Basil functional and growth responses when cultivated via different aquaponic and hydroponics systems

Metadata

Cite key: mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: A. Mourantian, M. Aslanidou, E. Mente, N. Katsoulas, E. Levizou
Affiliation: Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, N. Ionia, Volos, Greece (Mourantian, Aslanidou, Katsoulas, Levizou); Department of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (Mente)
Journal: PeerJ 11 (2023) e15664
Date: 07/2023
Date added: 2024-02-09
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15664
Funding: European Union and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH-CREATE-INNOVATE (project code T1EDK-01153)
URL: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15664
PDF: Mourantian et al. - 2023 - Basil functional and growth responses when cultiva.pdf

Opinion

A methodologically careful, data-dense functional-physiology paper (gas exchange, chlorophyll a fluorescence/JIP-test, PRI, pigments, full leaf mineral panel) layered on top of a fairly standard CAP/DCAP/HP growth comparison. The randomized complete block design (6 channels/treatment, 192 plants/treatment) is solid and clearly reported. Two things temper full confidence: (1) the final-harvest (D60) leaf Cu values for all three treatments are reported digit-for-digit identical (mean and SD) to the D35 initial-harvest Cu values, which reads like a copy-paste artifact rather than an independent measurement (see Extraction notes); (2) growth data is reported only as per-plant-part dry weight at two harvests (no single fresh-weight or per-m2 yield figure), which makes this paper hard to compare against yield-centric aquaponics literature on a common metric. Worth citing for the physiological mechanism story (nutrient status -> photosynthetic down-regulation -> growth), less useful as a yield data point.

Abstract

Background. Aquaponics is an innovative farming system that combines hydroponics and aquaculture, resulting in the production of both crops and fish. Decoupled aquaponics is a new approach introduced in aquaponics research for the elimination of certain system bottlenecks, specifically targeting the optimization of crops and fish production conditions. The aquaponics-related literature predominantly examines the system’s effects on crop productivity, largely overlooking the plant functional responses which underlie growth and yield performance. The aim of the study was the integrated evaluation of basil performance cultivated under coupled and decoupled aquaponic systems compared with a hydroponic one, in terms of growth and functional parameters in a pilot-scale aquaponics greenhouse.

Methods. We focused on the efficiency of the photosynthetic process and the state of the photosynthetic machinery, assessed by instantaneous gas exchange measurements as well as photosynthetic light response curves, and in vivo chlorophyll a fluorescence. Light use efficiency was estimated through leaf reflectance determination. Photosynthetic pigments content and leaf nutritional state assessments completed the picture of basil functional responses to the three different treatments/systems. The plant’s functional parameters were assessed at 15-day intervals. The experiment lasted for two months and included an intermediate and a final harvest during which several basil growth parameters were determined.

Results. Coupled aquaponics resulted in reduced growth, which was mainly ascribed to sub-sufficient leaf nutrient levels, a fact that triggered a series of negative feedbacks on all aspects of their photosynthetic performance. These plants experienced a down-regulation of PSII activity as reflected in the significant decreases of quantum yield and efficiency of electron transport, along with decreased photosynthetic pigments content. On the contrary, decoupled aquaponics favored both growth and photochemistry leading to higher light use efficiency compared with coupled system and hydroponics, yet without significant differences from the latter. Photosynthetic light curves indicated constantly higher photosynthetic capacity of the decoupled aquaponics-treated basil, while also enhanced pigment concentrations were evident. Basil functional responses to the three tested production systems provided insights on the underlying mechanisms of plant performance highlighting key-points for systems optimization. We propose decoupled aquaponics as an effective system that may replace hydroponics supporting high crops productivity. We suggest that future works should focus on the mechanisms involved in crop and fish species function, the elucidation of which would greatly contribute to the optimization of the aquaponics productivity.

Summary

The authors compared basil (cv. Genovese) grown in a pilot-scale greenhouse under coupled aquaponics (CAP, water recirculated directly from a red-tilapia RAS), decoupled aquaponics (DCAP, RAS water amended with fertilizer to hydroponic target concentrations, then discharged), and hydroponics (HP, mineral solution control), in a randomized complete block design with 6 channels (192 plants) per treatment over a 60-day cycle with harvests at D35 and D60. They tracked photosynthetic gas exchange, light-response curves, chlorophyll a fluorescence (JIP-test), leaf pigments, the Photochemical Reflectance Index, leaf macro/micronutrient status, and dry-weight biomass by plant part. CAP plants had significantly lower leaf N, K, Zn, Fe and Cu than HP/DCAP, which corresponded with lower chlorophyll/carotenoid content, down-regulated PSII/PSI photochemistry (quantum yield, electron transport efficiency, performance indices), reduced net CO2 assimilation, and reduced dry biomass in leaves, stems and roots, plus a higher root:shoot ratio (an acclimation to nutrient shortage). DCAP consistently matched or slightly exceeded HP in growth, pigment content, and photosynthetic performance while receiving 10% less fertilizer input than HP, without ever differing from HP at a statistically significant level. The paper argues DCAP is a viable substitute for conventional hydroponics and links CAP’s productivity penalty mechanistically to nutrient-driven photosynthetic down-regulation rather than direct toxicity/stress damage.

