 trials.
- Replicates / n: Appendix A: 3 tank reps/density, 15 data plants/rep (45/treatment). Appendix B/C Trial 1 & 2: n=12/treatment; Trial 3: n=24/treatment.
- Duration: Appendix A: 35 d plant cycle (fish harvested day 37). Appendix B/C Trial 1: 35 DAT; Trials 2 & 3: 28 DAT.
- Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv. Rex; cv. Tom Thumb also planted per Methods but no data reported for it)
- Statistics: ANOVA + post-hoc Student’s t-test (Appendix A, JMP); paired t-test (Appendix B); Student’s t-test (Appendix C); α=0.05 throughout
- Fish:plant ratio (Appendix A): 5 kg m⁻³ tilapia fed 2% BW/day → 4.7 kg m⁻² lettuce in 35 d; ratio of net fish biomass to harvestable lettuce biomass = 0.34
- Head wet weight, Trial 3 (Appendix B/C): aquaponics 176.75 ± 31.04 g vs. hydroponic 148.55 ± 21.71 g (p≤0.05, AP greater)
- CCI% (chlorophyll), Trial 3: aquaponics 9.89 ± 0.89% vs. hydroponic 8.71 ± 0.45% (p≤0.05, AP greater)
- Leaf Nitrogen (N) %, Trial 3: aquaponics 5.22 ± 0.15% vs. hydroponic 4.62 ± 0.26% dry weight (p≤0.05, AP greater)
- Fish FCR (Appendix B/C, pooled across 3 trials): 2.56 ± 0.64; survival 82.94% ± 0.07
Fish-to-plant density ratio (Appendix A)
This paper: Three tilapia densities (2, 5, 8 kg m⁻³, 32 lettuce heads/m² per system) were compared. 5 kg m⁻³ gave the best outcome: significantly greater lettuce head dry weight, height, and diameter than 2 kg m⁻³, and significantly greater wet weight than 8 kg m⁻³, while nitrate/phosphate in the water reached a near-steady-state at this density (8 kg m⁻³ kept accumulating both nutrients without a corresponding lettuce-growth benefit, and had lower dissolved oxygen, 4.82 ± 2.07 mg/L). FCR at 2 and 5 kg m⁻³ (2.19 ± 0.34 and 2.22 ± 0.17) matched the literature range for tilapia RAS (1.5–2.0, Watanabe et al. 2002); the 8 kg m⁻³ FCR is reported inconsistently within the same appendix (see ⚠️ below).
Compared with:
- todo Fitzsimmons 1992 — cited as the source of the “1 kg feed → 20 heads lettuce” prior-study benchmark used to design the Appendix A feed rates (p.45, 79-80).
- todo Al-Hafedh, Alam and Beltagi 2008 — recirculating aquaponic fish:plant feed ratios in Saudi Arabia, cited as directly comparable prior work (p.64/103, references list).
- todo Seawright, Stickney and Walker 1998 — nutrient dynamics in integrated aquaculture-hydroponic systems; cited repeatedly as the key precedent for micronutrient (Fe/Zn/Mn) depletion over time in aquaponics.
Aquaponics vs. hydroponic solution — yield and CCI% (Appendix B)
This paper: Across three trials with escalating supplementation, aquaponics-grown lettuce moved from “no different / slightly lower CCI% than hydroponics” (Trial 1) to “significantly heavier AND greener/comparable to hydroponics” (Trials 2–3). Trial 1 (unsupplemented framing, though some Fe/Zn/Mn was in fact added — see ⚠️ below): no significant difference in wet or dry weight; CCI% significantly lower in aquaponics (10.1 ± 0.90% vs. 11.4 ± 0.95%). Trial 2 (supplemented): both wet weight (182.79 ± 26.90 g) and dry weight (6.29 ± 0.74 g) significantly greater in aquaponics; CCI% not significantly different. Trial 3 (supplemented): wet weight significantly greater in aquaponics (176.75 ± 31.04 g vs. 148.55 ± 21.71 g); dry weight not significantly different; CCI% significantly greater in aquaponics (9.89 ± 0.89% vs. 8.71 ± 0.45%).
Compared with:
- todo Al-Hafedh, Alam and Beltagi 2008 — food production/water conservation in Saudi Arabian recirculating aquaponics at varying fish-feed-to-plant ratios.
- todo Sabidov, Hutchings and Rakocy 2007 — fish and plant production in a recirculating aquaponics system, Canada; cited for the claim that beneficial microbial communities can establish in mature aquaponics systems and boost plant health (p.60/167).
Nitrogen budget and tissue nutrient composition (Appendix C)
This paper: Appendix C re-analyzes Trial 3 (same physical trial as Appendix B’s Trial 3 — identical wet weight, CCI%, FCR and survival figures confirm this). Aquaponics lettuce leaf tissue had significantly higher N (5.22 ± 0.15% vs. 4.62 ± 0.26%), P (1.14 ± 0.07%), and Mg (0.74 ± 0.13%) than hydroponic tissue, no significant Ca/K/S difference, and significantly higher Zn, Mn and B micronutrients (Fe, Cu not significant). A system-level nitrogen model estimated the aquaponics system used ~93% of the daily nitrogen input from feed (125.37 g N/day from 2.1 kg feed/day at 5.97% N), with the remainder residual as NO₃⁻-N in solution or lost to unquantified sinks (bacteria, algae, microfauna, N₂ gas). ⚠️ The paper’s own headline “grams of nitrogen per lettuce head” and “grams of nitrogen per kg fish” claims are internally contradictory and likely rest on a sludge-vs-lettuce nitrogen-percentage mix-up — see Extraction notes.
Compared with:
- todo Quillere et al. 1995 — artificial fish/bacteria/plant ecosystem, 60% nitrogen recovery (31% fish, 28% tomato); cited repeatedly (main text, Appendix A, Appendix C) as the benchmark nitrogen-recovery figure this dissertation’s ~93% utilization claim is set against.
- todo Rakocy et al. 2004 — UVI aquaponic system update; source of the oft-repeated “500 L water per $100 of fish+lettuce product” and “100 kg fish tank density” design figures cited throughout.
- todo Broadley et al. 2003 — nitrogen and nitrate economy of Butterhead lettuce; cited for lettuce nitrogen uptake physiology.
Linked claims
- Aquaponics water requires micronutrient supplementation over time
- Fish stocking density affects lettuce yield and greenness in aquaponics
- Aquaponics can match hydroponic lettuce yield and quality with supplementation
- Iron zinc and manganese deplete in aquaponic systems over time
Citations to chase
- todo Fitzsimmons (1992) — Fertilizer value of aquaculture effluents and land disposal as a best management practice; source of several water-chemistry benchmark figures used throughout.
- todo Al-Hafedh, Alam and Beltagi (2008) — Food production and water conservation in a recirculating aquaponic system in Saudi Arabia at different ratios of fish feed to plants. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 39(4):510-520.
- todo Seawright, Stickney and Walker (1998) — Nutrient dynamics in integrated aquaculture-hydroponic systems. Aquaculture 160:215-237.
- todo Sabidov, Hutchings and Rakocy (2007) — Fish and plant production in a recirculating aquaponics system: a new approach to sustainable agriculture in Canada. Acta Hort. 742:209-222.
- todo Quillere, Roux, Marie, Roux, Gosse and Morot-Gaudry (1995) — An artificial productive ecosystem based on a fish/bacteria/plant association. 2. Performance. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 53:19-30.
- todo Rakocy, Bailey, Shultz and Thoman (2004) — Update on tilapia and vegetable production in the UVI aquaponic system. Proc. 6th Int. Symp. Tilapia Aquaculture 2:676-690.
- todo Broadley, Seginer, Burns, Escobar-Gutierrez and White (2003) — The nitrogen and nitrate economy of Butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. capitata L.). J. Exp. Biol. 54(390):2081-2090.
Extraction notes
Item type / authorship (resolved during extraction): The PDF filename (“Licamele and Licamele”) and the ambiguous title suggested this might be a co-authored paper by two people sharing a surname. Checked zotero-export.csv (item type = “thesis”, author = “Licamele, Jason”, year 2009, place = University of Arizona) and the PDF itself (title page: “A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering… Doctor of Philosophy… The University of Arizona 2009,” signed “Jason Licamele,” dissertation director Dr. Gene A. Giacomelli). Confirmed: this is Jason David Licamele’s PhD dissertation (single author overall), containing three manuscript-style appendices each with additional named co-authors (Kevin Fitzsimmons and Gene Giacomelli on all three). No second “Licamele” author exists — the filename doubling is a Zotero/PDF-export artifact, not two authors.
