Extension of Aquaponic Water Use for NFT Baby-Leaf Production: Mizuna and Rocket Salad

Metadata

• Cite key: nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018
• Item type: Journal Article
• Authors: C. Nicoletto, C. Maucieri, A. Mathis, Z. Schmautz, T. Komives, P. Sambo, R. Junge
• Affiliation: Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova (Italy); Institute of Natural Resource Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW, Switzerland); Plant Protection Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Faculty of Agricultural Science, Esterhazy Karoly University (Hungary)
• Journal: Agronomy 8 (2018) 75 (18 pp.)
• Date: 05/2018 (received 16 April 2018; accepted 14 May 2018; published 17 May 2018)
• Date added: [not reported]
• DOI: 10.3390/agronomy8050075
• Funding: COST Action FA1305 “The EU Aquaponics Hub; Realising Sustainable Integrated Fish and Vegetable Production for the EU”; COST-STSM-ECOST-STSM-FA1305-011016-080268 grant to Carlo Nicoletto; Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova
• URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8050075
• PDF: Nicoletto et al. - 2018 - Extension of Aquaponic Water Use for NFT Baby-Leaf.pdf

Opinion

A well-controlled RCBD experiment (3 water types x 3 replicates x 2 growth cycles) with genuinely useful data on reusing spent aquaponic water for a decoupled, secondary NFT crop. The core finding (P/K supplementation of AP water rescues yield to hydroponic-control levels, and may even outperform HC for mizuna) is clearly supported. The main weakness for extraction is presentational, not methodological: most of the plant-side quantitative results (yield, plant height, chlorophyll, dry matter) are reported only as bar/line charts with significance letters, not as table or in-text numbers, so a lot of otherwise solid data is unusable under a “never read a figure” rule. Table 4 (antioxidants) and Tables 5-6 (plant mineral ions) are the only genuinely tabulated plant-analyte data. Worth citing for the water-reuse framing and the CAPW biostimulant discussion.

Abstract

Aquaponics is a recirculating technology that combines aquaculture with hydroponics. It allows nutrients from fish waste to feed plants and thus saves water and nutrients. However, there is a mismatch between the nutrients provided by the fish waste and plant needs. Because of this, some nutrients, notably N, tend to accumulate in the aquaponic water (APW or AP water). The aim of this study was to investigate how APW, which is depleted of P and K but still rich in N, could be further utilized. APW was used in a mesocosm and compared with APW from the same source that had been supplemented with macro-nutrients (complemented AP water or CAPW) and a hydroponic control (HC). Mizuna (M) and rocket salad (R) were used as short-cycle vegetable crops in a NFT system. The results revealed that the low production potential of APW was mainly caused by the lack of P and K. If these were supplemented, the yields were comparable to those in the HC. M yield in CAPW was significantly higher than that of HC, probably due to biostimulant effects connected to the organic components in the water as a result of fish farming. Water type, cultivation density, and intercropping significantly influenced the qualitative characteristics of the crop in terms of antioxidant compounds and minerals. Nitrate content in vegetables was lower than European regulation limits. The extended use of APW is viable if the missing nutrients are supplemented; this could be a strategy to increase the efficiency of water and nitrogen use, while further reducing environmental impact.

Summary

Water from an existing pangasius-based aquaponic system (background system, not manipulated in this study) was diverted into nine 275 L NFT mesocosms and used, either raw (APW), supplemented with P/K plus meso- and micro-nutrients (CAPW), or replaced entirely by a matched hydroponic nutrient solution (HC), to grow mizuna and rocket salad baby-leaf as a secondary, decoupled crop. The design was a randomized complete block, 3 water treatments x 3 replicates, with 6 vegetable sub-treatments (2 species x monoculture/intercrop x high/low density) nested inside each replicate, run over two consecutive growth cycles. Raw APW produced very poor yields (authors state “<0.5 kg m-2”) because it was essentially depleted of P and K even though N remained high; once P/K and micronutrients were added back (CAPW), yields recovered to hydroponic-control levels, and mizuna yield under CAPW was reported as significantly higher than under HC, which the authors attribute to a possible biostimulant effect of dissolved organic matter/microbial content carried over from the fish system. Plants grown in APW accumulated far higher tissue concentrations of most ions (notably NO3-, NH4+, Cl-, Ca2+) but showed higher antioxidant capacity, total phenols, and vitamin C, consistent with a stress response to nutrient imbalance. Tissue nitrate stayed below EU regulatory limits in all treatments. The paper is useful primarily as a proof-of-concept for extending/reusing aquaponic effluent for a fast, decoupled secondary crop rather than as a source of precise, reusable numeric yield data, because most productivity and morphology results are presented only in bar/line charts with Tukey letters rather than as text or table values.