Experiment data

Location: Experimental greenhouse of the University of Thessaly, Velestino, Central Greece

Design: Randomized complete block design, 3 treatments (HP, CAP, DCAP) x 6 channels/blocks per treatment (192 basil plants/treatment); 18 channels total, each 8.5 m long with 8 perlite slabs, drip irrigation

Replicates / n: 6 channels per treatment (true experimental unit); sub-sample sizes vary by measurement (n=10 plants for biomass/pigments, n=30 leaves for gas exchange/fluorescence/PRI, n=3 tissue digests for elemental analysis, n=10 for light-response curves)

Duration: 60 days (May-July 2021), harvests at D35 (intermediate) and D60 (final)

Organisms: Ocimum basilicum (sweet basil, var. Genovese) / Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)

Statistics: One-way ANOVA + Tukey post-hoc (p<=0.05); Kruskal-Wallis for root/shoot ratio, car/chl ratio, WUE, and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters where ANOVA assumptions were not met; JASP 0.14.0.0

Photosynthetic pigments: CAP consistently lowest chlorophyll a/b and carotenoids; DCAP and HP similar and higher, except D15 where HP alone was highest

Leaf nutrient status: CAP significantly lower leaf N, K, Zn, Fe, Cu than HP/DCAP; CAP higher P, Mg, Ca at final harvest

Net photosynthetic rate (An): highest in DCAP throughout; DCAP vs CAP significant at D25 (p=0.037)

Basil growth (dry weight): DCAP > HP > CAP in most plant parts/harvests; CAP significantly lower than DCAP (p<0.001 to p=0.009 depending on part/harvest); DCAP never significantly different from HP

Growth and biomass

This paper: Growth reported as oven-dried biomass (leaves, stems, roots) at D35 and D60, not as a single fresh-weight or per-m2 yield figure. At D35, DCAP leaves (36.34 +/- 7.12 g) were not significantly different from HP (29.35 +/- 4.59 g) but significantly heavier than CAP (19.61 +/- 2.49 g, p<0.001); the same pattern held for stems and roots. At D60, leaves and roots no longer differed significantly among treatments, but CAP stems remained significantly lower than DCAP (p=0.009). CAP allocated proportionally more biomass to roots (root:shoot 0.16 +/- 0.04 at D35 vs 0.13-0.14 in DCAP/HP, p=0.034 vs DCAP), consistent with a nutrient-foraging acclimation response.

Compared with:

todo Rodgers et al. 2022 — CORRECTED per direct extraction (rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022, 2026-08-10): this paper has no coupled-aquaponics (CAP) arm at all — only unsupplemented decoupled (DAP), fertilizer-complemented decoupled (DAP+), and hydroponic control (CON). Hydroponic only outperformed DAP+ on shoot biomass (11%); height, SPAD, and root:shoot ratio did not differ between CON and DAP+. Attributed by the authors to a shorter trial (21 d) and a fixed 25% fertilizer allocation for DAP+ rather than continuous monitoring/replenishment to HP target, as used here (p.18). The original claim here (“hydroponic outperforming both CAP and DCAP”) was inaccurate and has been corrected.
todo Monsees et al. 2019 — lettuce, same DCAP fertilizer-replenishment approach, found similar yields between DCAP and HP, corroborating this paper (p.18)
todo Delaide et al. 2021 — tomato, same DCAP approach, similar corroborating result (p.18)
todo Suhl et al. 2016 — tomato, same DCAP approach, similar corroborating result (p.18)
todo Delaide et al. 2016 — lettuce, reported a 40% growth increase for complemented aquaponics over hydroponics, larger effect than seen here (p.18)
todo Roosta 2014 — basil, coupled aquaponics vs hydroponics; found reduced chlorophyll, PSII yield and photosynthesis under aquaponics linked to K/Fe/Mn deficiency, consistent direction with this paper’s CAP findings (p.19-20)

Leaf nutrient status and photosynthetic down-regulation

This paper: CAP leaves had significantly lower N, K (both harvests), Zn, Fe and Cu (both harvests) than HP/DCAP, but higher P, Mg and Ca at the final harvest. The authors link the poor CAP nutrient status (especially N, K, Fe) to reduced chlorophyll/carotenoid content, down-regulated PSII activity (quantum yield phiEo/phiRo, electron-transport efficiency psiEo/deltaRo, performance indices PITotal/PIABS all significantly lower in CAP, most pronounced at D60), and early signs of PSI limitation (1-Vi, 1/Vi already different at D30). DCAP leaves absorbed markedly more Fe, Zn and Cu than HP despite identical target nutrient concentrations in solution — a difference the authors could not mechanistically explain, speculating about rhizosphere microorganisms or dissolved organics in the fish-derived water potentiating uptake only when fertilizer was also present (not seen in CAP, which received the same fish water without added fertilizer) (p.20).

Compared with:

todo Tsoumalakou et al. 2022 — lettuce, minimal nutrient supplementation in aquaponics, same research group/system, cited as establishing the functional-response methodology used here
todo Tsoumalakou et al. 2023b — spinach, CAP-like system, Fe deficiency linked to chlorosis from day 10, same mechanism argued here for basil
todo Samborska-Skutnik et al. 2020 — radish, Fe deficiency disrupted light absorption and QA activity, cited to support the CAP PSII-down-regulation mechanism (p.19)
todo Kalaji et al. 2018 — rapeseed, nutrient deficiency reduces PSII energy-capture and electron-transport quantum yield, cited as corroborating mechanism (p.19)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Trial structure: this paper has two distinct aquaponic arms (CAP and DCAP) sharing one hydroponic control (HP). Recorded as two trials.csv rows, mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1 (CAP vs HP) and -T2 (DCAP vs HP), each repeating the same HP values in the HYD columns, per SCHEMA.md convention.

WARN-MATERIAL leaf Cu, final harvest (D60), p.20-21. Body text: “Although the differences in Zn and Cu were maintained in the final harvest (62.23 +/- 1.21 DCAP, 41.20 +/- 2.25 HP and 17.44 +/- 0.94 CAP for Zn, p < 0.001; 12.42 +/- 0.94, 8.97 +/- 0.95 (p = 0.031), and 7.40 +/- 1.64 (p = 0.006) respectively for Cu)”. These D60 Cu values (DCAP 12.42+/-0.94, HP 8.97+/-0.95, CAP 7.40+/-1.64) are digit-for-digit identical, including SDs, to the D35 initial-harvest Cu values given two paragraphs earlier on p.20 (“12.42 +/- 0.94, 8.97 +/- 0.95, and 7.40 +/- 1.64 for Cu respectively”). Not reconcilable from the text alone: either Cu genuinely did not change between harvests (implausible to the stated precision) or the D35 row was copy-pasted into the D60 sentence. Recorded as literally stated for both harvests since both instances appear in running text; the paper states raw measurements are available in its Supplementary File, which would resolve this but was not fetched here. Affects: plant.csv Cu rows at D60 for all three systems (T1 AP/HYD, T2 AP/HYD). Does not affect any trials.csv cell (no dedicated Cu column exists there).