⚠️ WARN-MATERIAL — Feed crude protein: 32% vs. 35%. Main dissertation narrative (p.45, “Overall Summary”): “Tilapias were fed a Star Milling Company Tilapia Diet. The tilapia diet was comprised of 32% protein.” Appendix A/B/C’s own Table 1 (identical across all three appendices, pp.84/120/154): “Star Milling Co. Tilapia Feed… Crude Protein 35%.” The Table is a manufacturer proximate-analysis label and is more specific/authoritative than the narrative restatement; recorded 35% in trials.csv for all six trials with the 32% figure flagged as an unresolved alternate.
⚠️ WARN-BLOCK — Appendix A, 8 kg m⁻³ treatment, FCR and fish biomass created (affects T3, quality:suspect). Results (p.86) and Table 3 (p.90) both state FCR = 3.10 ± 0.27 and net fish biomass increase = 1.82 ± 0.15 kg for this treatment. Discussion (p.87) states, for the identical treatment: “mean FCR of 4.73 ± 1.61, and produced 1,270 ± 360 grams of fish.” Recompute check: 5.6 kg feed ÷ 1.82 kg biomass = 3.08 (matches the 3.10 figure); 5.6 kg ÷ 1.27 kg = 4.41 (does not closely match the Discussion’s own paired 4.73 figure). The Results/Table value is internally self-consistent and appears twice; the Discussion value is internally inconsistent even with its own paired biomass figure. Recorded 3.10 ± 0.27 FCR / 1.82 ± 0.15 kg biomass in trials.csv T3; both quotes preserved in the Experimental Remarks cell; unresolved, verify before citing.
⚠️ WARN-BLOCK — Appendix A, Table 3, 8 kg m⁻³ head dry weight total is an impossible value (affects T3). Table 3’s “Lettuce Biomass Head Dry Weight (g)” row reads “201 ± 1.56 | 227 ± 1.53 | 1.77 ± 0.92” for the 2/5/8 kg m⁻³ treatments (whole 32-plant plot totals). A total dry weight of 1.77 g for 32 lettuce heads is physically impossible (a single head alone weighs several grams dry) and is inconsistent with the paper’s own stated per-plant dry weight for this treatment (5.53 ± 0.92 g/plant × 32 ≈ 177 g, which would fit the pattern of the other two cells). Almost certainly a missing-digit typo (“1.77” for “177”). Quoted verbatim, not corrected; the per-plant figure used in trials.csv T3 comes from the explicitly-stated prose value (5.53 ± 0.92 g/plant), not from this table total.
⚠️ WARN-BLOCK + likely misattribution — headline “grams of nitrogen” statistics (affects T6, quality:suspect). The main dissertation Abstract (p.11-12), Appendix C’s Abstract (p.141), and the Overall Conclusions (p.63) all state: “One head of L. sativa cv. Rex (176.75 ± 31.03) will assimilate/deposit approximately 5.96 grams of nitrogen (3.38% per dry gram lettuce)… One kilogram of fish will yield 6.4 lettuce heads (1,128 grams) and fixate/deposit 38.13 grams of nitrogen.” Appendix C’s own Results/Nitrogen Dynamics section (p.159-160) states for the same trial: “One head of L. sativa cv. Rex (176.75 ± 31.03) will assimilate approximately 9.23 ± 0.05 grams of nitrogen (5.22 ± 0.15% per dry gram lettuce)… One kilogram of fish will yield 6.4 lettuce heads (1,128 grams) and assimilate approximately 58.88 ± 1.69 grams of nitrogen.” These are two different, each internally self-consistent (5.96×6.4≈38.1; 9.23×6.4≈59.1), but mutually contradictory, number sets. Critically, “3.38%” is elsewhere explicitly identified as the fish sludge’s nitrogen content (“the percent nutrient composition of nitrogen (3.38%)… were present in high levels in the sludge,” p.159; also the nitrogen-model figure, p.165) — not the lettuce tissue, whose measured N% is consistently reported as 5.22% in the Nutrient Analysis section and Figure 3A. This strongly suggests the Abstract/Conclusions passages misattributed the sludge nitrogen percentage to the lettuce when computing grams-of-nitrogen-per-head. Moreover, neither 5.96 g nor 9.23 g of nitrogen is arithmetically plausible for a lettuce head with a reported dry weight of only ~4.36–4.60 g (4.36 g × 5.22% ≈ 0.23 g N — nowhere near either figure), so the underlying per-head nitrogen calculation appears flawed independent of the misattribution. Unresolved — do not cite either “grams of nitrogen per head/per kg fish” figure without independent re-derivation. The directly-measured leaf tissue N% (5.22% aquaponics / 4.62% hydroponic) is recorded in plant.csv as the reliable figure; per misattribution rule, T6 is marked quality:suspect.
⚠️ WARN-MATERIAL — hydroponic bed volume (affects T4/T5/T6). Appendix B/C Methods (pp.115, 149) state “Each hydroponic bed holds 1,400 liters of water.” The main dissertation body’s own Figure 4 legend (p.39), describing what appears to be the same UAAG greenhouse beds, gives bed dimensions 2.4 m × 4.8 m × 0.46 m = 5,436 L/bed (10,872 L/bay; 21,743 L for two bays) — roughly 4× larger. Both figures quoted in trials.csv; the Appendix B/C trial-specific Methods value (1,400 L) was used as the primary “Water volume in the system” figure since it directly describes the experimental setup being reported on.
⚠️ WARN-MATERIAL — Appendix A, 5 kg m⁻³ dissolved oxygen SD (affects T2). Results text (p.88) states mean DO = 6.76 ± 0.41 mg/L; Table 4 (p.94) lists “Final D.O.” for the same treatment as 6.76 ± 1.08 mg/L — identical mean, different SD. Text value used as primary.
⚠️ WARN-CHECK — trial-duration/measurement-basis ambiguities (do not materially change recorded values but are worth noting): (1) Appendix A’s lettuce trial is described as 35 days, but Methods state fish “were harvested at day 37” (fish stocked 3 days before the trial’s day-0). (2) Appendix A Table 4 gives initial/final pH and DO rather than a trial mean; final values were used as the “clearest basis.” (3) Appendix B/C’s pooled fish FCR (2.56 ± 0.64) and survival (82.94% ± 0.07) are reported once “at the end of the trials” (plural) and therefore represent all three plant trials collectively, not any one trial individually — the same pooled figures are recorded identically in T4, T5 and T6. (4) The dissertation’s Overall Summary frames Appendix B Trial 1 as testing plain “aquaponics water” (objective 2) vs. Trials 2-3 testing “aquaponics water plus supplementation” (objective 3), yet Appendix B’s own Methods describe Biomin® Fe/Zn/Mn additions occurring already during Trial 1’s first two weeks — Trial 1 was supplemented, just at a lower level than Trials 2-3.
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- DOI / URL — no DOI found anywhere in the PDF or on the title page; this is a university dissertation with no digital object identifier.
- Funding — no funding/grant acknowledgement given (only personal thanks to advisors and lab staff).
- Fish size final (individual, g) — only tank-level total biomass is reported in Appendix A; no per-fish final weight given for any of the 6 trials.
- Fish weight gain (g/fish) — only net tank-level biomass increase (kg) is given; never broken out per fish.
- Plant height / diameter, 2 and 8 kg m⁻³ treatments (Appendix A) — stated numerically in prose only for the 5 kg m⁻³ treatment; the other two densities’ height/diameter appear only in Figure 4 bar charts (not extracted, per the “never read a value off a figure” rule).
- Plant fresh/dry weight, Appendix B Trial 1 — shown only in Figure 3, not stated numerically in prose.
- Tissue nitrate (mg/kg fw) — never reported anywhere in the dissertation; all “nitrogen” values are total leaf N% (dry-weight basis, presumably Kjeldahl-type digestion), not nitrate-specific.
- Total feed / fish biomass created per individual Appendix B/C trial — only a shared daily feed rate (2.1 kg/day) and end-of-experiment pooled fish figures are given; no trial-specific breakdown.
- Lat/Long, Region classification — never stated; only city/institution names given (Tucson, Arizona / University of Arizona).
- L. sativa cv. Tom Thumb data — the cultivar is named in Appendix B’s methods/abstract as also grown in the system, but no Tom Thumb-specific results (biomass, CCI%, nutrient composition) are reported anywhere; all quantitative results are for cv. Rex only.
New tags introduced: none — reused existing Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Lettuce, Meta/Region/NorthAmerica.
Wikilink targets referenced (check before creating): [[Nile tilapia]], [[Lettuce]], [[Feed Conversion Rate (FCR)|FCR]], [[Nitrogen (N)]] — candidate canonical forms only, verify against vault before creating new notes.
Source: Licamele and Licamele - BIOMASS PRODUCTION AND NUTRIENT DYNAMICS IN AN AQU.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
licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) |
| Fish Category | Tilapia |
| Initial Stock density | 2 kg/m3 |
| FCR | 2.19 +/- 0.34 |
| Protein | 35% (Table 1, Appendix A) — WARN-MATERIAL: main narrative (p.45) states “32% protein” for same feed; Table 1 proximate analysis (p.84) states 35% crude protein. Recorded Table value; unresolved. |
| N | 5.97% |
| P | 1.53% |
| K | 1.46% |
| % of body weight | 2% |
| Fish size initial | 196 +/- 0.04 g (Table 3; SD as printed — implausibly small, likely typo, recorded verbatim) |
| Fish size final | NR (only tank-level totals reported, no per-fish final weight) |
| Feed regime | 2% of stocking biomass fed daily |
| Total Feed (kg) | 1.4 |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | 0.65 +/- 0.10 |
| Fish survival rate | 100% |
| Fish weight gain | NR (only net tank biomass increase reported, not g/fish) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 35 (lettuce trial length per Abstract/Results) — WARN-CHECK: Methods state fish “were harvested at day 37” (fish stocked 3 days before trial start). Both bases recorded; 35d used as primary (matches Abstract). |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: pump rate 1-3 L/s = 60-180 L/min (shared system design, Fig.1 legend) |
| Water volume in the system | 1600 L (total per replicate system: 1000L fish tank + 95L + 200L + hydroponic bed, per Methods) |
| Aq pH | Final 7.7 +/- 0.38 (Table 4) — WARN-CHECK: initial 8.1 +/- 0.19 also reported (shared start value across treatments); no single trial-mean pH stated. Final value used as clearest single basis. |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 7.91 +/- 0.36 mg/L (mean, Results text p.88) — Table 4 lists same value as “Final D.O.”: 7.91 +/- 0.35 (trivial rounding diff, WARN-MINOR) |
| EC | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Final EC 830 +/- 0.04 uS/cm = 0.83 dS/m (Table 4); Initial EC printed as “0.80 +/- 0.04” with header unit uS/cm — WARN-CHECK: almost certainly meant 0.80 mS/cm (=800 uS/cm), a unit-label inconsistency in Table 4. |
| Water temperature | 24.4 degC mean (range 23.2-25.7 degC, Table 2, shared across all 3 densities, 9/9/07-10/13/07) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.04-0.69 mg/L early trial, undetectable after ~2 weeks (range shared across all 3 treatments, p.87-88) |
| NO2-N | 0 mg/L (undetectable throughout, all treatments) |
| NO3-N | NR (only the trial-end increase magnitude is stated: +12.49 mg/L over the experiment, p.88-89; absolute concentration not given for this density) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lactuca sativa cv. Rex (Butterhead) |
| Plant Category | Lettuce |
| Days Plant after transplant | 35 |
| Plants/m2 | 32 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (CCI/SPAD not measured in Appendix A) |
| Plant height | NR (figure-only for this treatment; only 5 kg m-3 value stated in prose) |
| Plant fresh weight | NR (only whole-m2 total given: 4.32 +/- 0.04 kg for 32 plants, Table 3; per-plant value not stated in prose, so not derived) |
| Plant dry matter | NR (paper reports grams not %; see remarks for NO COLUMN gram total) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | NR (paper reports total leaf N% only, not tissue nitrate) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Recirculating aquaponics; deep-bed/raft (floating polystyrene board) hydroponic culture |
| Media Details | 32 lettuce seedlings/m2 at 15.25 cm spacing on floating 2 cm polystyrene board; rockwool starter cubes; biofilter = polyethylene beads + bird netting inside 95L/200L drums |
| Biological system already in use | Yes (System matured 8 weeks pre-trial to establish nitrifying bacteria in biofilter) |
| Air supplement | Yes (One air diffuser (7.62 cm) at biofilter base, one in fish tank, one in pump drum, per replicate system) |
| Climate control | Yes (Fish greenhouse (double-layer polyethylene) with evaporative cooling and natural gas heating; env. params monitored via Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger) |
| Equipment | Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger; Li-Cor PAR sensor; Hanna pH/EC pens; YSI 550A DO meter |
| Control Parameters | Air/water temp, RH, PAR monitored+controlled (greenhouse); pH, EC, DO monitored weekly |
| Combination | Tilapia-Lettuce (Rex) aquaponics, 3 stocking-density comparison (no hydroponic control in this sub-study) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 27.1 degC mean air temp (range 24.8-29.1 degC, Table 2) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (biomass), cm (height/diameter), mg/L (water chem), kg (feed/biomass totals) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (p=0.05) + post-hoc Student’s t-test between treatments; JMP software |
| Statistically analysed | Yes |
| Replicates (n) | 3 tank replicates; 15 data plants/replicate used for analysis (border plants excluded from 32 planted) |
| AP | NR (no hydroponic comparator in this sub-study; AP/HYD columns not applicable to Appendix A density comparison) |
| HYD | NR (no hydroponic treatment in Appendix A) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: one row per tilapia stocking-density treatment (2/5/8 kg m-3) from Appendix A (“Optimal fish to plant ratios”, small 1600L systems, ERL greenhouse, trial run 9/9/07-10/13/07). This sub-study has no hydroponic control — it compares 3 aquaponic densities against each other. NO COLUMN: whole-plot (32 plants/m2) totals from Table 3: head wet weight 4.32 +/- 0.04 kg; head dry weight 201 +/- 1.56 g. WARN-MINOR: main dissertation Abstract states 5 kg m-3 yields “4.7 kg m-2” lettuce; this row’s own T2 wet-weight total is 4.65 kg (rounding only, no material conflict). Feeding: 40 g feed/day for this density.
licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) |
| Fish Category | Tilapia |
| Initial Stock density | 5 kg/m3 |
| FCR | 2.22 +/- 0.17 |
| Protein | 35% (Table 1, Appendix A) — WARN-MATERIAL: main narrative (p.45) states “32% protein” for same feed; Table 1 proximate analysis (p.84) states 35% crude protein. Recorded Table value; unresolved. |
| N | 5.97% |
| P | 1.53% |
| K | 1.46% |
| % of body weight | 2% |
| Fish size initial | 183 +/- 0.01 g (Table 3; SD as printed — implausibly small, likely typo, recorded verbatim) |
| Fish size final | NR (only tank-level totals reported) |
| Feed regime | 2% of stocking biomass fed daily |
| Total Feed (kg) | 3.5 |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | 1.58 +/- 0.12 |
| Fish survival rate | 100% |
| Fish weight gain | NR (only net tank biomass increase reported, not g/fish) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 35 (lettuce trial length) — WARN-CHECK: fish harvested at day 37 per Methods (see T1 remark). |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: pump rate 1-3 L/s = 60-180 L/min (shared system design) |
| Water volume in the system | 1600 L (per replicate system, shared design) |
| Aq pH | Final 7.4 +/- 0.41 (Table 4) — WARN-CHECK: initial ~8.1 (shared start value); discussion states pH decreased 0.70 units for this treatment, consistent with 8.1->7.4. |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6.76 +/- 0.41 mg/L (mean, Results text p.88) — WARN-MATERIAL: Table 4 lists “Final D.O.” for same treatment as 6.76 +/- 1.08 (identical mean, differing SD: 0.41 vs 1.08). Text value used as primary; table SD noted as alternate, unresolved. |
| EC | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Final EC 920 +/- 0.08 uS/cm = 0.92 dS/m (Table 4) |
| Water temperature | 24.4 degC mean (range 23.2-25.7 degC, Table 2, shared across all 3 densities, 9/9/07-10/13/07) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.04-0.69 mg/L early trial, undetectable after ~2 weeks (range shared across all 3 treatments, p.87-88) |
| NO2-N | 0 mg/L (undetectable throughout, all treatments) |
| NO3-N | ~110 mg/L at trial end, described as “near steady state” (Discussion p.99); range across trial not separately itemized |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lactuca sativa cv. Rex (Butterhead) |
| Plant Category | Lettuce |
| Days Plant after transplant | 35 |
| Plants/m2 | 32 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (CCI/SPAD not measured in Appendix A) |
| Plant height | 13.95 +/- 2.07 cm (stated in Results text, p.86) |
| Plant fresh weight | 145.47 +/- 33.94 g/plant (Results text, p.86) |
| Plant dry matter | NR (paper reports grams not %; see remarks for NO COLUMN gram value) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | NR (paper reports total leaf N% only, not tissue nitrate) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Recirculating aquaponics; deep-bed/raft (floating polystyrene board) hydroponic culture |
| Media Details | 32 lettuce seedlings/m2 at 15.25 cm spacing on floating 2 cm polystyrene board; rockwool starter cubes; biofilter = polyethylene beads + bird netting inside 95L/200L drums |
| Biological system already in use | Yes (System matured 8 weeks pre-trial to establish nitrifying bacteria in biofilter) |
| Air supplement | Yes (One air diffuser (7.62 cm) at biofilter base, one in fish tank, one in pump drum, per replicate system) |
| Climate control | Yes (Fish greenhouse (double-layer polyethylene) with evaporative cooling and natural gas heating; env. params monitored via Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger) |
| Equipment | Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger; Li-Cor PAR sensor; Hanna pH/EC pens; YSI 550A DO meter |
| Control Parameters | Air/water temp, RH, PAR monitored+controlled (greenhouse); pH, EC, DO monitored weekly |
| Combination | Tilapia-Lettuce (Rex) aquaponics, 3 stocking-density comparison (no hydroponic control in this sub-study) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 27.1 degC mean air temp (range 24.8-29.1 degC, Table 2) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (biomass), cm (height/diameter), mg/L (water chem), kg (feed/biomass totals) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (p=0.05) + post-hoc Student’s t-test between treatments; JMP software |
| Statistically analysed | Yes |
| Replicates (n) | 3 tank replicates; 15 data plants/replicate used for analysis |
| AP | NR (no hydroponic comparator in this sub-study) |
| HYD | NR (no hydroponic treatment in Appendix A) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: see T1. This is the density (5 kg m-3) the main dissertation Abstract highlights as optimal, yielding ~4.7 kg lettuce/m2 in 35 days. NO COLUMN: plant diameter 19.05 +/- 2.21 cm (no dedicated column); head dry weight per plant 7.10 +/- 1.53 g (dry-matter % not stated); whole-plot totals (Table 3): wet 4.65 +/- 0.03 kg, dry 227 +/- 1.53 g. Feeding: 100 g feed/day for this density. Net fish:lettuce biomass ratio stated as 0.34 (1.58 kg fish / 4.65 kg lettuce); one kg fish reported to yield 2.94 kg lettuce under these conditions (Discussion, p.97-98) — these are the paper’s own stated ratios, not independently re-derived here.
licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) |
| Fish Category | Tilapia |
| Initial Stock density | 8 kg/m3 |
| FCR | 3.10 +/- 0.27 (Results text p.86 AND Table 3) — WARN-BLOCK: Discussion paragraph (p.87) states for the SAME treatment “a mean FCR of 4.73 +/- 1.61”. Recompute check: 5.6 kg feed / 1.82 kg net biomass (Table 3) = 3.08, matching the 3.10 value; 5.6/1.27 kg (Discussion’s own paired biomass figure) = 4.41, not quite matching its own stated 4.73 either. The 3.10 figure is internally self-consistent and appears twice (Results + Table); the 4.73 figure appears once and is even internally inconsistent with its own paired biomass number. Both quotes preserved; UNRESOLVED, verify before citing. Recorded value: 3.10 +/- 0.27. |
| Protein | 35% (Table 1, Appendix A) — WARN-MATERIAL: main narrative (p.45) states “32% protein” for same feed; Table 1 proximate analysis (p.84) states 35% crude protein. Recorded Table value; unresolved. |
| N | 5.97% |
| P | 1.53% |
| K | 1.46% |
| % of body weight | 2% |
| Fish size initial | 238 +/- 0.01 g (Table 3; SD as printed — implausibly small, likely typo, recorded verbatim) |
| Fish size final | NR (only tank-level totals reported) |
| Feed regime | 2% of stocking biomass fed daily |
| Total Feed (kg) | 5.6 |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | 1.82 +/- 0.15 kg (Table 3) — WARN-BLOCK: Discussion paragraph (p.87) states for the SAME treatment “produced 1,270 +/- 360 grams of fish” (1.27 kg), directly conflicting with Table 3’s 1.82 +/- 0.15 kg net biomass increase for the identical 8 kg m-3 treatment. Both quotes preserved; UNRESOLVED. Recorded value: 1.82 +/- 0.15 kg (Table 3, matches Results narrative on p.86). |
| Fish survival rate | 88% (Table 3; Results text clarifies only one of three replicate tanks had mortality, the other two had 100% survival — Table reports a single 88% figure rather than the arithmetic mean of the three replicates, WARN-CHECK on basis) |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 35 (lettuce trial length) — WARN-CHECK: fish harvested at day 37 per Methods (see T1 remark). |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: pump rate 1-3 L/s = 60-180 L/min (shared system design) |
| Water volume in the system | 1600 L (per replicate system, shared design) |
| Aq pH | Final 7.3 +/- 0.32 (Table 4) — initial ~8.1 shared; discussion states 0.80-unit decrease, consistent (8.1->7.3). |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 4.82 +/- 2.07 mg/L (Results text p.88 AND Table 4, consistent) |
| EC | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Final EC 1000 +/- 0.13 uS/cm = 1.00 dS/m (Table 4) |
| Water temperature | 24.4 degC mean (range 23.2-25.7 degC, Table 2, shared across all 3 densities, 9/9/07-10/13/07) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.04-0.69 mg/L early trial, undetectable after ~2 weeks (range shared across all 3 treatments, p.87-88) |
| NO2-N | 0 mg/L (undetectable throughout, all treatments) |
| NO3-N | NR (only the trial-end increase magnitude is stated: +24.81 mg/L over the experiment, p.88-89; described as “continuing to rise” / did not reach steady state; absolute concentration not given) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lactuca sativa cv. Rex (Butterhead) |
| Plant Category | Lettuce |
| Days Plant after transplant | 35 |
| Plants/m2 | 32 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (CCI/SPAD not measured in Appendix A) |
| Plant height | NR (figure-only for this treatment; only 5 kg m-3 value stated in prose) |
| Plant fresh weight | 96.63 +/- 22.90 g/plant (Results text, p.86) |
| Plant dry matter | NR (paper reports grams not %; see remarks) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | NR (paper reports total leaf N% only, not tissue nitrate) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Recirculating aquaponics; deep-bed/raft (floating polystyrene board) hydroponic culture |
| Media Details | 32 lettuce seedlings/m2 at 15.25 cm spacing on floating 2 cm polystyrene board; rockwool starter cubes; biofilter = polyethylene beads + bird netting inside 95L/200L drums |
| Biological system already in use | Yes (System matured 8 weeks pre-trial to establish nitrifying bacteria in biofilter) |
| Air supplement | Yes (One air diffuser (7.62 cm) at biofilter base, one in fish tank, one in pump drum, per replicate system) |
| Climate control | Yes (Fish greenhouse (double-layer polyethylene) with evaporative cooling and natural gas heating; env. params monitored via Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger) |
| Equipment | Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger; Li-Cor PAR sensor; Hanna pH/EC pens; YSI 550A DO meter |
| Control Parameters | Air/water temp, RH, PAR monitored+controlled (greenhouse); pH, EC, DO monitored weekly |
| Combination | Tilapia-Lettuce (Rex) aquaponics, 3 stocking-density comparison (no hydroponic control in this sub-study) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 27.1 degC mean air temp (range 24.8-29.1 degC, Table 2) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (biomass), cm (height/diameter), mg/L (water chem), kg (feed/biomass totals) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (p=0.05) + post-hoc Student’s t-test between treatments; JMP software |
| Statistically analysed | Yes |
| Replicates (n) | 3 tank replicates; 15 data plants/replicate used for analysis |
| AP | NR (no hydroponic comparator in this sub-study) |
| HYD | NR (no hydroponic treatment in Appendix A) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: see T1. QUALITY=SUSPECT for this row (2 WARN-BLOCK contradictions: FCR and fish-biomass-created both have irreconcilable duplicate values within Appendix A — see FCR and Fish biomass created cells). WARN-BLOCK (impossible statistic): Table 3 “Lettuce Biomass Head Dry Weight (g)” row prints “1.77 +/- 0.92” as the whole-m2 (32-plant) total for this treatment, versus “201 +/- 1.56” and “227 +/- 1.53” for the 2 and 5 kg m-3 treatments in the same row/table. This is a physical impossibility (a single lettuce head alone weighs more than 1.77 g dry) and is inconsistent with the paper’s own stated per-plant dry weight for this treatment (5.53 +/- 0.92 g/plant x 32 plants =~177 g, which would fit the table’s pattern). Most likely a missing-digit typo (“1.77” for “177”). Verbatim value quoted here; NOT corrected or substituted. Per-plant value used elsewhere in this row is the explicitly-stated prose figure (96.63 g wet / 5.53 g dry), not derived from this table total. Feeding: 160 g feed/day for this density.
licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) |
| Fish Category | Tilapia |
| Initial Stock density | NR (105 kg total fish across 4 tanks: 30/30/35/15 kg, in four 1300L tanks — kg/m3 not stated directly, not derived per no-derivation rule) |
| FCR | 2.56 +/- 0.64 — WARN-CHECK: this FCR is reported once, at the end of all three plant trials combined (“Fish tanks were harvested at the end of the trials”), i.e. it is a pooled/system-level value shared across Trials 1, 2 and 3, not trial-specific. |
| Protein | 35% (Table 1, Appendix B/C) — WARN-MATERIAL: see T1-T3 remark; same feed used throughout the dissertation, main narrative elsewhere states 32%. |
| N | 5.97% |
| P | 1.53% |
| K | 1.46% |
| % of body weight | 2% |
| Fish size initial | 310 g mean fish weight at stocking (shared across all Appendix B/C trials) |
| Fish size final | NR (only tank totals given) |
| Feed regime | 2% of standing initial biomass fed daily (2.1 kg/day, shared across trials) |
| Total Feed (kg) | NR per individual trial (only the shared daily rate of 2.1 kg/day is stated; total kg over each trial’s specific duration not given and not derived) |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | NR per individual trial (pooled end-of-experiment figures only) |
| Fish survival rate | 82.94% +/- 0.07 — WARN-CHECK: pooled/system-level value across all three plant trials (see FCR remark). |
| Fish trial duration (days) | NR (fish were continuously grown/harvested/restocked across the full multi-trial period; no single fish-trial duration given) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | Fully recirculating; AquaFlo 1/4 hp pump delivers 340 L/min to hydroponic beds (85 L/min/bed) |
| Water volume in the system | Aquaculture component 9,160 L (4x1300L growout + 4x190L fry/fingerling + 3200L collection tank) + hydroponic beds stated as 1,400 L each in Appendix B/C Methods (p.115/149) — WARN-MATERIAL: the main dissertation body (Figure 4 legend, p.39) describes the SAME UAAG greenhouse’s beds as 2.4m x 4.8m x 0.46m = 5,436 L each (10,872 L/bay, 21,743 L for 2 bays), an order-of-magnitude larger figure for what appears to be the same physical hydroponic beds. Both figures quoted; UNRESOLVED. Appendix B/C’s own trial-specific Methods value (1,400 L/bed) used here. |
| Aq pH | NR (trial-specific pH not separately broken out; see Table 3 whole-experiment mean 6.8 +/- 0.1) |
| pHOptimal | 6.80 (aquaponics target, Table 2, Appendix B/C) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | NR (trial-specific DO not separately broken out for Trial 1; whole-experiment/Trial-3 table gives 5.6 +/- 0.3 mg/L, not confirmed same for Trial 1) |
| EC | NR (trial-specific EC not separately broken out for Trial 1) |
| Water temperature | NR (trial-specific; Trial 3/whole table value 28.9-29.0 +/- 1.8 degC used for T6 only) |
| TAN / NH4-N | ”Ammonia was not present in the first trial” (p.51/122) — i.e. below detection |
| NO2-N | 0.00 mg/L target/typical (Table 2); not separately itemized as measured per trial |
| NO3-N | 18-65 mg/L range over the course of Trial 1 (p.122, Fig.1) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lactuca sativa cv. Rex; L. sativa cv. Tom Thumb also planted in the system per Methods (“deep bed hydroponic lettuce (L. sativa cv. Rex and Tom Thumb)”, Appendix B Abstract) but NO separate Tom Thumb data are reported anywhere in Results — [not reported] for Tom Thumb. |
| Plant Category | Lettuce |
| Days Plant after transplant | 35 |
| Plants/m2 | 32 (consistent with Appendix A density design ratio) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 10.1 +/- 0.90% (CCI%, Apogee CCM-200; used here as the SPAD-equivalent aquaponics value) |
| Plant height | NR (not reported for Trial 1 in prose; only Trial 1 CCI%/biomass-significance narrative given) |
| Plant fresh weight | NR (Trial 1 wet/dry weight values shown only in Figure 3, not stated numerically in prose; per prime directive not read off figure) |
| Plant dry matter | NR (see Plant fresh weight remark; also no % dry matter stated) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | NR (paper reports total leaf N% via lab nutrient analysis, not nitrate-specific tissue values) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | University of Arizona Aquaponics Greenhouse (UAAG): recirculating aquaculture (4x1300L growout tanks) coupled to deep-bed hydroponic lettuce beds |
| Media Details | Deep hydroponic beds, lettuce transplanted to hydroponic boards one week after germination |
| Biological system already in use | Yes (Aquaponics system online 7 months prior to onset of experimental trials; nutrients reached steady state after 6 months per Appendix B) |
| Air supplement | Yes (Aero-Tube diffuser lining perimeter of growout tanks and hydroponic beds; Sweetwater 1.25 hp regenerative blower) |
| Iron supplemented | Yes (OMRI-certified Biomin(R) iron (5%) chelate added to sump; amount/timing varies by trial, see Experimental Remarks) |
| Remineralization | Yes (1 kg Dolomite 65 Ag Lime added to sump every 2 weeks (46.0% CaCO3, 38.5% MgCO3, 22.7% Ca, 11.8% Mg) to buffer pH ~6.8) |
| pH Buffers | Yes (Dolomite additions (see Remineralization) serve as the pH buffer) |
| Climate control | Yes (UAAG computer-controlled greenhouse; air temp/RH/PAR monitored via Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger + LI-COR 190 sensor; water temp/pH/EC/DO monitored in real time via in-line sensors) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Yes (Biomin(R) iron (5%), zinc (7%), manganese (5%) chelated minerals added to sump; amounts vary by trial, see Experimental Remarks) |
| Equipment | Polygeyser PG7-PR filter; 0.3 m3 bio-ball biofilter; Sweetwater pumps/blower; HiBlow HP-80 air pump; Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger; LI-COR 190 PAR sensor; Hanna HI3001/HI1001 EC/pH sensors; Oxyguard CS512 DO sensor; Apogee CCM-200 chlorophyll meter |
| Control Parameters | Air/water temp, RH, PAR, pH, EC, DO monitored + controlled; nutrient supplementation protocol targeted at Table 2 setpoints |
| Combination | Tilapia-Lettuce (Rex) aquaponics vs conventional hydroponic-solution control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 21.4 +/- 3.0 degC mean air temp (Trial 3/whole-experiment value, Table 3); varies slightly by trial, see cell |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (biomass), % (CCI, nutrient composition), mg/L (water chem) |
| Statistic Details | Paired t-test (Appendix B); Student’s t-test (Appendix C); p<=0.05 |
| Statistically analysed | Yes |
| Replicates (n) | 2 replicates x 6 data plants = 12 data plants per treatment (aquaponics; same for hydroponic) |
| AP | Head wet weight AP: NR (figure-only, see remark); CCI% AP = 10.1 +/- 0.90% |
| HYD | Head wet weight HYD: NR (figure-only); CCI% HYD = 11.4 +/- 0.95% — significant difference vs AP (p<=0.05) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Appendix B Trial 1 = aquaponics water (framed in the dissertation’s Overall Summary as the plain “aquaponics water” objective-2 comparison) vs hydroponic solution, L. sativa cv. Rex, harvested 35 days after transplant (later trials shortened to 28 DAT because market weight was reached sooner). WARN-CHECK: Appendix B’s own Methods (p.117 and p.151) describe iron/zinc/manganese Biomin additions occurring already in week 1-2 of “the first trial” (275 mL Fe 5% + 50 mL Zn 7% wk1; +50 mL Mn 5% wk2), which conflicts somewhat with the dissertation’s Overall-Summary framing of Trial 1 as un-supplemented plain “aquaponics water” (objective 2) versus Trials 2-3 as “aquaponics water plus supplementation” (objective 3). Both framings recorded; Trial 1 supplementation levels were the smallest of the three trials. No significant difference in head wet or dry weight vs hydroponic in this trial; CCI% was significantly higher in hydroponic. Fe/Mn/Zn ranged ND-0.08 / ND-0.17 / ND-0.04 mg/L respectively during Trial 1 (p.122-123, Fig.2).
licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T5
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) |
| Fish Category | Tilapia |
| Initial Stock density | NR (105 kg total fish across 4 tanks: 30/30/35/15 kg, in four 1300L tanks — kg/m3 not stated directly, not derived per no-derivation rule) |
| FCR | 2.56 +/- 0.64 — WARN-CHECK: this FCR is reported once, at the end of all three plant trials combined (“Fish tanks were harvested at the end of the trials”), i.e. it is a pooled/system-level value shared across Trials 1, 2 and 3, not trial-specific. |
| Protein | 35% (Table 1, Appendix B/C) — WARN-MATERIAL: see T1-T3 remark; same feed used throughout the dissertation, main narrative elsewhere states 32%. |
| N | 5.97% |
| P | 1.53% |
| K | 1.46% |
| % of body weight | 2% |
| Fish size initial | 310 g mean fish weight at stocking (shared across all Appendix B/C trials) |
| Fish size final | NR (only tank totals given) |
| Feed regime | 2% of standing initial biomass fed daily (2.1 kg/day, shared across trials) |
| Total Feed (kg) | NR per individual trial (only the shared daily rate of 2.1 kg/day is stated; total kg over each trial’s specific duration not given and not derived) |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | NR per individual trial (pooled end-of-experiment figures only) |
| Fish survival rate | 82.94% +/- 0.07 — WARN-CHECK: pooled/system-level value across all three plant trials (see FCR remark). |
| Fish trial duration (days) | NR (fish were continuously grown/harvested/restocked across the full multi-trial period; no single fish-trial duration given) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | Fully recirculating; AquaFlo 1/4 hp pump delivers 340 L/min to hydroponic beds (85 L/min/bed) |
| Water volume in the system | Aquaculture component 9,160 L (4x1300L growout + 4x190L fry/fingerling + 3200L collection tank) + hydroponic beds stated as 1,400 L each in Appendix B/C Methods (p.115/149) — WARN-MATERIAL: the main dissertation body (Figure 4 legend, p.39) describes the SAME UAAG greenhouse’s beds as 2.4m x 4.8m x 0.46m = 5,436 L each (10,872 L/bay, 21,743 L for 2 bays), an order-of-magnitude larger figure for what appears to be the same physical hydroponic beds. Both figures quoted; UNRESOLVED. Appendix B/C’s own trial-specific Methods value (1,400 L/bed) used here. |
| Aq pH | NR (trial-specific pH not separately broken out) |
| pHOptimal | 6.80 (aquaponics target, Table 2, Appendix B/C) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | NR (trial-specific DO not separately broken out) |
| EC | NR (trial-specific EC not separately broken out) |
| Water temperature | NR (trial-specific value not separately broken out) |
| TAN / NH4-N | Ammonia reached ~1 mg/L near end of Trial 2 (p.51/122) |
| NO2-N | 0.00 mg/L target/typical (Table 2); not separately itemized as measured per trial |
| NO3-N | 18-62 mg/L range over the course of Trial 2 (p.51/122) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lactuca sativa cv. Rex; L. sativa cv. Tom Thumb also planted in the system per Methods (“deep bed hydroponic lettuce (L. sativa cv. Rex and Tom Thumb)”, Appendix B Abstract) but NO separate Tom Thumb data are reported anywhere in Results — [not reported] for Tom Thumb. |
| Plant Category | Lettuce |
| Days Plant after transplant | 28 |
| Plants/m2 | 32 (consistent with Appendix A density design ratio) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 8.5 +/- 0.63% (CCI%, Apogee CCM-200) |
| Plant height | NR (not stated for Trial 2) |
| Plant fresh weight | 182.79 +/- 26.90 g/plant (AP; stated in prose, p.51/123) |
| Plant dry matter | NR (dry weight given in grams not %; AP dry weight 6.29 +/- 0.74 g/plant stated in prose, see remarks; HYD dry weight not stated numerically in prose, figure-only) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | NR (paper reports total leaf N% via lab nutrient analysis, not nitrate-specific tissue values) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | University of Arizona Aquaponics Greenhouse (UAAG): recirculating aquaculture (4x1300L growout tanks) coupled to deep-bed hydroponic lettuce beds |
| Media Details | Deep hydroponic beds, lettuce transplanted to hydroponic boards one week after germination |
| Biological system already in use | Yes (Aquaponics system online 7 months prior to onset of experimental trials; nutrients reached steady state after 6 months per Appendix B) |
| Air supplement | Yes (Aero-Tube diffuser lining perimeter of growout tanks and hydroponic beds; Sweetwater 1.25 hp regenerative blower) |
| Iron supplemented | Yes (OMRI-certified Biomin(R) iron (5%) chelate added to sump; amount/timing varies by trial, see Experimental Remarks) |
| Remineralization | Yes (1 kg Dolomite 65 Ag Lime added to sump every 2 weeks (46.0% CaCO3, 38.5% MgCO3, 22.7% Ca, 11.8% Mg) to buffer pH ~6.8) |
| pH Buffers | Yes (Dolomite additions (see Remineralization) serve as the pH buffer) |
| Climate control | Yes (UAAG computer-controlled greenhouse; air temp/RH/PAR monitored via Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger + LI-COR 190 sensor; water temp/pH/EC/DO monitored in real time via in-line sensors) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Yes (Biomin(R) iron (5%), zinc (7%), manganese (5%) chelated minerals added to sump; amounts vary by trial, see Experimental Remarks) |
| Equipment | Polygeyser PG7-PR filter; 0.3 m3 bio-ball biofilter; Sweetwater pumps/blower; HiBlow HP-80 air pump; Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger; LI-COR 190 PAR sensor; Hanna HI3001/HI1001 EC/pH sensors; Oxyguard CS512 DO sensor; Apogee CCM-200 chlorophyll meter |
| Control Parameters | Air/water temp, RH, PAR, pH, EC, DO monitored + controlled; nutrient supplementation protocol targeted at Table 2 setpoints |
| Combination | Tilapia-Lettuce (Rex) aquaponics vs conventional hydroponic-solution control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 21.4 +/- 3.0 degC mean air temp (Trial 3/whole-experiment value, Table 3); varies slightly by trial, see cell |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (biomass), % (CCI, nutrient composition), mg/L (water chem) |
| Statistic Details | Paired t-test (Appendix B); Student’s t-test (Appendix C); p<=0.05 |
| Statistically analysed | Yes |
| Replicates (n) | 2 replicates x 6 data plants = 12 data plants per treatment |
| AP | Head wet weight AP = 182.79 +/- 26.90 g/plant; head dry weight AP = 6.29 +/- 0.74 g/plant; CCI% AP = 8.5 +/- 0.63% |
| HYD | Head wet weight HYD: NR (figure-only, not stated numerically in prose); CCI% HYD = 8.8 +/- 0.65% — NOT significantly different from AP (p<=0.05) |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Appendix B Trial 2 = aquaponics water PLUS nutrient supplementation vs hydroponic solution, L. sativa cv. Rex, harvested 28 days after transplant. Head wet weight AND dry weight were both significantly greater in aquaponics vs hydroponic (p<=0.05) in this trial; CCI% was NOT significantly different. Supplementation this trial (2nd week): 800 mL Biomin iron (5%), 50 mL Biomin zinc (7%), 50 mL Biomin manganese (5%) (p.50/117). Fe/Mn/Zn ranged ND-0.13 / 0.02-0.04 / 0.03-0.04 mg/L respectively during Trial 2 (p.122-123, Fig.2).
licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) |
| Fish Category | Tilapia |
| Initial Stock density | NR (105 kg total fish across 4 tanks: 30/30/35/15 kg, in four 1300L tanks — kg/m3 not stated directly, not derived per no-derivation rule) |
| FCR | 2.56 +/- 0.64 — WARN-CHECK: this FCR is reported once, at the end of all three plant trials combined (“Fish tanks were harvested at the end of the trials”), i.e. it is a pooled/system-level value shared across Trials 1, 2 and 3, not trial-specific. |
| Protein | 35% (Table 1, Appendix B/C) — WARN-MATERIAL: see T1-T3 remark; same feed used throughout the dissertation, main narrative elsewhere states 32%. |
| N | 5.97% |
| P | 1.53% |
| K | 1.46% |
| % of body weight | 2% |
| Fish size initial | 310 g mean fish weight at stocking (shared across all Appendix B/C trials) |
| Fish size final | NR (only tank totals given) |
| Feed regime | 2% of standing initial biomass fed daily (2.1 kg/day, shared across trials) |
| Total Feed (kg) | NR per individual trial (only the shared daily rate of 2.1 kg/day is stated; total kg over each trial’s specific duration not given and not derived) |
| Fish biomass created (kg) | NR per individual trial (pooled end-of-experiment figures only) |
| Fish survival rate | 82.94% +/- 0.07 — WARN-CHECK: pooled/system-level value across all three plant trials (see FCR remark). |
| Fish trial duration (days) | NR (fish were continuously grown/harvested/restocked across the full multi-trial period; no single fish-trial duration given) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | Fully recirculating; AquaFlo 1/4 hp pump delivers 340 L/min to hydroponic beds (85 L/min/bed) |
| Water volume in the system | Aquaculture component 9,160 L (4x1300L growout + 4x190L fry/fingerling + 3200L collection tank) + hydroponic beds stated as 1,400 L each in Appendix B/C Methods (p.115/149) — WARN-MATERIAL: the main dissertation body (Figure 4 legend, p.39) describes the SAME UAAG greenhouse’s beds as 2.4m x 4.8m x 0.46m = 5,436 L each (10,872 L/bay, 21,743 L for 2 bays), an order-of-magnitude larger figure for what appears to be the same physical hydroponic beds. Both figures quoted; UNRESOLVED. Appendix B/C’s own trial-specific Methods value (1,400 L/bed) used here. |
| Aq pH | 6.8 +/- 0.1 (Trial 3/whole-experiment mean, Table 3, Appendix C) |
| pHOptimal | 6.80 (aquaponics target, Table 2, Appendix B/C) |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 5.6 +/- 0.3 mg/L (Trial 3 mean, Table 3, Appendix C) |
| EC | 0.9 +/- 0.2 dS/m (Trial 3 mean, Table 3, Appendix C; header lists mS/cm in one table and dS/m target in another — both ~equivalent order of magnitude, treated as dS/m per schema) |
| Water temperature | 28.9-29.0 +/- 1.8 degC (Trial 3 mean, Table 3, Appendix C) |
| TAN / NH4-N | Reached ~1 mg/L near end of Trial 3 (p.122); Appendix C nitrogen model separately gives system inputs (see remarks) |
| NO2-N | 0.00 mg/L target/typical (Table 2); not separately itemized as measured per trial |
| NO3-N | 48-89 mg/L range over the course of Trial 3 (p.122, and Appendix C Fig.1: 62.60 +/- 15.85 mg/L residual mean) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lactuca sativa cv. Rex; L. sativa cv. Tom Thumb also planted in the system per Methods (“deep bed hydroponic lettuce (L. sativa cv. Rex and Tom Thumb)”, Appendix B Abstract) but NO separate Tom Thumb data are reported anywhere in Results — [not reported] for Tom Thumb. |
| Plant Category | Lettuce |
| Days Plant after transplant | 28 |
| Plants/m2 | 32 (consistent with Appendix A density design ratio) |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 9.89 +/- 0.89% (CCI%, Apogee CCM-200) |
| Plant height | NR (not stated for Trial 3) |
| Plant fresh weight | 176.75 +/- 31.04 g/plant (AP; stated repeatedly, e.g. Abstract of Appendix B/C and Results) |
| Plant dry matter | NR (dry weight given in grams not %); AP dry weight 4.36 +/- 0.78 g/plant, HYD dry weight 4.60 +/- 0.60 g/plant (both stated in prose, see remarks) — NOT significantly different (p<=0.05) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | NR (paper reports total leaf N% via lab nutrient analysis, not nitrate-specific tissue values) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | University of Arizona Aquaponics Greenhouse (UAAG): recirculating aquaculture (4x1300L growout tanks) coupled to deep-bed hydroponic lettuce beds |
| Media Details | Deep hydroponic beds, lettuce transplanted to hydroponic boards one week after germination |
| Biological system already in use | Yes (Aquaponics system online 7 months prior to onset of experimental trials; nutrients reached steady state after 6 months per Appendix B) |
| Air supplement | Yes (Aero-Tube diffuser lining perimeter of growout tanks and hydroponic beds; Sweetwater 1.25 hp regenerative blower) |
| Iron supplemented | Yes (OMRI-certified Biomin(R) iron (5%) chelate added to sump; amount/timing varies by trial, see Experimental Remarks) |
| Remineralization | Yes (1 kg Dolomite 65 Ag Lime added to sump every 2 weeks (46.0% CaCO3, 38.5% MgCO3, 22.7% Ca, 11.8% Mg) to buffer pH ~6.8) |
| pH Buffers | Yes (Dolomite additions (see Remineralization) serve as the pH buffer) |
| Climate control | Yes (UAAG computer-controlled greenhouse; air temp/RH/PAR monitored via Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger + LI-COR 190 sensor; water temp/pH/EC/DO monitored in real time via in-line sensors) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Yes (Biomin(R) iron (5%), zinc (7%), manganese (5%) chelated minerals added to sump; amounts vary by trial, see Experimental Remarks) |
| Equipment | Polygeyser PG7-PR filter; 0.3 m3 bio-ball biofilter; Sweetwater pumps/blower; HiBlow HP-80 air pump; Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger; LI-COR 190 PAR sensor; Hanna HI3001/HI1001 EC/pH sensors; Oxyguard CS512 DO sensor; Apogee CCM-200 chlorophyll meter |
| Control Parameters | Air/water temp, RH, PAR, pH, EC, DO monitored + controlled; nutrient supplementation protocol targeted at Table 2 setpoints |
| Combination | Tilapia-Lettuce (Rex) aquaponics vs conventional hydroponic-solution control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 21.4 +/- 3.0 degC mean air temp (Trial 3/whole-experiment value, Table 3); varies slightly by trial, see cell |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (biomass), % (CCI, nutrient composition), mg/L (water chem) |
| Statistic Details | Paired t-test (Appendix B); Student’s t-test (Appendix C); p<=0.05 |
| Statistically analysed | Yes |
| Replicates (n) | 24 data plants per treatment (Trial 3 used a larger sample than Trials 1-2) |
| AP | Head wet weight AP = 176.75 +/- 31.04 g/plant; head dry weight AP = 4.36 +/- 0.78 g/plant; CCI% AP = 9.89 +/- 0.89%; leaf N% AP = 5.22% (see plant.csv for full tissue-nutrient breakdown) |
| HYD | Head wet weight HYD = 148.55 +/- 21.71 g/plant (Abstract, Appendix B); head dry weight HYD = 4.60 +/- 0.60 g/plant; CCI% HYD = 8.71 +/- 0.45%; leaf N% HYD = 4.62 +/- 0.26% |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: Appendix B Trial 3 = aquaponics water PLUS nutrient supplementation vs hydroponic solution, L. sativa cv. Rex, harvested 28 DAT, n=24/treatment. Appendix C (“Nitrogen Remediation and Nutrient Dynamics”) re-analyzes this SAME physical trial for tissue-nutrient composition and a system nitrogen budget — identical headline means confirm this (wet wt 176.75+/-31.04 g, CCI 9.89+/-0.89%, FCR 2.56+/-0.64, survival 82.94%+/-0.07 all match between Appendix B Trial 3 and Appendix C). No separate trial row created for Appendix C; its unique data are attached here and to plant.csv. Head wet weight significantly greater in AP vs HYD (p<=0.05); head dry weight and CCI%: dry weight NOT significant, CCI% WAS significant (p<=0.05) — i.e. this trial shows a split significance pattern across the three metrics. Supplementation this trial: week1 = 800 mL Biomin iron(5%)+50 mL zinc(7%)+50 mL manganese(5%) (shared with Trial 2’s wk2 dose); week3 = 100 mL iron(5%)+50 mL manganese(5%) (p.50/117). Cumulative over the whole Trial-2+3 growout: 900 mL iron(5%), 100 mL zinc(7%), 100 mL manganese(5%) (p.61/166). NO COLUMN — fish sludge composition (Appendix C, p.159/163-164): N 3.38%, Ca 1.36% (elevated vs other macronutrients); Fe 759 mg/L, Zn 233 mg/L (elevated micronutrients); P/K/Mg/S only shown in Figure 4, not stated numerically in prose. NO COLUMN — system nitrogen budget (Appendix C Fig.5): feed N content 5.97%; 2.1 kg feed/day added = 125.37 g N/day into system (59.7 g N per kg feed); total N introduced over the 35-day period = 4.39 kg; fish digest ~90% of feed protein (cited from Timmons et al. 2002, not measured here); ~5 L sludge/day collected (~2% dry solids, also a cited literature value); aquaponics system reported to utilize ~93% of daily N input, remainder residual as NO3-N in solution or unquantified losses (bacteria/algae/microfauna/N2 gas). WARN-BLOCK + MISATTRIBUTION (quality:suspect): The dissertation’s main Abstract (p.11-12), Appendix C’s own Abstract (p.141), and the Overall Conclusions (p.63) all state: “One head of L. sativa cv. Rex (176.75 +/- 31.03) will assimilate/deposit approximately 5.96 grams of nitrogen (3.38% per dry gram lettuce)” and “One kilogram of fish will yield 6.4 lettuce heads (1,128 grams) and fixate/deposit 38.13 grams of nitrogen.” However, Appendix C’s own RESULTS / Nitrogen Dynamics section (p.159-160) states for the SAME trial: “One head of L. sativa cv. Rex (176.75 +/- 31.03) will assimilate approximately 9.23 +/- 0.05 grams of nitrogen (5.22 +/- 0.15% per dry gram lettuce)” and “One kilogram of fish will yield 6.4 lettuce heads (1,128 grams) and assimilate approximately 58.88 +/- 1.69 grams of nitrogen.” These two number-sets are each internally self-consistent (5.96x6.4=38.1 grams/kg fish; 9.23x6.4=59.1, close to 58.88) but mutually contradictory (5.96g/3.38% vs 9.23g/5.22%). Critically, “3.38%” is elsewhere explicitly reported as the SLUDGE nitrogen content (“the percent nutrient composition of nitrogen (3.38%) … were present in high levels in the sludge”, p.159; also the nitrogen-model figure legend, p.165), not the lettuce leaf N% — the measured/reported lettuce leaf N% is consistently 5.22% (aquaponics) elsewhere in Nutrient Analysis (p.158-160) and Figure 3A. This strongly suggests the Abstract/Conclusions passages MISATTRIBUTED the sludge’s N% to the lettuce tissue when computing “grams of nitrogen per head.” Furthermore, neither 5.96 g nor 9.23 g of nitrogen is arithmetically plausible for a ~4.36-4.60 g DRY lettuce head at either 3.38% or 5.22% N (4.36 g x 0.0522 =~0.23 g N, nowhere near either headline figure) — both headline “grams of N per head” claims appear to rest on an uncorrected calculation error, independent of the sludge-vs-lettuce misattribution. UNRESOLVED — verify all four figures (5.96 g, 3.38%, 9.23 g, 58.88 g) before citing any nitrogen-per-head or nitrogen-per-kg-fish claim from this dissertation. Not recorded as a trials.csv/plant.csv column value because no such derived per-head/per-kg nitrogen-mass column exists in the schema; leaf tissue N% (5.22% AP / 4.62% HYD, the directly-measured values) IS recorded in plant.csv. WARN-MINOR: leaf N% for AP is quoted with two different SDs in different passages of Appendix C: 5.22 +/- 0.38% (p.158-159, Nutrient Analysis intro) vs 5.22 +/- 0.15% (p.159-160, repeated twice). Same mean; SD discrepancy only. Recorded 5.22 +/- 0.15% in plant.csv (majority/repeated value); alternate SD noted here.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T4 | AP | Pigment/Quality | Chlorophyll Concentration Index (CCI%) | 10.1 ± 0.90 | % | Significant, p<=0.05 (AP < HYD) | p.123, Fig.4; Appendix B Results |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T4 | HYD | Pigment/Quality | Chlorophyll Concentration Index (CCI%) | 11.4 ± 0.95 | % | Significant, p<=0.05 | p.123, Fig.4 |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T5 | AP | Pigment/Quality | Chlorophyll Concentration Index (CCI%) | 8.5 ± 0.63 | % | Not significant, p<=0.05 | p.123-124, Fig.6 |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T5 | HYD | Pigment/Quality | Chlorophyll Concentration Index (CCI%) | 8.8 ± 0.65 | % | Not significant, p<=0.05 | p.123-124, Fig.6 |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Pigment/Quality | Chlorophyll Concentration Index (CCI%) | 9.89 ± 0.89 | % | Significant, p<=0.05 (AP > HYD) | p.124, Fig.8; Appendix C Abstract p.142 |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Pigment/Quality | Chlorophyll Concentration Index (CCI%) | 8.71 ± 0.45 | % | Significant, p<=0.05 | p.124, Fig.8 |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Macronutrient | Nitrogen (N) | 5.22 ± 0.15 | % dry wt | Significant, p<=0.05 (AP > HYD) | p.159-160, Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Macronutrient | Nitrogen (N) | 4.62 ± 0.26 | % dry wt | Significant, p<=0.05 | p.159-160, Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Macronutrient | Phosphorus (P) | 1.14 ± 0.07 | % dry wt | Significant, p<=0.05 (AP > HYD) | p.158, Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Macronutrient | Phosphorus (P) | NR | % dry wt | Significant, p<=0.05 (lower than AP) | Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Macronutrient | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.74 ± 0.13 | % dry wt | Significant, p<=0.05 (AP > HYD) | p.158, Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Macronutrient | Magnesium (Mg) | NR | % dry wt | Significant, p<=0.05 (lower than AP) | Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Macronutrient | Calcium (Ca) | 1.94 ± 0.08 | % dry wt | Not significant, p<=0.05 | p.159, Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Macronutrient | Calcium (Ca) | 1.82 ± 0.14 | % dry wt | Not significant, p<=0.05 | p.159, Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Macronutrient | Potassium (K) | NR | % dry wt | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Macronutrient | Potassium (K) | NR | % dry wt | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Macronutrient | Sulfate (SO4-S) | NR | % dry wt | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Macronutrient | Sulfate (SO4-S) | NR | % dry wt | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3A |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Micronutrient | Zinc (Zn) | NR | mg/L (as printed; likely mg/kg dry tissue) | Significant increase vs HYD, p<=0.05 | p.159, Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Micronutrient | Zinc (Zn) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Micronutrient | Manganese (Mn) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Significant increase vs HYD, p<=0.05 | p.159, Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Micronutrient | Manganese (Mn) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Micronutrient | Boron (B) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Significant increase vs HYD, p<=0.05 | p.159, Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Micronutrient | Boron (B) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Micronutrient | Iron (Fe) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Micronutrient | Iron (Fe) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | AP | Micronutrient | Copper (Cu) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |
| licameleBiomassProductionNutrient2009-T6 | HYD | Micronutrient | Copper (Cu) | NR | mg/L (as printed) | Not significant, p<=0.05 | Fig.3B |