---

Experiment data

• Location: Foliar-tunnel greenhouse, Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Wädenswil, Switzerland
• Design: Randomized complete block design, 3 nutrient/water solutions (HC, APW, CAPW) x 3 replicates = 9 mesocosms; 4 NFT channels per mesocosm carrying 6 vegetable sub-treatments (MHD, RHD, MIHD, RIHD, MILD, RILD); 2 consecutive growth cycles
• Replicates / n: 3 (per water treatment, RCBD blocks)
• Duration: Cycle 1: 2 February-3 March 2017; Cycle 2: 3 March-30 April 2017 (see ⚠️CHECK below on reconciling this with the DAS axes used throughout the figures)
• Organisms: Mizuna (Brassica rapa L. spp. Nipposinica), Rocket salad (Eruca vesicaria); water sourced from a pre-existing recirculating aquaponic system stocked with pangasius (not studied/manipulated here)
• Statistics: ANOVA, Tukey HSD post-hoc (p < 0.05); software [not reported]
• Yield: APW yield “lower than 0.5 kg m-2” (text); CAPW and HC yields not comparable in this paper’s own text (chart-only, Figures 8-9)
• Nitrate (NO3) in tissue: stayed below EU Regulation No. 1258/2011 limits for the leafy species studied (stated, no side-by-side numeric comparison given)

---

Water treatments and design

This paper: Water for a secondary NFT baby-leaf crop was diverted from an already-existing recirculating AP system (150 pangasius, ~300 g average, 3 m³ tank, 7.6 m² planted area, 7 m³ total AP water volume — background context only, this system itself was not experimentally manipulated). Three nutrient solutions were compared: HC (hydroponic control, nitrate-matched to the fish water), APW (raw aquaponic water, depleted of P/K), and CAPW (APW supplemented with P, K, and meso-/micro-nutrients to match HC). Target composition given in Table 1 (p.3). The three solutions were compared in a randomized complete block design (3 replicates).

Compared with:

• todo Al-Hafedh 2008 — food production/water conservation ratios in recirculating aquaponics (cited on the mismatch between fish feed input and plant growing area)
• todo Bittsanszky et al. 2016 — nutrient supply of plants in aquaponic systems (cited on P/K depletion mechanism)
• todo Delaide et al. 2016 — lettuce growth performance in complemented aquaponic solution outperforms hydroponics (direct precedent for the CAPW biostimulant effect claimed here)

Yield and plant growth

This paper: Mizuna consistently out-yielded rocket salad. CAPW gave the highest yields overall; CAPW differed significantly from HC only in the second cycle (text, p.11). Mizuna yield under CAPW was significantly higher than under HC in the first cycle (Figure 9, p.11), attributed to a possible biostimulant effect of organic matter/microorganisms from the fish system. APW yields were characterized as “lower than 0.5 kg m-2” (text, p.11) — the only text-stated yield figure; all other yield values (per water treatment, per vegetable treatment, and the full species x water interaction) exist only as bar charts (Figures 8, 9) with Tukey letters and are not extracted here per the “never read a value off a figure” rule.

Plant height: mizuna reached “close to 12 cm” in the final phase of both cycles; rocket salad reached 5.5-8.0 cm (cycle 1) but did not exceed 6 cm (cycle 2); rocket salad height in the APW system did not exceed 3 cm (text, p.9). These are narrative approximate figures, not read off Figure 6.

Dry matter: CAPW dry matter was “>14%” in both cycles; the highest overall value (>16%) was recorded for RHD (rocket, high density, no intercropping) (text, p.11-12). Chlorophyll (SPAD) values are chart-only (Figure 7), no text summary — not extracted.

Compared with:

• todo D’Imperio et al. 2016 — soilless baby-leaf calcium biofortification, reports mizuna-type yields close to 4.2 kg m-2 in HC/CAPW-equivalent systems, higher than this paper’s own values (secondary comparison, p.15)
• todo Santamaria, Elia & Serio 2002; Tuncay et al. 2011 — rocket salad yields in hydroponics reported 75% higher than this paper’s own rocket productivity (secondary comparison, p.15)

Antioxidants and mineral content (Tables 4-6)

This paper: Antioxidant capacity (AOC) and total phenols (TP) were significantly higher in APW and HC than in CAPW in both cycles (Table 4); vitamin C was highest in APW. Interpreted as a stress response to nutrient imbalance in APW. Mineral ion content in leaf tissue (Cl-, NO2-, NO3-, PO4³-, SO4²-, Na+, NH4+, K+, Mg²+, Ca²+, all mg/kg dw) was measured by ion chromatography (Tables 5-6): APW plants accumulated far higher NO3-, NH4+, Cl-, Na+, SO4²-, Mg²+ and Ca²+ than HC/CAPW plants, while PO4³- and K+ were higher in HC/CAPW. Tissue nitrate did not exceed EU Regulation No. 1258/2011 limits for the species tested (stated, no numeric side-by-side comparison given). Nutrient-solution-level (HC/APW/CAPW, pooled across vegetable treatments) and vegetable-treatment-level (MHD/MIHD/MILD/RHD/RIHD/RILD, pooled across water treatments) marginal means are both given in Tables 4-6, but the full species x water-treatment interaction cell values are not tabulated (only significance flagged as */ns for the W x V interaction row) — see Extraction notes.

Compared with:

• todo Martínez-Sánchez et al. 2008 — comparative antioxidant/vitamin C study across baby-leaf Brassicaceae, found no significant AOC difference between rocket and mizuna, in agreement with this paper’s own values (p.15)
• todo Maucieri et al. 2017 — vegetable intercropping in a small-scale aquaponic system, similar intercropping-driven antioxidant increase reported for red chicory-lettuce (p.15)

Linked claims

• Aquaponic water depleted of P and K can be reused for a secondary hydroponic crop if supplemented
• Complemented aquaponic water can outperform hydroponic control due to biostimulant effects
• Nutrient-stressed plants show elevated antioxidant capacity and tissue ion concentrations