WARN-CHECK leaf N and K, harvest day unclear, p.16. Body text: “The differences among treatments found in the first measurement (Figs. 9A, 9B) were also retained in the final one (Figs. 9C, 9D). … CAP leaves compared to HP and DCAP contained significantly lower concentrations of N and K (3.77 +/- 0.05, 4.46 +/- 0.07 and 4.50 +/- 0.11 for N respectively, p<0.001; 3.08 +/- 0.05, 5.38 +/- 0.07 and 5.45 +/- 0.25 for K respectively), yet higher P, Mg and Ca only in the final harvest (values…)”. The P/Mg/Ca values that follow are explicitly labelled “only in the final harvest” (D60), but the single set of N/K values given just before is not labelled with a harvest day at all — the sentence says the D35 pattern was “retained” at D60, which could mean the quoted numbers are the D35 (first) values, the D60 (final) values, or a value common to both. Figure 9 separates macronutrients by harvest day (panels A/C for D35/D60) but per SCHEMA.md figure values are never read off a chart. Recorded in plant.csv without a harvest-day assignment, flagged unclear. Affects: plant.csv N and K rows for all three systems in both trials. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step.

WARN-MINOR leaf P, DCAP final harvest SD, p.16 vs p.20. Stated as “0.88 +/-0.01” in the CAP/HP/DCAP three-way comparison sentence (p.16) and restated as “0.88 ± 0.1” one paragraph later in the HP-vs-DCAP comparison sentence (p.20). Same mean (0.88), SD differs by a factor of 10 — most likely a typo (0.01 vs 0.1). No cell impact: the mean and the qualitative comparison (HP > DCAP for P at D60) are unaffected either way. Recorded 0.01 in plant.csv (the first-stated, more precise-looking value) with both candidates noted.

Value-order attribution (methodology note, not a contradiction): several sentences list three numbers for “CAP, HP, DCAP” or “DCAP, HP, CAP” using the word “respectively” without re-stating the treatment labels next to each number (e.g. the P/Mg/Ca final-harvest sentence, p.16; the Fe/Zn/Cu initial-harvest sentence, p.16-17). Order was inferred from (a) the order treatments are named earlier in the same sentence, and (b) internal consistency with the qualitative claim (“higher”/“lower”) made about the same sentence — every assignment used here was checked against the stated direction and found consistent. This is ordinary reading comprehension of stated values, not inference of unstated values, but is flagged here for auditability since the paper does not label each number individually.

[not reported] fields, grouped:

Fish: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K %, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain — the paper gives only total system biomass (410 fish, 22.56 kg initial -> 50 kg final) and feed identity/frequency/crude protein (27%), never per-fish weights, feed totals, or survival %. NOT DERIVED per SCHEMA.md even though some are computable from the totals given.
Water: Water recycle (L/min), Water volume in the system (single total), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — none of these are reported as measured trial-mean values anywhere in the paper. Component tank volumes are given individually (3 x 1,500 L fish tanks, 650 L buffer, 2,500 L sump; mechanical filter/biofilter volumes not stated) but the authors never state a summed system total, so recording one would be derivation.
Plant: Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter (%), Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, SPAD — the paper measured pigments by acetone extraction/spectrophotometry (not a SPAD meter) and reported dry weight by plant part rather than a whole-plant fresh weight, height, or leaf count; tissue nitrate was not assessed at all.
FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE (system-level) — the paper states DCAP used 10% less fertilizer than HP (a fertilizer-savings statement) but never expresses this as a stated efficiency ratio/metric matching these columns; recorded as NR and routed to Experimental Remarks instead. (Note: an instantaneous, leaf-level photosynthetic WUE, umol CO2 mmol-1 H2O, is extensively reported — see “physiological parameters excluded from CSV” below — but this is a different quantity from a system-level water-use-efficiency metric and was not mapped to this column.)
Lat/Long, Average room Temperature — greenhouse location (Velestino, Central Greece) and microclimate setpoints (heating 18C/ventilation 21C/evaporative cooling 26C/dehumidification 85% RH) are given, but no coordinates and no single summary “room temperature” trial mean (only setpoints and a statement that 10-min averages were logged to a database, values not given in text).

Physiological/functional parameters excluded from plant.csv: this paper’s title emphasizes “functional responses,” and most of its data (instantaneous gas exchange An/Tr/gs/WUE; photosynthetic light-response curve parameters Amax/quantum yield/dark respiration; the full JIP-test chlorophyll a fluorescence parameter set; the Photochemical Reflectance Index) is genuinely valuable but does not fit any of plant_measurements.csv’s four categories (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate), which are scoped to tissue analytes (pigments, phenolics, elements, microbial counts, proximate composition) rather than instantaneous physiological rate/efficiency measurements. Only photosynthetic pigment concentrations (biochemistry) and leaf elemental content (mineral) were extracted to plant.csv; the gas-exchange, fluorescence, light-curve and PRI datasets are summarized narratively in the note sections above and in trials.csv Experimental Remarks (representative values only) but have no CSV home under the current schema. Flagging per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to say so rather than force-fit or silently drop.

No water panel excluded — unlike some other papers in this batch, this paper does not report a measured water-quality panel at all (only a target/nominal nutrient recipe in Table 1 and the pH setpoint of 5.6), so there is no trial-mean water chemistry data being routed out of plant.csv; Table 1’s target formula is noted in trials.csv Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) for reference.

Tags judgment call: tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia because red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) was the aquaculture organism actually reared and its water used in the two aquaponic treatments, even though the paper’s own focus and all measurements are on the basil side.

Source: Mourantian et al. - 2023 - Basil functional and growth responses when cultiva.pdf

Data Tables

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

Trial Parameters

mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Protein	27
Feed routine	Ad libitum, 3x/day (09:00, 13:00, 17:00), Prodac Pondsticks Color, crude protein 27% DW, kept constant throughout the 60-day experiment (p.7)
Feed regime	Ad libitum
Fish trial duration (days)	60

Water

Field	Value
Aq pH	5.6 (kept constant across all three treatments via fertilizer-injection acid dosing, Methods p.6; no separate measured trial-mean +/- SD reported beyond the maintained setpoint)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Genovese)
Details	192 plants/treatment; RCBD, 6 channels/blocks per treatment, 18 channels total; transplanted at 4 plants/slab (2.4 plants/m2); 60-day cycle, harvests at D35 (intermediate, aerial part cut) and D60 (final)
Days Plant after transplant	60
Plants/m2	2.4

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Perlite slab substrate culture, drip-irrigated channels (p.4)
Media Details	Perlite slabs, 8 per channel; 18 channels of 8.5 m length; drip irrigation 2.31 L/h per channel (p.7)
Air supplement	Y (Air blower (Airtech Europe GmbH, Germany, 100 L h-1 as printed — see WARN-MINOR) with 22 medium-pore air diffusers (KW Airstone, 4 inch) aerating fish tanks and biofilters (p.5))
Iron supplemented	N (CAP receives fish-tank water directly, pH-adjusted only; no added fertilizer, so no separate Fe supplementation (p.6). HP’s own target Fe = 5 umol/L, Table 1.)
Remineralization	N (CAP water is not remineralized or fertilized, only pH-adjusted to 5.6 before reaching the crop (p.6).)
pH Buffers	Y (pH held at 5.6 in all three treatment solutions using a mix of nitric (1.07 L), phosphoric (1.06 L) and sulfuric acid (0.43 L) per 100 L nutrient solution, added via the fertilizer injection system (p.6))
Climate control	Y (Automated greenhouse climate controller; heating 18C, ventilation 21C, evaporative cooling 26C (fan and wet-pad), dehumidification 85% RH setpoints (p.5))
Nutrient supplemented	N (CAP receives fish-tank water directly with no fertilizer amendment, only pH correction to 5.6 (p.6).)
Equipment	UV-1900 Shimadzu dual-beam spectrophotometer (pigments, acetone extraction per Lichtenthaler & Wellburn 1983); LI-6400/XT LI-COR (gas exchange, light-response curves); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter, Hansatech Instruments (chlorophyll a fluorescence/JIP-test) with PeaPlus Software v.1-13; PlantPen PRI120, Photon Systems Instruments (PRI reflectance index); ICP-OES Spectrophotometer, SPECTRO Analytical Instruments GmbH (leaf elemental analysis, modified Kjeldahl digestion); Rotary Drum Filter, ProfIDrum B.V. (mechanical filtration); ceramic-ring + K1 Kaldnes-media biofilter with Prodibio Biodigest inoculant; Airtech Europe air blower + KW Airstone diffusers (aeration); JASP 0.14.0.0 (statistics)
Control Parameters	Solution pH held at 5.6 in all three treatments (nitric/phosphoric/sulfuric acid mix via fertilizer injection system); greenhouse climate setpoints: heating 18C, ventilation 21C, evaporative cooling 26C, dehumidification 85% RH; drip irrigation 2.31 L/h per channel; DCAP fertilizer input 10% less than HP
Combination	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) and basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Genovese) in a pilot-scale aquaponics greenhouse; this row = CAP vs HP comparison