Citations to chase

• todo Al-Hafedh, Alam & Beltagi (2008) — food production/water conservation trade-offs, feed-to-plant-area ratios in aquaponics
• todo Bittsanszky et al. (2016) — nutrient supply of plants in aquaponic systems (P/K depletion mechanism)
• todo Delaide et al. (2016) — complemented aquaponic solution outperforming hydroponics in lettuce (direct precedent for this paper’s CAPW result)
• todo D’Imperio et al. (2016) — soilless “baby leaf” calcium biofortification, comparative mizuna-type yields
• todo Santamaria, Elia & Serio (2002); Tuncay et al. (2011) — hydroponic rocket salad yield benchmarks
• todo Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2008) — comparative antioxidant/vitamin C in baby-leaf Brassicaceae
• todo Maucieri et al. (2017) — vegetable intercropping in a small-scale aquaponic system

Extraction notes

Type classification: experiment. Randomized complete block design, 3 defined water treatments x 3 replicates x 2 growth cycles, ANOVA + Tukey HSD, original data collected by the authors. Note: the Zotero item for this paper carries the tag review in zotero-export.csv — this appears to be a vault workflow/screening tag (alongside ✔️, aquaponics, comparisontable), not a determination of paper type; reading the full text confirms this is a controlled experiment, not a review, so review was not used.

Fish block: The pangasius-stocked AP system is a pre-existing, already-operating background system whose water was diverted to feed the mesocosms; it is not manipulated, fed, or monitored as part of this study’s own experimental design (no FCR, survival, growth, or feed-regime data are reported for it). Per schema guidance for papers missing part of the design, the numeric fish-performance columns (FCR, SGR, feed composition, feed regime, fish size initial/final, biomass created, survival, weight gain, trial duration) are recorded NA. The stated “150 pangasius fish, ~300 g average, 3 m³ tank, 7.6 m² planted area, 7 m³ total AP water volume” is preserved as background context in Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) rather than forced into stocking-density/fish-size cells, since fish count/tank volume is explicitly not a substitute for a stated density (schema rule) and 300 g describes an ongoing population, not a stocking-to-harvest trial value. Meta/Fish/ tag was not applied — the paper does not study pangasius, only reuses its wastewater (judgment call per CLAUDE.md: “only tag an organism if the paper studied it”).

⚠️CHECK Growth cycle duration. Methods 2.2 (p.4) states Cycle 1 = “2 February-3 March 2017” (29 calendar days) and Cycle 2 = “3 March-30 April 2017” (58 calendar days). However, every DAS-axis figure in the paper (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10) plots data for both cycles only up to approximately 30-35 DAS — Cycle 2’s chart data does not extend anywhere near 58 days. Harvest was triggered physiologically (plant height 100-120 mm), not on a fixed calendar day, so the two figures may describe different things: the calendar window for cycle 2 could include operational time (system downtime, staggered treatment harvests, etc.) beyond the actively-tracked growth period, rather than a true ~58-day single growth duration. No text reconciles the two. Recorded in Days Plant after transplant as NA (crop was direct-seeded in NFT channels, not transplanted, so the column does not strictly apply) with the ~30-35 DAS-to-harvest figure and the unreconciled calendar-date discrepancy noted under NO COLUMN in Experimental Remarks. Added to REVIEW.md.

WARN-MINOR (no cell impact) — two narrative percentage claims don’t recompute cleanly. Discussion (p.11-12) states plant Ca2+ in APW differed from HC/CAPW “on average… 70.3% and 73.3%” and NH4+ “82.1% and 83.7%” respectively. Recomputing (APW-X)/APW from Tables 5-6 cycle-averaged data reproduces the NH4+ figures closely (~82-84%) but for Ca2+ gives ~73.2% vs HC and ~70.2% vs CAPW — i.e., the HC/CAPW labels for the two Ca percentages appear possibly swapped relative to what the underlying table data supports. No trials.csv/plant.csv cell is affected (no column captures this narrative percentage), so this is recorded as MINOR, not scored.

Tissue nitrate unit mismatch. Schema’s Tissue nitrate AP/HYD column is defined in mg/kg fw; this paper reports leaf-tissue NO3- only in mg/kg dw (Tables 5-6). Converting dw to fw would require the paper’s own dry-matter percentage and constitutes derivation (not permitted), so Tissue nitrate AP / Tissue nitrate HYD are recorded NR in trials.csv; the as-reported dw values are captured in plant.csv under Category: mineral, Analyte: Nitrate (NO3-), Unit: mg/kg dw.

Data availability / “too valuable to discard” flag: Tables 4, 5, and 6 report two separate marginal breakdowns — by nutrient solution (HC/APW/CAPW, pooled across all 6 vegetable treatments) and by vegetable treatment (MHD/MIHD/MILD/RHD/RIHD/RILD, pooled across all 3 water treatments) — for antioxidant capacity, total phenols, vitamin C, and 10 mineral ions, in both growth cycles. The vegetable-treatment-level marginal means (pooled across water types) do not have a clean System (AP/HYD/CAPW) or TrialID home in plant.csv, since they are not tied to a specific water treatment; they are not extracted here. Only the nutrient-solution-level breakdown (which does map cleanly to AP/HYD per trial) is captured in plant.csv. Flagging per instructions since this is real, tabulated (not figure-only) data that a future schema revision might want a home for.

[not reported] fields, grouped:

• Fish block (see above): FCR, SGR, feed composition/regime, fish size initial/final, biomass created, survival, weight gain, trial duration — all NA
• Initial Stock density: NR (fish count + tank volume given, not stated as density; also not this study’s own trial)
• Dissolved Oxygen: NR (never measured/reported)
• Water temperature (of the nutrient solution): NR (Figure 1 gives greenhouse air temperature only, a distinct column)
• Average room Temperature: NR (Figure 1 is a chart with no stated summary/mean value)
• SPAD, Leaf count: NR (SPAD is chart-only, Figure 7; leaf count is never mentioned)
• Plant fresh weight (g/plant), Plant dry matter (%) precise per-trial values: NR (reported as area yield kg/m² or as chart-only %, see Yield section above; approximate text-stated dry-matter thresholds recorded where available)
• Lat/Long: NR (not stated; Wädenswil, Switzerland, is named but no coordinates given)
• Water classification, Fish Category, Media Details beyond NFT channel description: NR/paper’s own wording only, no controlled vocabulary substituted

NO COLUMN items (routed to Experimental Remarks):

• Source AP system background parameters: 150 pangasius fish, ~300 g average weight, 3 m³ fish tank, 7.6 m² planted area, 7 m³ total AP water volume
• Water volume replaced (evapotranspiration replacement, every 2nd day): HC 213 L (cycle 1) / 182 L (cycle 2); CAPW 218 L / 177 L; APW 182 L / 161 L (of a 275 L tank) — not a stated daily % exchange rate
• Water macro-ion chemistry not covered by trials.csv water columns: K, P-PO4³-, Ca, S-SO4²-, Mg (Table 1 target values; also time-series in Figures 4-5, no trial mean stated)
• pH breakdown threshold (24 DAS, after which treatments no longer differed); EC decrease of 22% (HC) / 25.5% (CAPW) over the cycle
• Calendar growth-cycle date ranges (see ⚠️CHECK above)

No water panel was excluded from plant.csv — the water chemistry data (Table 1, Figures 3-5) is entirely water-side and was routed to trials.csv water columns (or NO COLUMN remarks where no column exists), consistent with SCHEMA.md.

---

Source: Nicoletto et al. - 2018 - Extension of Aquaponic Water Use for NFT Baby-Leaf.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

nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	275 (per mesocosm tank, L; source background AP system separately reported as 7 m3 total AP water volume — see Experimental Remarks, Methods 2.1, p.2-3)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket salad (Eruca vesicaria) and mizuna (Brassica rapa var. Nipposinica)
Details	6 vegetable sub-treatments nested per water treatment: mizuna/rocket high density (3000 plants/m2, no intercrop), mizuna/rocket intercropped high density, mizuna/rocket intercropped low density (1500 plants/m2); 2 consecutive growth cycles (Cycle 1: 2 Feb-3 Mar 2017; Cycle 2: 3 Mar-30 Apr 2017); harvested at plant height 100-120 mm
Plants/m2	3000 (high density, no intercrop: MHD/RHD) or 1500 (low density/intercropped: MIHD/RIHD/MILD/RILD), Table 2, p.4

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT), 4 channels/mesocosm; direct-seeded on synthetic carpet substrate (Methods 2.1-2.2, p.2-4)
Media Details	Synthetic carpet (80% viscose, 20% polyester, Growfelt UK) placed at the bottom of NFT channels as a seeding substrate (Methods 2.2, p.4)
Biological system already in use	Y (Water (1.65 m3) diverted from an already-existing, previously-operating recirculating AP system (150 pangasius, ~300 g average, 3 m3 fish tank, 7.6 m2 planted area, 7 m3 total AP water volume) not manipulated as part of this study (Methods 2.1, p.2-3).)
Remineralization	N (APW is raw aquaponic water, not supplemented with any macro/micro-nutrients (that is the defining feature of the CAPW trial instead); Table 1 target P-PO4 for APW is only 1.55 mg/L vs 25 mg/L for HC/CAPW (Methods 2.1, p.3).)
Artificial Lighting	N (Natural greenhouse light only; Figure 1 reports ambient irradiance, no supplemental lighting mentioned (Methods 2.1, p.2-3).)
Nutrient supplemented	N (APW received no macro/micro-nutrient supplementation; it is raw water diverted from the background AP system, depleted of P and K but rich in N (Abstract; Methods 2.1, p.2-3).)
Equipment	HQ40d Portable Multi-Parameter Meter, Hach Lange GmbH (pH, EC); cuvette test LTK339, Hach Lange GmbH (photometric NO3-N); 930 Compact IC flex ion chromatograph (Na+, Mg2+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, NO3-, PO4(3-), SO4(2-)); SPAD-502, Konica Minolta (chlorophyll); Ultra Turrax T25 homogenizer; Shimadzu UV-1800 spectrophotometer (total phenols, FC assay; antioxidant capacity, FRAP assay); HydroBuddy software (nutrient-solution formulation, not statistics)
Control Parameters	Nutrient solutions monitored 3x/week for pH/EC (HQ40d) and NO3-N (photometric); ion chromatography 3x/week for Na/Mg/K/Ca/Cl/NO3/PO4/SO4; evapotranspired water replaced every 2nd day; automatic irrigation 3x1h/day (09:00-10:00, 12:00-13:00, 16:00-17:00); non-destructive plant height/SPAD 3x/week; harvest triggered at plant height 100-120 mm (not a fixed calendar day); dry matter determined at 65C oven-drying
Combination	Rocket salad (Eruca vesicaria) and mizuna (Brassica rapa var. Nipposinica) grown in NFT channels using raw aquaponic water (APW) diverted from a pre-existing pangasius RAS, compared against a nitrate-matched hydroponic control (HC); this row = APW vs HC comparison

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Switzerland

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	kg/m2 (yield, chart only); cm (plant height, narrative approx.); % (dry matter, narrative approx.); mg/kg dw (leaf tissue ions, Tables 5-6); g/kg dw (antioxidant capacity, total phenols, vitamin C, Table 4)
Statistic Details	ANOVA, Tukey HSD post-hoc (p<0.05); statistics software not stated (HydroBuddy is a nutrient-solution formulation tool, not the statistics package)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = APW (raw aquaponic water) treatment — water diverted unmodified from the background pangasius AP system, depleted of P/K but rich in N (Table 1 target values, Methods 2.1, p.2-3). Paired control = HC (hydroponic control, nitrate-matched to the fish water, fully macro/micro-nutrient supplemented), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells. Design: randomized complete block, 3 replicates per water treatment (9 mesocosms total across 3 treatments), 4 NFT channels/mesocosm carrying 6 nested vegetable sub-treatments, 2 consecutive growth cycles. | Fish block: pangasius-stocked background AP system (150 fish, ~300 g average, 3 m3 tank, 7.6 m2 planted area, 7 m3 total AP water volume) is pre-existing and not manipulated, fed, or monitored as part of this study; per SCHEMA.md guidance for papers missing part of the design, all fish-performance columns are NA (see trials.csv above). Meta/Fish/ tag not applied — the paper reuses pangasius wastewater but does not study the fish (CLAUDE.md: ‘only tag an organism if the paper studied it’). | WARN-CHECK growth cycle duration, p.4. Methods 2.2 states Cycle 1 = ‘2 February-3 March 2017’ (29 calendar days) and Cycle 2 = ‘3 March-30 April 2017’ (58 calendar days). Every DAS-axis figure (Figures 3,4,5,6,7,8,10) plots both cycles only to ~30-35 DAS — Cycle 2’s chart data does not extend near 58 days. Harvest was triggered physiologically (plant height 100-120 mm), not a fixed calendar day, so the two cycle date ranges may include operational time (system downtime, staggered harvests) beyond the actively-tracked growth period, rather than describing a true ~58-day single growth duration; the paper does not reconcile this. Recorded ‘Days Plant after transplant’ as NA (crop was direct-seeded, not transplanted) rather than assigning either figure. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WARN-MINOR (no cell impact) two narrative percentage claims don’t recompute cleanly, p.12-13 (Discussion). Text states plant Ca2+ in APW differed from HC/CAPW ‘on average…70.3% and 73.3%’ and NH4+ ‘82.1% and 83.7%’ respectively. Recomputing (APW-X)/APW from Tables 5-6 cycle-averaged data reproduces the NH4+ figures closely (~82-84%) but for Ca2+ gives ~73.2% vs HC and ~70.2% vs CAPW — i.e. the HC/CAPW labels for the two Ca percentages appear possibly swapped relative to the underlying table data. No trials.csv/plant.csv cell affected (no column captures this narrative percentage); recorded for completeness. | Tissue nitrate unit mismatch: schema’s Tissue nitrate AP/HYD column is defined in mg/kg fw; this paper reports leaf-tissue NO3- only in mg/kg dw (Tables 5-6). Converting dw to fw would require the paper’s own dry-matter percentage and constitutes derivation, so Tissue nitrate AP/HYD are recorded NR here; the as-reported dw value is captured in plant.csv (Category: mineral, Analyte: Nitrate (NO3-), Unit: mg/kg dw). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (fish count 150 + tank volume 3 m3 given, not stated as a density; also not this study’s own trial); Dissolved Oxygen (never measured/reported); Water temperature of the nutrient solution (Figure 1 gives greenhouse AIR temperature only, a distinct measurement from solution/water temperature, which is never separately reported); Average room Temperature (Figure 1 is chart-only, no stated summary/mean); SPAD, Leaf count (SPAD is chart-only, Figure 7; leaf count is never mentioned in the text); Plant fresh weight (g/plant), Plant dry matter % as precise per-trial values (yield reported only as area yield in chart-only Figures 8-9; dry matter given only as narrative approximate thresholds, see below); Lat/Long (Wadenswil, Switzerland named, no coordinates stated); Water classification, Fish Category (no categorising term used); Aq pH, EC, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N as trial means (Table 1 gives only TARGET/design nutrient-solution values — HC/APW/CAPW N-NH4, N-NO2, N-NO3, K, P-PO4, Ca, S-SO4, Mg, pH, EC — not achieved/measured trial means; Figures 3-4 give only a time-series chart with narrative threshold/initial-value descriptions, e.g. ‘pH increased from near neutral to ~9.0 by the final stages’, ‘APW EC close to 800 uS/cm in both cycles’, ‘HC/CAPW EC decreased 22%/25.5%’, initial NO3-N 67.8/100.1 mg/L and initial NH4-N 2.5/0.56 mg/L for cycles 1/2 — none is a stated single trial mean, so per SCHEMA.md (‘time series with no summary -> record the range, do not average yourself’) these are placed in NO COLUMN/remarks rather than in the water-quality cells, since even the narrative figures given are approximate thresholds/starting points, not summary trial means). | NO COLUMN: Table 1 target (not achieved) nutrient-solution composition — HC: N-NH4 0, N-NO2 0, N-NO3 65, K 120, P-PO4 25, Ca 66, S-SO4 23.4, Mg 20 mg/L, pH 7.87, EC 1718 uS/cm; APW: N-NH4 0.075, N-NO2 0.023, N-NO3 63.5, K 0.078, P-PO4 1.55, Ca 66, S-SO4 27.6, Mg 21 mg/L, pH 7.79, EC 824 uS/cm; CAPW: N-NH4 0.075, N-NO2 0.023, N-NO3 63.5, K 120, P-PO4 25, Ca 66, S-SO4 23.4, Mg 20 mg/L, pH 7.13, EC 1680 uS/cm (Table 1, p.3). Achieved/measured values differ substantially from these targets over the crop cycle (see WARN note above on pH/EC time series) — targets not substituted for measured means. Water volume replaced (evapotranspiration replacement, every 2nd day): HC 213 L (cycle 1)/182 L (cycle 2); CAPW 218 L/177 L; APW 182 L/161 L (of a 275 L tank) — not a stated daily % exchange rate. Yield: APW ‘<0.5 kg/m2’ is the only text-stated figure (p.11); all other yield values (per water treatment, per vegetable treatment, and the full interaction) exist only as bar charts (Figures 8-9) with Tukey letters, not extracted per the never-read-a-figure rule. Plant height: mizuna ‘close to 12 cm’ final phase both cycles; rocket 5.5-8.0 cm (cycle 1), <6 cm (cycle 2); rocket in APW <3 cm (text, p.9) — narrative approximations, not read off Figure 6. Dry matter: CAPW ‘>14%’ both cycles; highest overall ‘>16%’ for RHD (text, p.11-12). Vegetable-treatment-level (MHD/MIHD/MILD/RHD/RIHD/RILD, pooled across water types) marginal means for antioxidants (Table 4) and mineral ions (Tables 5-6) — genuinely tabulated data with no System (AP/HYD/CAPW) home in plant.csv since not tied to one water treatment; flagged as ‘too valuable to discard’ per CLAUDE.md instead of force-fit. pH breakdown threshold at 24 DAS (after which treatments no longer differ, both cycles). SPAD/chlorophyll (Figure 7, chart-only, no text summary).

nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	275 (per mesocosm tank, L; source background AP system separately reported as 7 m3 total AP water volume — see Experimental Remarks, Methods 2.1, p.2-3)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Rocket salad (Eruca vesicaria) and mizuna (Brassica rapa var. Nipposinica)
Details	6 vegetable sub-treatments nested per water treatment: mizuna/rocket high density (3000 plants/m2, no intercrop), mizuna/rocket intercropped high density, mizuna/rocket intercropped low density (1500 plants/m2); 2 consecutive growth cycles (Cycle 1: 2 Feb-3 Mar 2017; Cycle 2: 3 Mar-30 Apr 2017); harvested at plant height 100-120 mm
Plants/m2	3000 (high density, no intercrop: MHD/RHD) or 1500 (low density/intercropped: MIHD/RIHD/MILD/RILD), Table 2, p.4

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient Film Technique (NFT), 4 channels/mesocosm; direct-seeded on synthetic carpet substrate (Methods 2.1-2.2, p.2-4)
Media Details	Synthetic carpet (80% viscose, 20% polyester, Growfelt UK) placed at the bottom of NFT channels as a seeding substrate (Methods 2.2, p.4)
Biological system already in use	Y (Water (1.65 m3) diverted from an already-existing, previously-operating recirculating AP system (150 pangasius, ~300 g average, 3 m3 fish tank, 7.6 m2 planted area, 7 m3 total AP water volume) not manipulated as part of this study (Methods 2.1, p.2-3).)
Remineralization	Y (CAPW = APW supplemented with P, K, plus meso- and micro-nutrients to match HC target values (Table 1); prepared per the Resh (2012) method using HydroBuddy software, with Iron DTPA and Multi Micro Mix, Krista SOP, Krista MKP, potassium nitrate, and magnesium sulphates as amendment sources (Methods 2.1, p.3-4).)
Artificial Lighting	N (Natural greenhouse light only; Figure 1 reports ambient irradiance, no supplemental lighting mentioned (Methods 2.1, p.2-3).)
Nutrient supplemented	Y (CAPW received P, K, and meso-/micro-nutrient supplementation to reach the same target composition as HC (Table 1), while retaining the background nitrate-nitrogen from the fish-derived source water (Abstract; Methods 2.1, p.2-4).)
Equipment	HQ40d Portable Multi-Parameter Meter, Hach Lange GmbH (pH, EC); cuvette test LTK339, Hach Lange GmbH (photometric NO3-N); 930 Compact IC flex ion chromatograph (Na+, Mg2+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, NO3-, PO4(3-), SO4(2-)); SPAD-502, Konica Minolta (chlorophyll); Ultra Turrax T25 homogenizer; Shimadzu UV-1800 spectrophotometer (total phenols, FC assay; antioxidant capacity, FRAP assay); HydroBuddy software (nutrient-solution formulation, not statistics)
Control Parameters	Nutrient solutions monitored 3x/week for pH/EC (HQ40d) and NO3-N (photometric); ion chromatography 3x/week for Na/Mg/K/Ca/Cl/NO3/PO4/SO4; evapotranspired water replaced every 2nd day; automatic irrigation 3x1h/day (09:00-10:00, 12:00-13:00, 16:00-17:00); non-destructive plant height/SPAD 3x/week; harvest triggered at plant height 100-120 mm (not a fixed calendar day); dry matter determined at 65C oven-drying
Combination	Rocket salad (Eruca vesicaria) and mizuna (Brassica rapa var. Nipposinica) grown in NFT channels using complemented aquaponic water (CAPW, APW supplemented with P/K/meso/micro-nutrients) compared against a nitrate-matched hydroponic control (HC); this row = CAPW vs HC comparison

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Switzerland

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	kg/m2 (yield, chart only); cm (plant height, narrative approx.); % (dry matter, narrative approx.); mg/kg dw (leaf tissue ions, Tables 5-6); g/kg dw (antioxidant capacity, total phenols, vitamin C, Table 4)
Statistic Details	ANOVA, Tukey HSD post-hoc (p<0.05); statistics software not stated (HydroBuddy is a nutrient-solution formulation tool, not the statistics package)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = CAPW (complemented aquaponic water) treatment — APW supplemented with P, K, and meso-/micro-nutrients to reach HC target composition (Table 1, Methods 2.1, p.3-4), while retaining the fish-derived background nitrate. Paired control = HC, recorded in the HYD-labelled cells (same HC values as T1’s HYD columns, repeated per one-row-per-treatment convention). Design: randomized complete block, 3 replicates per water treatment, 4 NFT channels/mesocosm, 6 nested vegetable sub-treatments, 2 consecutive growth cycles. Mizuna yield under CAPW was reported significantly higher than HC in cycle 1 (Figure 9, chart only, not extracted as a number), attributed to a possible biostimulant effect of dissolved organic matter/microbial content carried over from the fish system. | Fish block: pangasius-stocked background AP system (150 fish, ~300 g average, 3 m3 tank, 7.6 m2 planted area, 7 m3 total AP water volume) is pre-existing and not manipulated, fed, or monitored as part of this study; per SCHEMA.md guidance for papers missing part of the design, all fish-performance columns are NA (see trials.csv above). Meta/Fish/ tag not applied — the paper reuses pangasius wastewater but does not study the fish (CLAUDE.md: ‘only tag an organism if the paper studied it’). | WARN-CHECK growth cycle duration, p.4. Methods 2.2 states Cycle 1 = ‘2 February-3 March 2017’ (29 calendar days) and Cycle 2 = ‘3 March-30 April 2017’ (58 calendar days). Every DAS-axis figure (Figures 3,4,5,6,7,8,10) plots both cycles only to ~30-35 DAS — Cycle 2’s chart data does not extend near 58 days. Harvest was triggered physiologically (plant height 100-120 mm), not a fixed calendar day, so the two cycle date ranges may include operational time (system downtime, staggered harvests) beyond the actively-tracked growth period, rather than describing a true ~58-day single growth duration; the paper does not reconcile this. Recorded ‘Days Plant after transplant’ as NA (crop was direct-seeded, not transplanted) rather than assigning either figure. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WARN-MINOR (no cell impact) two narrative percentage claims don’t recompute cleanly, p.12-13 (Discussion). Text states plant Ca2+ in APW differed from HC/CAPW ‘on average…70.3% and 73.3%’ and NH4+ ‘82.1% and 83.7%’ respectively. Recomputing (APW-X)/APW from Tables 5-6 cycle-averaged data reproduces the NH4+ figures closely (~82-84%) but for Ca2+ gives ~73.2% vs HC and ~70.2% vs CAPW — i.e. the HC/CAPW labels for the two Ca percentages appear possibly swapped relative to the underlying table data. No trials.csv/plant.csv cell affected (no column captures this narrative percentage); recorded for completeness. | Tissue nitrate unit mismatch: schema’s Tissue nitrate AP/HYD column is defined in mg/kg fw; this paper reports leaf-tissue NO3- only in mg/kg dw (Tables 5-6). Converting dw to fw would require the paper’s own dry-matter percentage and constitutes derivation, so Tissue nitrate AP/HYD are recorded NR here; the as-reported dw value is captured in plant.csv (Category: mineral, Analyte: Nitrate (NO3-), Unit: mg/kg dw). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (fish count 150 + tank volume 3 m3 given, not stated as a density; also not this study’s own trial); Dissolved Oxygen (never measured/reported); Water temperature of the nutrient solution (Figure 1 gives greenhouse AIR temperature only, a distinct measurement from solution/water temperature, which is never separately reported); Average room Temperature (Figure 1 is chart-only, no stated summary/mean); SPAD, Leaf count (SPAD is chart-only, Figure 7; leaf count is never mentioned in the text); Plant fresh weight (g/plant), Plant dry matter % as precise per-trial values (yield reported only as area yield in chart-only Figures 8-9; dry matter given only as narrative approximate thresholds, see below); Lat/Long (Wadenswil, Switzerland named, no coordinates stated); Water classification, Fish Category (no categorising term used); Aq pH, EC, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N as trial means (Table 1 gives only TARGET/design nutrient-solution values — HC/APW/CAPW N-NH4, N-NO2, N-NO3, K, P-PO4, Ca, S-SO4, Mg, pH, EC — not achieved/measured trial means; Figures 3-4 give only a time-series chart with narrative threshold/initial-value descriptions, e.g. ‘pH increased from near neutral to ~9.0 by the final stages’, ‘APW EC close to 800 uS/cm in both cycles’, ‘HC/CAPW EC decreased 22%/25.5%’, initial NO3-N 67.8/100.1 mg/L and initial NH4-N 2.5/0.56 mg/L for cycles 1/2 — none is a stated single trial mean, so per SCHEMA.md (‘time series with no summary -> record the range, do not average yourself’) these are placed in NO COLUMN/remarks rather than in the water-quality cells, since even the narrative figures given are approximate thresholds/starting points, not summary trial means). | NO COLUMN: Table 1 target (not achieved) nutrient-solution composition — HC: N-NH4 0, N-NO2 0, N-NO3 65, K 120, P-PO4 25, Ca 66, S-SO4 23.4, Mg 20 mg/L, pH 7.87, EC 1718 uS/cm; APW: N-NH4 0.075, N-NO2 0.023, N-NO3 63.5, K 0.078, P-PO4 1.55, Ca 66, S-SO4 27.6, Mg 21 mg/L, pH 7.79, EC 824 uS/cm; CAPW: N-NH4 0.075, N-NO2 0.023, N-NO3 63.5, K 120, P-PO4 25, Ca 66, S-SO4 23.4, Mg 20 mg/L, pH 7.13, EC 1680 uS/cm (Table 1, p.3). Achieved/measured values differ substantially from these targets over the crop cycle (see WARN note above on pH/EC time series) — targets not substituted for measured means. Water volume replaced (evapotranspiration replacement, every 2nd day): HC 213 L (cycle 1)/182 L (cycle 2); CAPW 218 L/177 L; APW 182 L/161 L (of a 275 L tank) — not a stated daily % exchange rate. Yield: APW ‘<0.5 kg/m2’ is the only text-stated figure (p.11); all other yield values (per water treatment, per vegetable treatment, and the full interaction) exist only as bar charts (Figures 8-9) with Tukey letters, not extracted per the never-read-a-figure rule. Plant height: mizuna ‘close to 12 cm’ final phase both cycles; rocket 5.5-8.0 cm (cycle 1), <6 cm (cycle 2); rocket in APW <3 cm (text, p.9) — narrative approximations, not read off Figure 6. Dry matter: CAPW ‘>14%’ both cycles; highest overall ‘>16%’ for RHD (text, p.11-12). Vegetable-treatment-level (MHD/MIHD/MILD/RHD/RIHD/RILD, pooled across water types) marginal means for antioxidants (Table 4) and mineral ions (Tables 5-6) — genuinely tabulated data with no System (AP/HYD/CAPW) home in plant.csv since not tied to one water treatment; flagged as ‘too valuable to discard’ per CLAUDE.md instead of force-fit. pH breakdown threshold at 24 DAS (after which treatments no longer differ, both cycles). SPAD/chlorophyll (Figure 7, chart-only, no text summary).

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	2985	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	5473	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	3572	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	2985	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	7.24	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	130	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	145	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	7.24	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	4214	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	37753	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	1819	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	4214	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	7664	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	4808	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	7998	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	7664	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	9539	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	31774	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	9468	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	9539	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	1914	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	4336	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	1961	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	1914	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	327	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	1821	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	324	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	327	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	35094	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	11999	mg/kg dw	c	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	24719	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	35094	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	6598	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	8010	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	4662	mg/kg dw	c	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	6598	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	12136	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	46363	mg/kg dw	a	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	12657	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	12136	mg/kg dw	b	Table 5, p.12 (First growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	3185	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	5637	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	3666	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Chloride (Cl-)	3185	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	4.98	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	107	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	119	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Nitrite (NO2-)	4.98	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	4014	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	34601	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	1357	mg/kg dw	c	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Nitrate (NO3-)	4014	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	8010	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	5486	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	8228	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Phosphate (PO4 3-)	8010	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	10053	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	35070	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	9996	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Sulfate (SO4 2-)	10053	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2470	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	4674	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2259	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na+)	2470	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	375	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	2391	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	402	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Ammonium (NH4+)	375	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	40086	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	13317	mg/kg dw	c	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Potassium (K+)	26381	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K+)	40086	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	7272	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	8836	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	5718	mg/kg dw	c	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg2+)	7272	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	14152	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	51625	mg/kg dw	a	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	16511	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca2+)	14152	mg/kg dw	b	Table 6, p.13 (Second growth cycle, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	50.4 ± 1.3	g Fe2+E/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	49.6 ± 4.6	g Fe2+E/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	39.0 ± 5.4	g Fe2+E/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	50.4 ± 1.3	g Fe2+E/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	45.2 ± 4.7	g Fe2+E/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	46.2 ± 2.9	g Fe2+E/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	35.6 ± 3.3	g Fe2+E/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Antioxidant Capacity (FRAP)	45.2 ± 4.7	g Fe2+E/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Total Phenols	5.12 ± 0.98	g GAE/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	biochemistry	Total Phenols	5.93 ± 0.76	g GAE/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	biochemistry	Total Phenols	4.34 ± 0.59	g GAE/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Total Phenols	5.12 ± 0.98	g GAE/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Total Phenols	4.90 ± 0.48	g GAE/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	biochemistry	Total Phenols	5.55 ± 0.57	g GAE/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	biochemistry	Total Phenols	4.20 ± 0.43	g GAE/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Total Phenols	4.90 ± 0.48	g GAE/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.31 ± 0.12	g/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	4.15 ± 0.18	g/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.69 ± 0.13	g/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.31 ± 0.12	g/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.13 ± 0.14	g/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T1	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.84 ± 0.16	g/kg dw	a	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.25 ± 0.12	g/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)
nicolettoExtensionAquaponicWater2018-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	3.13 ± 0.14	g/kg dw	b	Table 4, p.12 (antioxidant components, nutrient-solution-level means)