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g DW (biomass by plant part); % DW (leaf macronutrients N,P,K,Mg,Ca); ppm DW (leaf micronutrients Fe,Zn,Cu); ug cm-2 (leaf pigments)
Statistic Details	One-way ANOVA + Tukey post-hoc (p<=0.05); Kruskal-Wallis for root/shoot ratio, car/chl ratio, WUE and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters where ANOVA assumptions not met; JASP 0.14.0.0
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = coupled aquaponics (CAP) treatment — basil irrigated directly with fish-tank water after pH correction to 5.6 only (no fertilizer amendment); drainage collected and returned to the fish tanks after UV sterilization, closing a single coupled loop (Methods, p.6, Fig.2B). Paired control = HP (hydroponic mineral solution per Table 1’s target formula), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells. Design: randomized complete block, 6 channels/blocks per treatment (18 channels total across 3 treatments), 192 plants/treatment, 4 plants/slab x 8 slabs/channel. | WARN-MATERIAL leaf Cu, final harvest (D60), p.16-17. Body text: ‘Although the differences in Zn and Cu were maintained in the final harvest (62.23 +/- 1.21 DCAP, 41.20 +/- 2.25 HP and 17.44 +/- 0.94 CAP for Zn, p<0.001; 12.42 +/- 0.94, 8.97 +/- 0.95 (p=0.031), and 7.40 +/- 1.64 (p=0.006) respectively for Cu)’. These D60 Cu values (DCAP 12.42+/-0.94, HP 8.97+/-0.95, CAP 7.40+/-1.64) are digit-for-digit identical, including SDs, to the D35 initial-harvest Cu values given two paragraphs earlier (‘12.42 +/- 0.94, 8.97 +/- 0.95, and 7.40 +/- 1.64 for Cu respectively’). Not reconcilable from the text alone: either Cu genuinely did not change between harvests (implausible to the stated precision) or the D35 row was copy-pasted into the D60 sentence. Recorded as literally stated for both harvests since both instances appear in running text; the paper states raw measurements are available in its Supplementary File, which would resolve this but was not fetched here. Affects: plant.csv Cu rows at D60 for all three systems. Does not affect any trials.csv cell (no dedicated Cu column exists there). | WARN-CHECK leaf N and K, harvest day unclear, p.16. Body text: ‘The differences among treatments found in the first measurement (Figs. 9A, 9B) were also retained in the final one (Figs. 9C, 9D). … CAP leaves compared to HP and DCAP contained significantly lower concentrations of N and K (3.77 +/- 0.05, 4.46 +/- 0.07 and 4.50 +/- 0.11 for N respectively, p<0.001; 3.08 +/- 0.05, 5.38 +/- 0.07 and 5.45 +/- 0.25 for K respectively), yet higher P, Mg and Ca only in the final harvest (values…)’. The P/Mg/Ca values that follow are explicitly labelled ‘only in the final harvest’ (D60), but the single set of N/K values given just before is not labelled with a harvest day at all — the surrounding sentence says the D35 pattern was ‘retained’ at D60, which could mean the quoted numbers are the D35 (first) values, the D60 (final) values, or a value common to both. No table separates N/K by harvest day; Figure 9 does (panels A/C for macronutrients at D35/D60) but per SCHEMA.md figure values are never read off a chart. Recorded in plant.csv with Location flagged ‘harvest day unclear’ rather than assigned to D35 or D60. Affects: plant.csv N and K rows for all three systems in both T1 and T2. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WARN-MINOR leaf P, DCAP final harvest SD, p.16 vs discussion p.16-17. Stated as ‘0.88 +/-0.01’ in the CAP/HP/DCAP three-way comparison sentence and restated as ‘0.88 +/- 0.1’ one paragraph later in the HP-vs-DCAP comparison sentence. Same mean (0.88), SD differs by a factor of 10 — most likely a typo (0.01 vs 0.1). No cell impact: the mean and the qualitative comparison (HP > DCAP for P at D60) are unaffected either way. Recorded 0.01 in plant.csv (the first-stated value). | WARN-MINOR air blower output unit, p.5. Text states ‘an air blower (Airtech Europe GmbH, Germany, 100 L h-1)’ aerating three 1,500 L fish tanks plus biofilters via 22 diffusers; 100 L/h is implausibly low for this duty (a comparable paper from the same research group/facility, Levizou et al. 2025, states 100 m3/h for what appears to be the same or an equivalent blower). Likely a unit typo (L h-1 for m3 h-1). Transcribed as printed in Air supplementDetails; no dedicated column is affected. | Value-order attribution (methodology note, not a contradiction): several sentences list three numbers for ‘CAP, HP, DCAP’ or ‘DCAP, HP, CAP’ using the word ‘respectively’ without re-stating the treatment labels next to each number (e.g. the P/Mg/Ca final-harvest sentence and the Fe/Zn/Cu initial-harvest sentence, both p.16-17). Order was inferred from (a) the order treatments are named earlier in the same sentence, and (b) internal consistency with the qualitative claim (‘higher’/‘lower’) made in the same sentence, and (c) for P specifically, cross-checked against the separate HP-vs-DCAP restatement (‘0.98 HP compared to 0.88 DCAP’). Every assignment used here was checked and found consistent. This is reading comprehension of stated values, not inference of unstated values, but is flagged for auditability since the paper does not label each number individually. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) (paper gives initial system biomass 22.56 kg and final 50 kg separately, p.7, but never states a gain/increase figure; computing 50-22.56 would be derivation); Initial Stock density, Fish size initial/final (only aggregate tank-level biomass given for 410 fish collectively, no per-fish mean weight or kg/m3 density stated); Fish survival rate (no mortality/survival % stated — text only says ‘surviving animals were kept in the tanks to run…the next experiment’, p.7); Total Feed (kg) (feeding frequency, ration description and feed brand/protein % are given but no total kg consumed over the trial); Water volume in the system (component volumes given individually — 3x1,500 L fish tanks, 650 L buffer, 2,500 L sump — but mechanical filter/biofilter volumes are not stated and the paper never sums a system total, so recording one would be derivation); Water recycle L/min (only drip-irrigation delivery rate to channels, 2.31 L/h, is given, not a recycle/return flow rate); Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N (no measured water-quality trial means reported anywhere in the paper; Table 1’s 682 mg/L NO3- and 18 mg/L NH4+ are TARGET nutrient-solution formula concentrations, not measured RAS/water panel values — see NO COLUMN); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter %, SPAD (growth is reported only as oven-dried biomass by plant part at two harvests, p.10-11; no height, leaf count, fresh weight, % dry matter or SPAD-meter reading is given — pigments were assessed spectrophotometrically, not with a SPAD meter); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (not assessed at all); FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE (system-level) (DCAP’s 10% lower total fertilizer input, p.6, is a fertilizer-savings statement, not a stated efficiency ratio matching these columns; a leaf-level instantaneous photosynthetic WUE, umol CO2 mmol-1 H2O, is reported extensively but is a different quantity, see NO COLUMN); AP, HYD (yield) (growth reported only as per-plant-part dry weight at two harvests, p.10-11, not as a single fresh-weight or per-m2 yield figure — no single canonical value exists to record without choosing among plant parts/harvests, which would be a judgment call the paper does not make for us); Lat, Long (facility described only as ‘Velestino, Central Greece, University of Thessaly’, p.5 — no coordinates stated in this paper; not carried over from other papers describing the same facility, e.g. Levizou et al. 2025); Average room Temperature (greenhouse setpoints given as control bands, 18-26C, not a measured trial-mean room temperature); Plant Category, Fish Category, Water type, Water classification (no categorising term used); Aq pH measured mean (the paper states pH was ‘kept constant at 5.6’ for all three treatments as a control setpoint, p.6; no separately-reported measured trial-mean +/- SD is given, so this is recorded as the maintained value rather than split into a target/measured pair). | NO COLUMN: Table 1 target nutrient-solution formula for HP (and DCAP’s starting point before amendment) — NO3- 682, NH4+ 18, P 97, K 200, Ca 150, Mg 80, S 288 mg/L; Fe 5, B 20, Cu 1, Mn 5, Zn 5, Mo 5 umol/L (p.6-7); these are recipe targets, not measured water-quality trial means, so they do not populate TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, EC etc. Leaf Mn (ppm DW) — measured per Methods (p.16, same ICP-OES panel as Fe/Zn/Cu) but no numeric value for this paper’s own plants is given anywhere in Results or Discussion text (Mn appears only in a Discussion citation of Roosta 2014’s K/Fe/Mn-deficiency finding, a different paper); omitted from plant.csv rather than fabricated. Leaf-level instantaneous gas exchange (An, Tr, gs, iWUE) at 15-day intervals; photosynthetic light-response curve parameters (Amax, quantum yield, dark respiration); full JIP-test chlorophyll a fluorescence parameter set (Fv/Fm, phiEo, phiRo, psiEo, deltaRo, 1-Vi, 1/Vi, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, PItotal, PIabs, Sm) at D30/D60; PRI index (predawn and midday) at D10/D17/D24/D30/D51/D60 — none of these fit plant_measurements.csv’s four analyte categories (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate), which are scoped to tissue analytes rather than instantaneous physiological rate/efficiency measurements; summarized narratively in the note. Root:shoot ratio (D35: CAP 0.16+/-0.04, DCAP 0.13+/-0.05, HP 0.14+/-0.05; p=0.034 CAP vs DCAP) — a derived ratio the paper itself reports, no dedicated column. Ethics/animal-welfare approval details (EU Directive 2010/63/EU; Animal Care and Use Ethics Committee approval 6/28-01-2021; facility EL-43BIO/exp-02, University of Thessaly).

mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)
Protein	27
Feed routine	Ad libitum, 3x/day (09:00, 13:00, 17:00), Prodac Pondsticks Color, crude protein 27% DW, kept constant throughout the 60-day experiment (p.7)
Feed regime	Ad libitum
Fish trial duration (days)	60

Water

Field	Value
Aq pH	5.6 (kept constant across all three treatments via fertilizer-injection acid dosing, Methods p.6; no separate measured trial-mean +/- SD reported beyond the maintained setpoint)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Genovese)
Details	192 plants/treatment; RCBD, 6 channels/blocks per treatment, 18 channels total; transplanted at 4 plants/slab (2.4 plants/m2); 60-day cycle, harvests at D35 (intermediate, aerial part cut) and D60 (final)
Days Plant after transplant	60
Plants/m2	2.4

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Perlite slab substrate culture, drip-irrigated channels (p.4)
Media Details	Perlite slabs, 8 per channel; 18 channels of 8.5 m length; drip irrigation 2.31 L/h per channel (p.7)
Air supplement	Y (Air blower (Airtech Europe GmbH, Germany, 100 L h-1 as printed — see WARN-MINOR) with 22 medium-pore air diffusers (KW Airstone, 4 inch) aerating fish tanks and biofilters (p.5))
Iron supplemented	Y (DCAP water enriched with fertilizers to reach HP target values per Table 1, which includes Fe 5 umol/L; not independently confirmed by a separate Fe water measurement in this paper (p.6-7).)
Remineralization	Y (DCAP: fish-tank water nutrient content measured weekly and fertilizers added to reach HP target concentrations (Table 1); total fertilizer input 10% less than HP (p.6-7).)
pH Buffers	Y (pH held at 5.6 in all three treatment solutions using a mix of nitric (1.07 L), phosphoric (1.06 L) and sulfuric acid (0.43 L) per 100 L nutrient solution, added via the fertilizer injection system (p.6))
Climate control	Y (Automated greenhouse climate controller; heating 18C, ventilation 21C, evaporative cooling 26C (fan and wet-pad), dehumidification 85% RH setpoints (p.5))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (DCAP water enriched with mineral fertilizers weekly (measured then dosed) to reach HP target nutrient concentrations per Table 1; overall fertilizer use 10% less than HP (p.6-7).)
Equipment	UV-1900 Shimadzu dual-beam spectrophotometer (pigments, acetone extraction per Lichtenthaler & Wellburn 1983); LI-6400/XT LI-COR (gas exchange, light-response curves); Handy PEA+ fluorimeter, Hansatech Instruments (chlorophyll a fluorescence/JIP-test) with PeaPlus Software v.1-13; PlantPen PRI120, Photon Systems Instruments (PRI reflectance index); ICP-OES Spectrophotometer, SPECTRO Analytical Instruments GmbH (leaf elemental analysis, modified Kjeldahl digestion); Rotary Drum Filter, ProfIDrum B.V. (mechanical filtration); ceramic-ring + K1 Kaldnes-media biofilter with Prodibio Biodigest inoculant; Airtech Europe air blower + KW Airstone diffusers (aeration); JASP 0.14.0.0 (statistics)
Control Parameters	Solution pH held at 5.6 in all three treatments (nitric/phosphoric/sulfuric acid mix via fertilizer injection system); greenhouse climate setpoints: heating 18C, ventilation 21C, evaporative cooling 26C, dehumidification 85% RH; drip irrigation 2.31 L/h per channel; DCAP fertilizer input 10% less than HP
Combination	Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) and basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Genovese) in a pilot-scale aquaponics greenhouse; this row = DCAP vs HP comparison

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Greece

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g DW (biomass by plant part); % DW (leaf macronutrients N,P,K,Mg,Ca); ppm DW (leaf micronutrients Fe,Zn,Cu); ug cm-2 (leaf pigments)
Statistic Details	One-way ANOVA + Tukey post-hoc (p<=0.05); Kruskal-Wallis for root/shoot ratio, car/chl ratio, WUE and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters where ANOVA assumptions not met; JASP 0.14.0.0
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	6

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = decoupled aquaponics (DCAP) treatment — fish-tank water measured weekly and enriched with mineral fertilizers to reach HP nutrient targets (Table 1), then pH-adjusted to 5.6; drainage is discharged, not returned to the fish tanks (open/decoupled loop, Methods p.6, Fig.2B). Paired control = HP, recorded in the HYD-labelled cells (same HP values as T1’s HYD columns, repeated per one-row-per-treatment convention). Same shared RAS/fish population as T1. Design: randomized complete block, 6 channels/blocks per treatment (18 channels total across 3 treatments), 192 plants/treatment, 4 plants/slab x 8 slabs/channel. | WARN-MATERIAL leaf Cu, final harvest (D60), p.16-17. Body text: ‘Although the differences in Zn and Cu were maintained in the final harvest (62.23 +/- 1.21 DCAP, 41.20 +/- 2.25 HP and 17.44 +/- 0.94 CAP for Zn, p<0.001; 12.42 +/- 0.94, 8.97 +/- 0.95 (p=0.031), and 7.40 +/- 1.64 (p=0.006) respectively for Cu)’. These D60 Cu values (DCAP 12.42+/-0.94, HP 8.97+/-0.95, CAP 7.40+/-1.64) are digit-for-digit identical, including SDs, to the D35 initial-harvest Cu values given two paragraphs earlier (‘12.42 +/- 0.94, 8.97 +/- 0.95, and 7.40 +/- 1.64 for Cu respectively’). Not reconcilable from the text alone: either Cu genuinely did not change between harvests (implausible to the stated precision) or the D35 row was copy-pasted into the D60 sentence. Recorded as literally stated for both harvests since both instances appear in running text; the paper states raw measurements are available in its Supplementary File, which would resolve this but was not fetched here. Affects: plant.csv Cu rows at D60 for all three systems. Does not affect any trials.csv cell (no dedicated Cu column exists there). | WARN-CHECK leaf N and K, harvest day unclear, p.16. Body text: ‘The differences among treatments found in the first measurement (Figs. 9A, 9B) were also retained in the final one (Figs. 9C, 9D). … CAP leaves compared to HP and DCAP contained significantly lower concentrations of N and K (3.77 +/- 0.05, 4.46 +/- 0.07 and 4.50 +/- 0.11 for N respectively, p<0.001; 3.08 +/- 0.05, 5.38 +/- 0.07 and 5.45 +/- 0.25 for K respectively), yet higher P, Mg and Ca only in the final harvest (values…)’. The P/Mg/Ca values that follow are explicitly labelled ‘only in the final harvest’ (D60), but the single set of N/K values given just before is not labelled with a harvest day at all — the surrounding sentence says the D35 pattern was ‘retained’ at D60, which could mean the quoted numbers are the D35 (first) values, the D60 (final) values, or a value common to both. No table separates N/K by harvest day; Figure 9 does (panels A/C for macronutrients at D35/D60) but per SCHEMA.md figure values are never read off a chart. Recorded in plant.csv with Location flagged ‘harvest day unclear’ rather than assigned to D35 or D60. Affects: plant.csv N and K rows for all three systems in both T1 and T2. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WARN-MINOR leaf P, DCAP final harvest SD, p.16 vs discussion p.16-17. Stated as ‘0.88 +/-0.01’ in the CAP/HP/DCAP three-way comparison sentence and restated as ‘0.88 +/- 0.1’ one paragraph later in the HP-vs-DCAP comparison sentence. Same mean (0.88), SD differs by a factor of 10 — most likely a typo (0.01 vs 0.1). No cell impact: the mean and the qualitative comparison (HP > DCAP for P at D60) are unaffected either way. Recorded 0.01 in plant.csv (the first-stated value). | WARN-MINOR air blower output unit, p.5. Text states ‘an air blower (Airtech Europe GmbH, Germany, 100 L h-1)’ aerating three 1,500 L fish tanks plus biofilters via 22 diffusers; 100 L/h is implausibly low for this duty (a comparable paper from the same research group/facility, Levizou et al. 2025, states 100 m3/h for what appears to be the same or an equivalent blower). Likely a unit typo (L h-1 for m3 h-1). Transcribed as printed in Air supplementDetails; no dedicated column is affected. | Value-order attribution (methodology note, not a contradiction): several sentences list three numbers for ‘CAP, HP, DCAP’ or ‘DCAP, HP, CAP’ using the word ‘respectively’ without re-stating the treatment labels next to each number (e.g. the P/Mg/Ca final-harvest sentence and the Fe/Zn/Cu initial-harvest sentence, both p.16-17). Order was inferred from (a) the order treatments are named earlier in the same sentence, and (b) internal consistency with the qualitative claim (‘higher’/‘lower’) made in the same sentence, and (c) for P specifically, cross-checked against the separate HP-vs-DCAP restatement (‘0.98 HP compared to 0.88 DCAP’). Every assignment used here was checked and found consistent. This is reading comprehension of stated values, not inference of unstated values, but is flagged for auditability since the paper does not label each number individually. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish biomass created (kg) (paper gives initial system biomass 22.56 kg and final 50 kg separately, p.7, but never states a gain/increase figure; computing 50-22.56 would be derivation); Initial Stock density, Fish size initial/final (only aggregate tank-level biomass given for 410 fish collectively, no per-fish mean weight or kg/m3 density stated); Fish survival rate (no mortality/survival % stated — text only says ‘surviving animals were kept in the tanks to run…the next experiment’, p.7); Total Feed (kg) (feeding frequency, ration description and feed brand/protein % are given but no total kg consumed over the trial); Water volume in the system (component volumes given individually — 3x1,500 L fish tanks, 650 L buffer, 2,500 L sump — but mechanical filter/biofilter volumes are not stated and the paper never sums a system total, so recording one would be derivation); Water recycle L/min (only drip-irrigation delivery rate to channels, 2.31 L/h, is given, not a recycle/return flow rate); Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N (no measured water-quality trial means reported anywhere in the paper; Table 1’s 682 mg/L NO3- and 18 mg/L NH4+ are TARGET nutrient-solution formula concentrations, not measured RAS/water panel values — see NO COLUMN); Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter %, SPAD (growth is reported only as oven-dried biomass by plant part at two harvests, p.10-11; no height, leaf count, fresh weight, % dry matter or SPAD-meter reading is given — pigments were assessed spectrophotometrically, not with a SPAD meter); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (not assessed at all); FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE (system-level) (DCAP’s 10% lower total fertilizer input, p.6, is a fertilizer-savings statement, not a stated efficiency ratio matching these columns; a leaf-level instantaneous photosynthetic WUE, umol CO2 mmol-1 H2O, is reported extensively but is a different quantity, see NO COLUMN); AP, HYD (yield) (growth reported only as per-plant-part dry weight at two harvests, p.10-11, not as a single fresh-weight or per-m2 yield figure — no single canonical value exists to record without choosing among plant parts/harvests, which would be a judgment call the paper does not make for us); Lat, Long (facility described only as ‘Velestino, Central Greece, University of Thessaly’, p.5 — no coordinates stated in this paper; not carried over from other papers describing the same facility, e.g. Levizou et al. 2025); Average room Temperature (greenhouse setpoints given as control bands, 18-26C, not a measured trial-mean room temperature); Plant Category, Fish Category, Water type, Water classification (no categorising term used); Aq pH measured mean (the paper states pH was ‘kept constant at 5.6’ for all three treatments as a control setpoint, p.6; no separately-reported measured trial-mean +/- SD is given, so this is recorded as the maintained value rather than split into a target/measured pair). | NO COLUMN: Table 1 target nutrient-solution formula for HP (and DCAP’s starting point before amendment) — NO3- 682, NH4+ 18, P 97, K 200, Ca 150, Mg 80, S 288 mg/L; Fe 5, B 20, Cu 1, Mn 5, Zn 5, Mo 5 umol/L (p.6-7); these are recipe targets, not measured water-quality trial means, so they do not populate TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, EC etc. Leaf Mn (ppm DW) — measured per Methods (p.16, same ICP-OES panel as Fe/Zn/Cu) but no numeric value for this paper’s own plants is given anywhere in Results or Discussion text (Mn appears only in a Discussion citation of Roosta 2014’s K/Fe/Mn-deficiency finding, a different paper); omitted from plant.csv rather than fabricated. Leaf-level instantaneous gas exchange (An, Tr, gs, iWUE) at 15-day intervals; photosynthetic light-response curve parameters (Amax, quantum yield, dark respiration); full JIP-test chlorophyll a fluorescence parameter set (Fv/Fm, phiEo, phiRo, psiEo, deltaRo, 1-Vi, 1/Vi, ABS/RC, TRo/RC, DIo/RC, PItotal, PIabs, Sm) at D30/D60; PRI index (predawn and midday) at D10/D17/D24/D30/D51/D60 — none of these fit plant_measurements.csv’s four analyte categories (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate), which are scoped to tissue analytes rather than instantaneous physiological rate/efficiency measurements; summarized narratively in the note. Root:shoot ratio (D35: CAP 0.16+/-0.04, DCAP 0.13+/-0.05, HP 0.14+/-0.05; p=0.034 CAP vs DCAP) — a derived ratio the paper itself reports, no dedicated column. Ethics/animal-welfare approval details (EU Directive 2010/63/EU; Animal Care and Use Ethics Committee approval 6/28-01-2021; facility EL-43BIO/exp-02, University of Thessaly).

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Nitrogen (N)	3.77 ± 0.05	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Nitrogen (N)	4.46 ± 0.07	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Nitrogen (N)	4.50 ± 0.11	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Nitrogen (N)	4.46 ± 0.07	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Potassium (K)	3.08 ± 0.05	% DW	p=0.037 (CAP vs HP)	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K)	5.38 ± 0.07	% DW	p=0.037 (CAP vs HP)	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Potassium (K)	5.45 ± 0.25	% DW	p=0.013 (CAP vs DCAP)	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K)	5.38 ± 0.07	% DW	NR	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Phosphorus (P)	1.46 ± 0.003	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Phosphorus (P)	0.98 ± 0.01	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Phosphorus (P)	0.88 ± 0.01	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Phosphorus (P)	0.98 ± 0.01	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg)	0.73 ± 0.01	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg)	0.38 ± 0.003	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg)	0.36 ± 0.004	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg)	0.38 ± 0.003	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca)	2.39 ± 0.04	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca)	1.92 ± 0.02	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca)	1.92 ± 0.02	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca)	1.92 ± 0.02	% DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Iron (Fe)	89.24 ± 8.42	ppm DW	p=0.008	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Iron (Fe)	79.15 ± 17.32	ppm DW	p=0.004	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Iron (Fe)	148.43 ± 18.98	ppm DW	p=0.004 (vs HP), p=0.008 (vs CAP)	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Iron (Fe)	79.15 ± 17.32	ppm DW	p=0.004	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	13.63 ± 0.03	ppm DW	p=0.004	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	30.19 ± 0.15	ppm DW	p=0.004	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	52.67 ± 2.84	ppm DW	p=0.004	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	30.19 ± 0.15	ppm DW	p=0.004	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Copper (Cu)	7.40 ± 1.64	ppm DW	p=0.009	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Copper (Cu)	8.97 ± 0.95	ppm DW	p=0.009	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Copper (Cu)	12.42 ± 0.94	ppm DW	p=0.009	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Copper (Cu)	8.97 ± 0.95	ppm DW	p=0.009	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.16-17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Iron (Fe)	52.54 ± 5.83	ppm DW	p=0.038	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Iron (Fe)	66.10 ± 1.78	ppm DW	p=0.038	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Iron (Fe)	57.15 ± 0.46	ppm DW	p=0.038	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Iron (Fe)	66.10 ± 1.78	ppm DW	p=0.038	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	17.44 ± 0.94	ppm DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	41.20 ± 2.25	ppm DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	62.23 ± 1.21	ppm DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	41.20 ± 2.25	ppm DW	p<0.001	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	mineral	Copper (Cu)	7.40 ± 1.64	ppm DW	p=0.006	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	mineral	Copper (Cu)	8.97 ± 0.95	ppm DW	p=0.031	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	mineral	Copper (Cu)	12.42 ± 0.94	ppm DW	NR	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	mineral	Copper (Cu)	8.97 ± 0.95	ppm DW	p=0.031	Results, ‘Leaf elemental analysis’, p.17
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	24.61 ± 0.53	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	31.73 ± 3.79	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	25.06 ± 3.19	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	31.73 ± 3.79	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	5.33 ± 0.34	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	6.47 ± 0.89	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	5.35 ± 0.58	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	6.47 ± 0.89	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	7.03 ± 0.48	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	8.48 ± 0.97	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	7.00 ± 0.65	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	8.48 ± 0.97	ug/cm2	NR	Results, ‘Photosynthetic pigments content’, p.10-11

Quartz 5

Explorer

Basil functional and growth responses when cultivated via different aquaponic and hydroponics systems

Basil functional and growth responses when cultivated via different aquaponic and hydroponics systems

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Growth and biomass

Leaf nutrient status and photosynthetic down-regulation

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T1

mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023-T2

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks