Aquaponics vs. Hydroponics: Production and Quality of Lettuce Crop
Metadata
- Cite key: pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012
- Item type: Conference Paper (Acta Horticulturae / ISHS proceedings)
- Authors: E. Pantanella, M. Cardarelli, G. Colla, E. Rea, A. Marcucci
- Affiliation: Dipartimento di Geologia e Ingegneria Meccanica, Naturalistica e Idraulica per il Territorio, Università della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy (Pantanella, Colla); CRA-Centro di Ricerca per lo Studio delle Relazioni tra Pianta e Suolo, Roma, Italy (Rea, Marcucci); Cardarelli’s affiliation not separately distinguished in the byline layout (grouped under the second address block in the PDF)
- Journal: Acta Horticulturae 927 (2012) 887-893 (printed PDF pagination runs 887-894, with 894 a blank page not part of Crossref’s stated range)
- Date: 02/2012
- Date added: 2026-08-09
- DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.109
- Funding: Not stated in the paper
- URL: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.109
- PDF:
Pantanella et al. - 2012 - AQUAPONICS VS. HYDROPONICS PRODUCTION AND QUALITY.pdf
Opinion
A tidy, well-instrumented head-to-head of two aquaponic fish-density treatments against a hydroponic control, run twice as independent summer crop cycles — a design strength most single-cycle aquaponics-vs-hydroponics comparisons lack. The core finding (yield parity above a certain dissolved-nitrogen threshold, tissue-nitrate parity throughout) is clean and the mineral-partitioning story (aquaponic leaves poorer in P, richer in Ca/K/Mg/Na) is mechanistically well explained by the paper’s own pH-buffering chemistry. The main weakness is internal reporting precision on the water-chemistry side: Results-section running text restates several Table 2 nitrate/EC figures with values 10-40% off the table, and — more importantly — the Conclusions section’s own headline threshold (“above 1.4 mmol/L”) traces to the Results-text figure rather than the table value recorded in this row’s cells (see Extraction notes). No dispersion (SD/SE) is reported for any measurement in the entire paper, only Duncan’s-test grouping letters, which limits how much can be done with this dataset in a quantitative synthesis. Fish performance itself (growth, FCR, survival) is not reported at all — this is a plant-quality paper that treats the fish purely as a nutrient source.
Abstract
Aquaponics is a vegetable production system that integrates soilless cultivation and aquaculture. Plants strip nutrients from fish waste water and convert metabolites toxic to fish. Aquaponics is an environmental-friendly production system due to its full reuse of waste and nutrients. The research, carried out at the Experimental Farm of the University of Tuscia, compared summer yields of two romaine lettuce crops (Lactuca sativa L. ‘Integral’) grown on aquaponic and hydroponic floating systems. For the hydroponic treatment a nutritive solution of 1.7 dS m-1 and pH 5.5 supported plant growth. For the aquaponic system two treatments under different fish densities supplied nutrients at different concentrations. Every aquaponic treatment consisted of 3 independent 250-L tanks stocked with Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.). Each fish tank fed a 1.5 m2 floating system under a 20 plant m-2 density. For the first crop 110 g and 24 g tilapia were stocked at system setup respectively under a low (5 kg m-3) and high (8 kg m-3) density and supplied nutrients with an electrical conductivity (EC) of 0.4 and 0.6 dS m-1. For the second crop 168 g and 90 g tilapia respectively stocked under a low (6 kg m-3) and high (20 kg m-3) stocking density raised EC levels to 0.5 and 1.0 dS m-1. Production of 2.8 kg m-2 from the first hydroponic crop was similar to the 2.7 kg m-2 assessed in the high density aquaponic treatment. Conversely the 2.3 kg m-2 measured in the low density treatment was smaller. For the second trial no differences were noticed between the 6.0 kg m-2 measured in the hydroponic system and the 5.7 and 5.6 kg m-2 assessed in the high and low-density aquaponic treatments, respectively. Nevertheless different nutrient concentrations in water affected plant mineral composition. Aquaponic leaves were poorer in phosphorus but richer in calcium, potassium magnesium and sodium.
Summary
The authors ran two sequential 4-week (nominally) summer crop cycles of romaine lettuce (‘Integral’) on floating-raft systems at the University of Tuscia, Italy, each comparing a low-density (LD) and a high-density (HD) Nile tilapia aquaponic treatment (3 independent 250 L systems each) against a shared-per-cycle hydroponic control (3 x 0.5 m2 floating systems, standard mineral nutrient solution). Fish densities and target water EC increased between the two crops (4.8/8 kg m-3 and 0.4/0.6 dS/m for crop 1; 5.2/20 kg m-3 and 0.5/1.0 dS/m for crop 2), which the authors use to test how dissolved-nutrient concentration affects lettuce yield and leaf quality. Yield was lower in the LD aquaponic treatment than hydroponics in the first crop (2.37 vs 2.84 kg/m2, p<0.05) but statistically indistinguishable from hydroponics at HD (2.71 kg/m2) and in both aquaponic treatments during the second, higher-EC crop (5.6-5.7 vs 6.02 kg/m2, ns). Leaf tissue nitrate was statistically indistinguishable between aquaponic and hydroponic lettuce in both crops and stayed well under the EU regulatory limit throughout. Leaf mineral analysis in the first crop showed aquaponic lettuce was significantly lower in phosphorus but higher in potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium than hydroponic lettuce — a pattern the authors attribute to the specific pH-buffering salts (H3PO4 for the LD system, Ca(OH)2/KOH for the HD system) used to correct aquaponic water pH, rather than to aquaponics per se; these differences disappeared by the second crop. The paper concludes that aquaponic yield parity with hydroponics requires dissolved nitrogen above roughly 1.4 mmol/L NO3-N (though see Extraction notes on which of two conflicting numbers this threshold actually traces to), and that aquaponic lettuce is nutritionally comparable to and as safe (low-nitrate) as hydroponic lettuce once that threshold is met.
Experiment data
- Location: Experimental Farm of Tuscia University, Viterbo, central Italy (greenhouse), 42.4167N 12.1333E
- Design: 2 aquaponic fish-density treatments (LD, HD) + 1 hydroponic control, each replicated 3x (3 independent 250 L fish-tank systems per aquaponic treatment; 3 x 0.5 m2 floating systems for hydroponics); run as two separate, sequential 4-week(ish) summer crop cycles (Aug-Sep and Sep-Oct 2009), each with its own hydroponic baseline. ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05. The word “randomized” is never used for treatment-to-system assignment — see Extraction notes on the experiment/quasi-experiment judgment call.
- Replicates / n: 3 independent systems per treatment per crop cycle (4 aquaponic trial arms total: LD-crop1, HD-crop1, LD-crop2, HD-crop2)
- Duration: Crop 1 explicitly stated as a “4-week trial” (started 8 Aug 2009); crop 2’s duration is never explicitly restated (started 4 Sep 2009; overall period “between August and October 2009”)
- Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) (romaine, cv. ‘Integral’)
- Statistics: ANOVA (SPSS 16 for Windows); Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05, on significant variables. No SD/SE reported for any measurement in the paper — only Duncan grouping letters or an omnibus ///ns marker.
- Yield: Crop 1: AP-LD 2.37 kg/m2 (b) < AP-HD 2.71 (a) ~ HYD 2.84 (a), p<0.05. Crop 2: AP-LD 5.67 ~ AP-HD 5.70 ~ HYD 6.02 kg/m2, ns.
- Tissue nitrate content: ns between AP and HYD in both crops (crop 1: AP-LD 545.3, AP-HD 285.6, HYD 143.3 mg/kg fw; crop 2: AP-LD 1501.3, AP-HD 1181.9, HYD 1591.5 mg/kg fw); all values well under the EU 3500 mg/kg summer-greenhouse-lettuce limit cited by the authors.
- Leaf mineral composition (crop 1 only, p<0.05 for P/K/Ca/Mg/Fe, p<0.001 for Na): AP leaves lower in P, higher in K/Ca/Mg/Na than HYD; no significant differences by crop 2.
Yield
This paper: In the first (lower-EC) crop cycle, the low-density aquaponic treatment yielded significantly less than hydroponics (2.37 vs 2.84 kg/m2, p<0.05), while the high-density treatment did not differ from hydroponics (2.71 vs 2.84 kg/m2). In the second (higher-EC) crop cycle, all three treatments were statistically indistinguishable (5.67, 5.70, 6.02 kg/m2, ns). The paper’s own interpretation (Conclusions, p.890) is that aquaponic yield parity with hydroponics requires the dissolved nitrogen concentration in the aquaponic loop to exceed roughly 1.4 mmol/L NO3-N — a threshold met by HD in crop 1 and by both treatments in crop 2, but not by LD in crop 1. See Extraction notes for a discrepancy in exactly which NO3-N figures underlie this specific number.
Compared with:
- todo Lennard and Leonard 2004 — 4.96 kg/m2 green oak lettuce at 40 plants/m2 in a 3-week aquaponic trial, higher planting density and shorter cycle than this paper. (p.888)
- todo Licamele 2009 — 4.7 kg/m2 lettuce yield in a 35-day aquaponic trial, comparable biomass/chlorophyll to hydroponics (p<0.05). (p.888)
- todo Savidov 2005 — mature aquaponic systems gave higher yields than standard hydroponics for tomato and cucumber (different crops than this paper). (p.888)
- todo Graber and Junge 2009 — aquaponics productivity often similar to or higher than hydroponics for leafy vegetables generally. (p.888)
Tissue nitrate and food safety
This paper: Leaf nitrate did not differ significantly between aquaponic and hydroponic lettuce in either crop (ns both times, Table 5), and all values (143.3-1591.5 mg/kg fw across treatments and crops) were well below the EU limit of 3500 mg/kg fw for summer greenhouse lettuce (European Commission, 2002, cited by the authors). Notably, nitrate was markedly higher in the second crop across all three treatments (1181.9-1591.5 mg/kg) than the first (143.3-545.3 mg/kg) — consistent with the higher EC/nutrient targets set for crop 2 — but this cross-crop difference is not itself statistically tested in the paper (each crop’s ANOVA only compares across treatments within that crop).
Compared with:
- todo Rico-Garcia et al. 2009 — nitrate in leaves from two summer aquaponic lettuce crops below 2400 mg/kg, also within the EU limit; corroborates this paper’s low-nitrate finding. (p.888)
Leaf mineral composition
This paper: In the first crop, aquaponic lettuce (both densities) had significantly lower leaf phosphorus than hydroponic lettuce (LD 8.2, HD 6.9 vs HYD 8.1 g/kg d.wt, p<0.05) except LD, which matched HYD — but significantly higher potassium, calcium and sodium in both aquaponic treatments, and higher magnesium in LD specifically. The authors attribute this directly to the pH-buffering chemistry rather than to aquaponics as a mechanism: LD water was corrected with H3PO4 (raising P, explaining its parity with HYD), while HD water was corrected more with Ca(OH)2 and KOH (raising Ca/K). Leaf iron was significantly higher in HYD than either aquaponic treatment in crop 1. None of these differences persisted into the second crop (all ns except sodium, p<0.05), which the paper does not explicitly explain but which coincides with the second crop’s higher aquaponic EC/nutrient targets narrowing the gap with hydroponics.
Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the mineral-partitioning mechanism specifically; the paper’s own pH-buffering-agent explanation is presented as original reasoning, not sourced to prior work)
Chlorophyll (SPAD)
This paper: SPAD readings were significantly different among all three treatments at most timepoints (p<0.001), generally following HYD > AP-HD > AP-LD at the 2-week mid-cycle reading in both crops, but converging or reversing by harvest: at crop-1 harvest AP-HD and HYD were statistically equal (34.1, 34.7) and both above AP-LD (28.8); at crop-2 harvest AP-HD was highest (34.0) and AP-LD and HYD were statistically equal (30.9, 30.2). The paper does not discuss the crop-2 harvest reversal (HYD dropping to match the lowest aquaponic treatment) explicitly.
Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for chlorophyll/SPAD specifically)
Linked claims
- Aquaponic and hydroponic lettuce yields converge once aquaponic dissolved nitrogen exceeds a threshold concentration
- Aquaponic lettuce tissue nitrate is not higher than hydroponic lettuce
- pH-buffering reagent choice, not aquaponics per se, drives aquaponic-vs-hydroponic leaf mineral differences
- Higher fish stocking density raises aquaponic water nutrient concentrations and narrows the yield gap with hydroponics
Citations to chase
- todo Lennard, W.A. and Leonard, B.V. (2004) — A comparison of reciprocating flow versus constant flow in an integrated, gravel bed, aquaponic test system, Aquaculture International 12:539-553 — 4.96 kg/m2 green oak lettuce yield benchmark
- todo Licamele, J. (2009) — Biomass production and nutrient dynamics in an aquaponics system, PhD dissertation, University of Arizona — 4.7 kg/m2 lettuce yield, biomass/chlorophyll parity with hydroponics
- todo Savidov, N. (2005) — Evaluation and development of aquaponics production and product market capabilities in Alberta, Phase II, Final Report — higher aquaponic yields for tomato/cucumber vs hydroponics
- todo Graber, A. and Junge, R. (2009) — Aquaponic Systems: Nutrient recycling from fish wastewater by vegetable production, Desalination 246:147-156
- todo Rico-Garcia, E. et al. (2009) — Nitrate content on summer lettuce production using fish culture water, Trends in Agricultural Economics 2:1-9 — corroborating low-nitrate finding
Extraction notes
Type classification judgment call: Recorded as experiment. The paper reports controlled manipulation (2 defined aquaponic density treatments + hydroponic control), true replication (3 independent physical systems per treatment per crop), and formal statistical comparison (ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05) — meeting SCHEMA.md Part 1’s simpler experiment test. However, the Methods section never uses the word “randomized” for how treatments were assigned to physical systems, which is the specific test SCHEMA.md Part 2’s decision rule 2 uses to distinguish experiment from quasi-experiment. Several other vault papers (e.g. alcarrazQualityLettuceLactuca2018) explicitly state “completely randomized design”; this paper does not use that or equivalent language anywhere. Given the otherwise-complete controlled-comparison design and formal statistics, experiment was judged the better fit, but this is a judgment call rather than a clean match to Part 2’s stricter wording, flagged here for review.
Trial structure: Four trials.csv rows. Unlike most other papers in this vault (which share one hydroponic control across multiple aquaponic trial rows), this paper ran the aquaponic-vs-hydroponic comparison as two SEPARATE crop cycles, each with its OWN independently-measured hydroponic control (Tables 1-5 report “1st crop” and “2nd crop” as distinct blocks with different absolute values, not a shared control repeated verbatim). T1 = crop-1 LD vs crop-1 HYD; T2 = crop-1 HD vs crop-1 HYD (same HYD as T1); T3 = crop-2 LD vs crop-2 HYD; T4 = crop-2 HD vs crop-2 HYD (same HYD as T3). This is stated explicitly in each row’s TRIAL DEFINITION.
⚠️WARN-MINOR — Initial Stock density, low-density (LD) treatments, both crops (p.887 vs p.888-889). Abstract states “low (5 kg m-3)” for crop 1 and “low (6 kg m-3)” for crop 2; Methods gives “4.8 kg m-3” and “5.2 kg m-3” for the same two treatments. High-density figures match exactly between abstract and Methods for both crops (8 and 20 kg m-3). Recorded Methods’ more precise values (4.8, 5.2) in the T1/T3 Initial Stock density cells. Does not affect any other cell.
⚠️WARN-MATERIAL — EC target vs. Results-narrative trend, high-density (HD) treatments, both crops (p.887-889). Abstract and Methods agree twice that crop-1 HD’s EC target was 0.6 dS/m and crop-2 HD’s was 1.0 dS/m. Results narrates the measured trend instead as “HD showed a raising trend from 0.4 to 0.8 dS m-1 in the first crop and 0.8 to 1.2 dS m-1 in the second crop” — a starting point of 0.4 (not 0.6, and identical to LD’s own target) for crop 1, and an ending point of 1.2 (not matching the stated 1.0 target) for crop 2. Recorded the twice-independently-stated Methods/abstract target values (0.6 for T2, 1.0 for T4) in the EC cells, since they appear in two places versus the Results sentence’s one; the Results trend numbers are preserved in each affected row’s Experimental Remarks but not entered in any cell. LD’s EC target and its own Results-trend description (0.4-0.5 both crops) are mutually consistent — no flag needed there.
⚠️WARN-MATERIAL — NO3-N and TAN/NH4-N, Results narrative vs. Table 2, all four trials (p.889 vs p.892), with a Conclusions-section complication. Every one of the six water-nitrate/ammonia values that Results states in running text differs from Table 2’s corresponding value by 10-40% (start-1st-crop LD/HD, end-1st-crop LD/HD, end-2nd-crop LD/HD). Table 2’s values are used in all four trials’ NO3-N/TAN cells (converted mmol/L -> mg/L, UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, x14 N molar mass) as the more structured, statistically-letter-annotated source. However, the Conclusions section (p.890) restates the Results-narrative figure for crop-2-LD-end specifically (“above 1.4 mmol L-1”) as the paper’s own headline yield-parity threshold — a number that does NOT match the Table-2-sourced value recorded in T3’s NO3-N cell (1.1 mmol/L = 15.4 mg/L). This is the single most consequential unresolved number in the paper: anyone citing the “1.4 mmol/L” threshold claim should check Table 2, p.889, and p.890 directly rather than relying solely on T3’s trials.csv cell. Full value-by-value detail, both sources, both units, is in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks (T1 carries the full six-value comparison; T3 carries the Conclusions-section-specific escalation).
Fish strain ambiguity [unclear]: Methods states systems were stocked “with two Nile tilapia strains (Oreochromis niloticus L.)” but never specifies which strain went to which density treatment, in either crop. The Fish column is recorded generically as “Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.)” for all four trials; the strain-to-treatment mapping is left unresolved (not a numeric contradiction, so not severity-tagged — simply an omission).
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish performance (all four trials): FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish weight gain, Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Total Feed (kg), Feed routine (frequency/day), feed N/P/K composition beyond crude protein — this is a plant-quality-focused paper; fish are treated purely as a nutrient source and no growth/harvest/survival data for the fish themselves is reported anywhere. Feed protein % and product identity ARE reported per trial (31%/43%/31%/40%, Skretting Classic K 3P/1P/3P/2P) and were recorded.
- Water quality (all four trials): Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, Daily Water exchange rate, Water classification — Methods states DO/EC/pH were “measured twice a week” but no values are given anywhere in Results or Tables 1-5 for DO or temperature specifically (effectively “data not shown” for those two, though the paper never uses that phrase).
- Plant measurements (all four trials): Plant height, Leaf count — only leaf area and specific leaf area (SLA) were measured, not height or leaf count; Plant Category, Fish Category, Water classification — the paper never applies a categorical label to any of these (per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule, not substituted).
- Duration (T3, T4 only): Fish trial duration (days), Days Plant after transplant — the paper explicitly calls crop 1 a “4-week trial” but never restates crop 2’s duration as a number of days/weeks anywhere, only its start date (4 Sep 2009) and the overall two-crop period (“between August and October 2009”). Not assumed equal to crop 1; left NR per the no-derivation rule.
- Site: Average room Temperature, Climate control, Artificial Lighting details — greenhouse used, first crop grown under 50% shading (a light-reduction measure, not itself a schema field), but no heating/cooling/humidity setpoints or supplemental lighting are mentioned.
- Funding — not stated anywhere in the paper (no acknowledgements/funding section present in the 8-page proceedings format).
NO COLUMN items (see each trial row’s Experimental Remarks for exact figures): full water-mineral panel beyond N species (P, K, Ca, Mg, Na in mmol/L, Table 2, both AP and HYD, both crops); HYD-side water chemistry (NO3-N, TAN, EC, pH) since these are aquaponic-loop-only columns per vault convention; HYD tank volume (100 L vs AP’s 850 L); HYD plant fresh/dry weight (Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter columns hold only the AP value per vault convention established in mehdiEvaluatingPerformanceLimitations2026); leaf area and SLA (Table 1, both crops, both units); SPAD mid-cycle (2-week) readings, distinct from the harvest/“end” values used in the trials.csv SPAD cell (also captured separately in plant_measurements.csv).
plant_measurements.csv scope decision: Table 3’s leaf mineral panel (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Na, g/kg d.wt) and Table 4’s SPAD chlorophyll readings (mid-cycle and harvest, both crops) were extracted to plant.csv (Category mineral and biochemistry respectively), duplicating each crop’s shared hydroponic-control row across both of that crop’s trial IDs, per the convention established in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023/levizouCircularTriTrophicSystem2025. Table 5’s leaf nitrate data was deliberately NOT duplicated into plant.csv, since trials.csv already has dedicated Tissue nitrate AP/Tissue nitrate HYD columns that serve exactly this purpose — duplicating it into plant.csv as well was judged redundant rather than additive. No SD/SE is reported for any measurement anywhere in this paper (only Duncan’s-test grouping letters or an omnibus ///ns marker per table column) — the plant.csv SD column is NR throughout, not because dispersion is missing for these specific values but because the paper never reports it for anything.
No water panel excluded beyond what’s noted above — the full Table 2 water-mineral dataset (P/K/Ca/Mg/Na) is real trial-mean-adjacent data (start/end snapshots) that has no column home in trials.csv and doesn’t fit plant_measurements.csv’s plant-analyte scope either; it is preserved in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) rather than discarded.
Tags judgment call: Tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia (Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, the sole aquaculture species) and Meta/Plant/Lettuce (romaine, Lactuca sativa, reusing the vault’s existing generic Lettuce tag rather than creating a “Romaine” sub-facet). Meta/Region/Europe per Italy. No new tag facets introduced.
New wikilink targets introduced: E. Pantanella, M. Cardarelli, G. Colla, E. Rea, A. Marcucci (no existing notes for these authors found in the vault). Reused existing canonical forms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Tissue nitrate content (noting the vault already has a second, less-used variant Tissue nitrate (NO3) in modarelliHydroponicAquaponicFloating2023 — listing this fragmentation here per CLAUDE.md rather than silently picking one).
PDF quality: Clean text layer throughout (8 pages, standard two-column Acta Horticulturae typesetting), fully extractable, no OCR issues. One layout quirk: the final printed page (894) is blank in the source PDF and is not part of Crossref’s stated page range (887-893); treated as a formatting artifact, not missing content.
Source: Pantanella et al. - 2012 - AQUAPONICS VS. HYDROPONICS PRODUCTION AND QUALITY.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) |
| Initial Stock density | 4.8 |
| Protein | 31 |
| Fish size initial | 110 |
| Feed regime | Skretting Classic K 3P (Hendrix S.p.A., Mozzecane, Verona, Italy), 31% crude protein pellets |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 28 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4.17 |
| Water volume in the system | 850 |
| Water type | Osmotized water |
| Aq pH | 6.5-7.0 |
| EC | 0.4 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.0-0.0 (mg/L, start-end of trial, Table 2; converted from 0.0-0.0 mmol/L NH4-N) |
| NO3-N | 7.0-11.2 (mg/L, start-end of trial, Table 2; converted from 0.5-0.8 mmol/L NO3-N) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. ‘Integral’) |
| Details | 1st crop cycle, started 8 Aug 2009 (4-week trial). 3-week-old romaine lettuce seedlings (‘Integral’, Syngenta, Mariano Comense, Italy) transplanted onto floating rafts; grown under 50% shading. Shoot fresh weight recorded at harvest; roots and shoots oven-dried (80C, 72h) for dry biomass; leaf area by electronic area meter (SLA = leaf area / leaf dry weight). |
| Days Plant after transplant | 28 |
| Plants/m2 | 20 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 28.8 |
| Plant fresh weight | 118.6 |
| Plant dry matter | 6.30 (g/plant dry weight, as reported — paper does not give a % dry matter) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | 545.3 |
| Tissue nitrate HYD | 143.3 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating system (floating raft, DWC) |
| Media Details | Floating rafts; raft material not specified. AP unit 1.5 m2/system (6 independent systems, 3 per density treatment); HYD unit 0.5 m2/system (3 systems) (Methods p.888) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Floating hydroponic troughs double as the site of biological nitrification (fish-excreted ammonia to nitrate) after solids removal via a 100 L clarifier + 25 L net filter (Introduction p.887, Methods p.888); no separate dedicated biofilter tank. Systems filled with osmotized water and stocked with tilapia 17 days before each crop’s trial start (from 21 July for crop 1; start date for crop-2 conditioning not separately stated) to build the nutrient pool via this nitrification process before plant measurements began.) |
| Air supplement | Y (Blower supplies air lines to both the fish tank and the floating hydroponic trough (Fig. 1); no air flow rate or DO setpoint stated.) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (AP nutrient pool amended with 36 umol/L Fe (plus K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L) at system setup, before fish stocking, to raise initial EC from 0.01 to 0.4 dS/m (Methods p.888). HYD base recipe also contains Fe (35.7 umol/L) as a standard nutrient-solution component, not a distinct supplement.) |
| Remineralization | Y (One-time mineral addition at AP system setup: K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L (Methods p.888). Ongoing pH-correction reagents (CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2, H3PO4) additionally add K/Ca/P to AP water throughout the trial — paper explicitly attributes higher K/Ca in HD and higher P in LD to differential use of these buffering agents (Results p.889).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (AP pH maintained at 6.5-7.0 via CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2 and H3PO4 (Methods p.888); HYD pH maintained at 5.5 (reagent not stated). See Remineralization notes: the AP buffering agents are also identified as a source of differential K/Ca/P enrichment between LD and HD.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (AP: one-time mineral addition (K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L) at system setup, 17 days pre-trial; no further nutrient dosing during the 4-week trial itself, relying thereafter on fish waste. HYD: full mineral nutrient solution maintained throughout (NO3-N 14.0, NH4-N 1.5, P 1.2, K 5.0, Ca 4.5, S 1.9, Mg 1.8 mmol/L; Mn 7.3, Fe 35.7, B 44.7, Zn 1.5, Cu 0.8, Mo 0.2 umol/L; EC 1.7 dS/m, pH 5.5) (Methods p.888).) |
| Equipment | Hanna HI9147-04 dissolved-oxygen meter; Hanna HI98130 pH/EC meter; Thermo Helios Beta spectrophotometer (ammonia by Anderson & Ingram 1989; nitrate by Cataldo et al. 1975 salicylic-sulfuric acid method); Minolta SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter; Delta-T Devices Ltd electronic leaf area meter; ICP for plant macro/micronutrients; forced-air oven, 80C/72h, for dry biomass; SPSS 16 for Windows. |
| Control Parameters | AP pH buffered to 6.5-7.0 (CaCO3/KOH/Ca(OH)2/H3PO4); HYD pH maintained at 5.5; AP EC targets by trial (LD1 0.4, HD1 0.6, LD2 0.5, HD2 1.0 dS/m — see Experimental Remarks for a Results-narrative discrepancy on the HD trials); HYD EC 1.7 dS/m (fixed recipe); water retention time 50 min (fish tank) / 95 min (floating troughs); flow rate 250 L/h. |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and romaine lettuce; two aquaponic fish-density treatments (low-density LD, high-density HD) each compared against its own hydroponic control, floating raft/DWC, repeated across two sequential summer crop cycles (Aug-Sep and Sep-Oct 2009) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
| Lat | 42.4167 |
| Long | 12.1333 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg m-2 (yield); g plant-1 (fresh/dry weight); cm2 plant-1 (leaf area); cm2 g-1 (SLA); mg kg-1 f.wt (leaf nitrate); g kg-1 d.wt (leaf mineral composition); SPAD units (chlorophyll); mmol L-1 (water nutrients, converted to mg L-1 for TAN/NO3-N cells); dS m-1 (EC) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (SPSS 16 for Windows); Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05, on significant variables |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 2.37 |
| HYD | 2.84 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = 1st crop cycle (started 8 Aug 2009, 4-week trial), aquaponic low-density (LD) fish treatment, stocked at 4.8 kg m-3 with 110 g tilapia, EC target 0.4 dS/m. Paired control = the 1st-crop hydroponic treatment (recorded in HYD-labelled cells), NOT the same hydroponic run used for T3/T4 — this paper ran two separate, sequential crop cycles, each with its own hydroponic control measured independently (Tables 1-5 report ‘1st crop’ and ‘2nd crop’ as distinct blocks with different absolute HYD values). Design: 2 aquaponic treatments (LD, HD) + 1 hydroponic control, each replicated 3x (3 independent 250 L fish-tank systems per aquaponic treatment; 3 x 0.5 m2 floating systems for HYD); ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05. The paper does not use the word ‘randomized’ anywhere for treatment-to-system assignment (unlike some other vault papers that state this explicitly) — recorded as experiment per SCHEMA.md Part 1’s simpler test (controlled manipulation, defined treatments, true replication, formal statistical comparison), with this judgment call flagged here since Part 2’s decision rule 2 for experiment-vs-quasi-experiment references randomization specifically. | WARN-MINOR Initial Stock density (LD, both crops): abstract (p.887) states low-density stocking as round figures ‘5 kg m-3’ (1st crop) and ‘6 kg m-3’ (2nd crop); Methods (p.888-889) gives one-decimal figures ‘4.8 kg m-3’ and ‘5.2 kg m-3’ for the same two treatments. HD figures match exactly between abstract and Methods (8 and 20 kg m-3) for both crops, so only the LD figures are rounded in the abstract. Methods’ more precise values used in this and the T3 cell. | WARN-MATERIAL EC (HD trials, cross-referenced here since both crop-1 rows share the same underlying passage): Abstract (p.887) and Methods (p.888-889) agree twice that 1st-crop HD’s EC target was set at ‘0.6 dS m-1’ (vs LD’s 0.4). Results (p.889) instead narrates the measured trend as ‘HD showed a raising trend from 0.4 to 0.8 dS m-1 in the first crop and 0.8 to 1.2 dS m-1 in the second crop’ — i.e. a starting point of 0.4 (identical to LD’s own target), not 0.6, and a 2nd-crop endpoint (1.2) that does not match the separately stated 2nd-crop HD target of ‘1.0 dS m-1’ (abstract p.887, Methods p.889). Recorded EC = the twice-stated Methods/abstract target value for each trial (0.4 LD-1, 0.6 HD-1, 0.5 LD-2, 1.0 HD-2), since it is independently stated in two places versus the Results trend sentence’s single mention; the Results-stated trend range is preserved here for the record and is NOT entered in the EC cell. This affects the HD-1 (T2) and HD-2 (T4) EC cells specifically; LD’s target and the Results trend for LD (0.4-0.5 both crops) do not conflict. | WARN-MATERIAL NO3-N and TAN/NH4-N, Results narrative vs Table 2 (consolidated across all 4 trials, one likely root cause — narrative restating a table with drift): Results p.889 states in running text: ‘Nitrate nitrogen concentrations in water at the beginning of the first crop were 0.6 mmol L-1 in the low fish density treatment (LD) and 1.1 mmol L-1 in the high fish density treatment (HD) while final values were 1.1 mmol L-1 (LD) and 5.0 mmol L-1 (HD), respectively. In the second lettuce crop NO3-N concentrations at the end of the trial were 1.4 mmol L-1 (LD) and 9.3 mmol L-1 (HD).’ Table 2 (p.892) gives, for the identical measurements: Start 1st crop LD=0.5/HD=1.0; End 1st crop LD=0.8/HD=4.6; End 2nd crop LD=1.1/HD=9.8 mmol/L. Every one of the six values differs between the two sources by 10-40% (never identical). No basis exists to prefer one wholesale, EXCEPT: the Conclusions section (p.890) restates ‘no difference in yields…whenever nitrogen concentrations were above 1.4 mmol L-1’ — a figure that matches the Results-narrative’s 2nd-crop-LD-end value (1.4), not Table 2’s (1.1). This gives the text figure two independent restatements (Results + Conclusions) for that one specific value, versus Table 2’s single appearance. For consistency, Table 2 is nonetheless used for all six NO3-N/TAN cells here (the structured, statistically-letter-annotated dataset that Tables 3/4/5’s own cross-references rely on), but this means the Conclusions section’s own headline claim is built on a number (1.4) that differs from the recorded Table-2-sourced cell (1.1) for that same measurement (T3’s NO3-N). Flagged prominently: verify before citing the paper’s ‘1.4 mmol/L’ threshold claim against this row. All figures (both sources, both units) given here; mg/L conversions in each trial’s own NO3-N/TAN cells use Table 2’s numbers x 14 (N molar mass, mmol/L -> mg/L as N; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, permitted per SCHEMA.md, since the schema’s NO3-N/TAN columns are defined in mg/L while the paper reports mmol/L). Text-sourced equivalents in mg/L: start1 LD 8.4/HD 15.4; end1 LD 15.4/HD 70.0; end2 LD 19.6/HD 130.2. HYD’s own NO3-N/EC/pH figures are not affected by this cell choice since HYD water chemistry has no dedicated column here (see NO COLUMN). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: water flow rate 250 L h-1 -> 4.17 L/min (Water recycle cell; Methods p.888); coordinates 42 deg 25’ N, 12 deg 08’ E (valid DMS, both <60 min) -> decimal 42.4167, 12.1333 (Methods p.888); NO3-N/NH4-N mmol/L -> mg/L via x14 (N molar mass), see MATERIAL flag above for the values converted. NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR; SGR; feed N/P/K composition beyond crude protein (Table 1 gives only diet brand/protein %); % of body weight ration (feeding rate/frequency never stated as a %); Fish size final (no harvest fish weight ever given, only stocking weights); Total Feed (kg); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish weight gain (no fish growth/harvest data reported at all — fish are a nutrient source only, not a measured endpoint in this plant-quality-focused paper); Feed routine (feeding frequency per day not stated, only diet identity and protein content); Daily Water exchange rate; Water temperature (measured per Methods p.889 but no values given in Results/Tables); Dissolved Oxygen (stated as measured twice weekly, Methods p.889, but no values reported anywhere in Results or Tables 1-5 — effectively ‘data not shown’); pHOptimal (no literature-cited optimum distinct from the maintained range); Plant height (only leaf area and SLA measured, not height); Leaf count (not measured); Climate control / Artificial Lighting (greenhouse used but no heating/cooling/humidity setpoints or supplemental lighting mentioned; first crop grown under 50% shading, which reduces rather than adds light and has no dedicated schema column — see NO COLUMN); Water classification, Fish Category, Plant Category (paper does not apply a categorical term to any of these, per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule). | NO COLUMN: HYD-side water chemistry (no paired HYD column exists for Aq pH/EC/DO/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N, which are aquaponic-loop-only fields per vault convention) — 1st-crop HYD: NO3-N 11.2->11.4 mmol/L (156.8->159.6 mg/L) start-end; NH4-N 1.9->0.4 mmol/L (26.6->5.6 mg/L); pH 5.5 (target); EC 1.7 dS/m (recipe). Full HYD/AP water-mineral panel beyond N species (Table 2, mmol/L, start/end, 1st crop): P: LD 0.0->1.0, HD 0.1->0.4, HYD 1.2->1.2; K: LD 0.3->1.8, HD 0.4->2.1, HYD 4.7->5.2; Ca: LD 0.9->1.8, HD 0.9->2.9, HYD 4.8->5.7; Mg: LD 0.3->1.5, HD 0.3->1.7, HYD 3.1->3.5; Na: LD 0.32->0.51, HD 0.29->0.50, HYD 0.32->0.33 (all mmol/L; no dedicated trials.csv columns for water P/K/Ca/Mg/Na). HYD tank volume 100 L (0.5 m2 floating system) vs AP’s 850 L (Methods p.888) — Water volume in the system column holds only the AP value per vault convention. HYD plant fresh weight 142.2 g/plant and dry weight 8.19 g/plant (1st crop, Table 1) — Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter columns hold only the AP value per vault convention (established in mehdiEvaluatingPerformanceLimitations2026). Leaf area and SLA (Table 1): AP-LD 3366.7 cm2/plant (SLA 535.9 cm2/g), AP-HD 3631.0 (525.7), HYD 4625.1 (562.5); leaf-area significance ns, SLA significance ns for 1st crop — no dedicated column for leaf area/SLA. SPAD at mid-cycle (2 weeks post-transplant, Table 4, distinct from the harvest/‘end’ value used in the SPAD cell): AP-LD 28.0, AP-HD 32.4, HYD 36.2 (also captured in plant_measurements.csv). | Fish strain ambiguity [unclear]: Methods (p.888) states systems were ‘stocked…with two Nile tilapia strains (Oreochromis niloticus L.)’ but never specifies which strain was used in LD vs HD, in either crop. Fish column recorded generically as ‘Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.)’ for all four trials; strain-to-treatment mapping left [unclear], not resolved.
pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) |
| Initial Stock density | 8 |
| Protein | 43 |
| Fish size initial | 24 |
| Feed regime | Skretting Classic K 1P, 43% crude protein pellets |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 28 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4.17 |
| Water volume in the system | 850 |
| Water type | Osmotized water |
| Aq pH | 6.5-7.0 |
| EC | 0.6 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.4-1.4 (mg/L, start-end of trial, Table 2; converted from 0.1-0.1 mmol/L NH4-N) |
| NO3-N | 14.0-64.4 (mg/L, start-end of trial, Table 2; converted from 1.0-4.6 mmol/L NO3-N) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. ‘Integral’) |
| Details | 1st crop cycle, started 8 Aug 2009 (4-week trial). Same seedlings/transplant/harvest protocol and 50% shading as T1 (shared 1st-crop cycle). |
| Days Plant after transplant | 28 |
| Plants/m2 | 20 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 34.1 |
| Plant fresh weight | 135.3 |
| Plant dry matter | 6.96 (g/plant dry weight, as reported — paper does not give a % dry matter) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | 285.6 |
| Tissue nitrate HYD | 143.3 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating system (floating raft, DWC) |
| Media Details | Floating rafts; raft material not specified. AP unit 1.5 m2/system (6 independent systems, 3 per density treatment); HYD unit 0.5 m2/system (3 systems) (Methods p.888) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Floating hydroponic troughs double as the site of biological nitrification (fish-excreted ammonia to nitrate) after solids removal via a 100 L clarifier + 25 L net filter (Introduction p.887, Methods p.888); no separate dedicated biofilter tank. Systems filled with osmotized water and stocked with tilapia 17 days before each crop’s trial start (from 21 July for crop 1; start date for crop-2 conditioning not separately stated) to build the nutrient pool via this nitrification process before plant measurements began.) |
| Air supplement | Y (Blower supplies air lines to both the fish tank and the floating hydroponic trough (Fig. 1); no air flow rate or DO setpoint stated.) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (AP nutrient pool amended with 36 umol/L Fe (plus K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L) at system setup, before fish stocking, to raise initial EC from 0.01 to 0.4 dS/m (Methods p.888). HYD base recipe also contains Fe (35.7 umol/L) as a standard nutrient-solution component, not a distinct supplement.) |
| Remineralization | Y (One-time mineral addition at AP system setup: K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L (Methods p.888). Ongoing pH-correction reagents (CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2, H3PO4) additionally add K/Ca/P to AP water throughout the trial — paper explicitly attributes higher K/Ca in HD and higher P in LD to differential use of these buffering agents (Results p.889).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (AP pH maintained at 6.5-7.0 via CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2 and H3PO4 (Methods p.888); HYD pH maintained at 5.5 (reagent not stated). See Remineralization notes: the AP buffering agents are also identified as a source of differential K/Ca/P enrichment between LD and HD.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (AP: one-time mineral addition (K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L) at system setup, 17 days pre-trial; no further nutrient dosing during the 4-week trial itself, relying thereafter on fish waste. HYD: full mineral nutrient solution maintained throughout (NO3-N 14.0, NH4-N 1.5, P 1.2, K 5.0, Ca 4.5, S 1.9, Mg 1.8 mmol/L; Mn 7.3, Fe 35.7, B 44.7, Zn 1.5, Cu 0.8, Mo 0.2 umol/L; EC 1.7 dS/m, pH 5.5) (Methods p.888).) |
| Equipment | Hanna HI9147-04 dissolved-oxygen meter; Hanna HI98130 pH/EC meter; Thermo Helios Beta spectrophotometer (ammonia by Anderson & Ingram 1989; nitrate by Cataldo et al. 1975 salicylic-sulfuric acid method); Minolta SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter; Delta-T Devices Ltd electronic leaf area meter; ICP for plant macro/micronutrients; forced-air oven, 80C/72h, for dry biomass; SPSS 16 for Windows. |
| Control Parameters | AP pH buffered to 6.5-7.0 (CaCO3/KOH/Ca(OH)2/H3PO4); HYD pH maintained at 5.5; AP EC targets by trial (LD1 0.4, HD1 0.6, LD2 0.5, HD2 1.0 dS/m — see Experimental Remarks for a Results-narrative discrepancy on the HD trials); HYD EC 1.7 dS/m (fixed recipe); water retention time 50 min (fish tank) / 95 min (floating troughs); flow rate 250 L/h. |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and romaine lettuce; two aquaponic fish-density treatments (low-density LD, high-density HD) each compared against its own hydroponic control, floating raft/DWC, repeated across two sequential summer crop cycles (Aug-Sep and Sep-Oct 2009) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
| Lat | 42.4167 |
| Long | 12.1333 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg m-2 (yield); g plant-1 (fresh/dry weight); cm2 plant-1 (leaf area); cm2 g-1 (SLA); mg kg-1 f.wt (leaf nitrate); g kg-1 d.wt (leaf mineral composition); SPAD units (chlorophyll); mmol L-1 (water nutrients, converted to mg L-1 for TAN/NO3-N cells); dS m-1 (EC) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (SPSS 16 for Windows); Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05, on significant variables |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 2.71 |
| HYD | 2.84 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = 1st crop cycle (started 8 Aug 2009, 4-week trial), aquaponic high-density (HD) fish treatment, stocked at 8 kg m-3 with 24 g tilapia, EC target 0.6 dS/m. Paired control = the SAME 1st-crop hydroponic treatment as T1 (same HYD values repeated here per one-row-per-treatment convention); T2 is NOT paired with T3/T4’s hydroponic run (see T1’s TRIAL DEFINITION for the two-separate-crop-cycles structure). Design: as T1 — 2 aquaponic treatments + 1 hydroponic control, each replicated 3x; ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05. Same experiment-vs-quasi-experiment judgment call as T1 applies (see T1 remarks). | WARN-MATERIAL EC target vs Results-narrative trend for this specific trial (HD, 1st crop): recorded EC = 0.6 dS/m (Methods p.888-889 and abstract p.887, stated twice). Results (p.889) narrates the measured trend as ‘HD showed a raising trend from 0.4 to 0.8 dS m-1 in the first crop’ — i.e. describing a starting point of 0.4, not 0.6, matching LD’s own target rather than HD’s. No way to tell from the text whether this is a copy-paste artifact (LD’s number reused) or the target genuinely wasn’t reached until partway through the trial. 0.6 is recorded per the twice-stated Methods/abstract source; full detail and the paired 2nd-crop (T4) instance of this same issue are given in T1’s Experimental Remarks (shared root cause). | WARN-MATERIAL NO3-N/TAN, Results narrative vs Table 2: this trial’s cell (14.0-64.4 mg/L, from Table 2’s 1.0->4.6 mmol/L) differs from the Results-narrative equivalent (1.1->5.0 mmol/L = 15.4->70.0 mg/L, p.889). Table 2 preferred for the reasons and full six-value comparison given in T1’s Experimental Remarks (same consolidated flag, shared root cause across all four trials); this specific value pair does not carry the extra Conclusions-section reinforcement that affects T3’s cell, so it is a more ordinary instance of the same issue. | WARN-MINOR: none specific to this trial beyond the LD-only stocking-density rounding noted in T1 (not applicable to HD, whose density matches exactly between abstract and Methods). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: as T1 (flow rate, coordinates, mmol/L->mg/L for N species). NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR; SGR; feed N/P/K composition beyond crude protein (Table 1 gives only diet brand/protein %); % of body weight ration (feeding rate/frequency never stated as a %); Fish size final (no harvest fish weight ever given, only stocking weights); Total Feed (kg); Fish biomass created (kg); Fish survival rate; Fish weight gain (no fish growth/harvest data reported at all — fish are a nutrient source only, not a measured endpoint in this plant-quality-focused paper); Feed routine (feeding frequency per day not stated, only diet identity and protein content); Daily Water exchange rate; Water temperature (measured per Methods p.889 but no values given in Results/Tables); Dissolved Oxygen (stated as measured twice weekly, Methods p.889, but no values reported anywhere in Results or Tables 1-5 — effectively ‘data not shown’); pHOptimal (no literature-cited optimum distinct from the maintained range); Plant height (only leaf area and SLA measured, not height); Leaf count (not measured); Climate control / Artificial Lighting (greenhouse used but no heating/cooling/humidity setpoints or supplemental lighting mentioned; first crop grown under 50% shading, which reduces rather than adds light and has no dedicated schema column — see NO COLUMN); Water classification, Fish Category, Plant Category (paper does not apply a categorical term to any of these, per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule). | NO COLUMN: same shared-HYD water/plant panel as T1 (see T1 remarks for full 1st-crop HYD figures; not repeated here to avoid duplication — values are identical since this is the same hydroponic control). SPAD mid-cycle for this trial (Table 4): AP-HD 32.4 (also captured in plant_measurements.csv). | Fish strain ambiguity: as T1 — see T1 remarks.
pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) |
| Initial Stock density | 5.2 |
| Protein | 31 |
| Fish size initial | 168 |
| Feed regime | Skretting Classic K 3P (Hendrix S.p.A., Mozzecane, Verona, Italy), 31% crude protein pellets |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4.17 |
| Water volume in the system | 850 |
| Water type | Osmotized water |
| Aq pH | 6.5-7.0 |
| EC | 0.5 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.0 (mg/L, single end-of-trial value, Table 2; converted from 0.0 mmol/L NH4-N; no start value reported for the 2nd crop) |
| NO3-N | 15.4 (mg/L, single end-of-trial value, Table 2; converted from 1.1 mmol/L NO3-N; no start value reported for the 2nd crop) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. ‘Integral’) |
| Details | 2nd crop cycle, started 4 Sep 2009 (exact duration not restated, see Extraction notes). 3-week-old romaine lettuce seedlings (‘Integral’, Syngenta) transplanted onto floating rafts; no shading mentioned for this cycle (shading only stated for the 1st crop). Shoot fresh weight recorded at harvest; roots and shoots oven-dried (80C, 72h) for dry biomass; leaf area by electronic area meter. |
| Plants/m2 | 20 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 30.9 |
| Plant fresh weight | 283.3 |
| Plant dry matter | 13.31 (g/plant dry weight, as reported — paper does not give a % dry matter) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | 1501.3 |
| Tissue nitrate HYD | 1591.5 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating system (floating raft, DWC) |
| Media Details | Floating rafts; raft material not specified. AP unit 1.5 m2/system (6 independent systems, 3 per density treatment); HYD unit 0.5 m2/system (3 systems) (Methods p.888) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Floating hydroponic troughs double as the site of biological nitrification (fish-excreted ammonia to nitrate) after solids removal via a 100 L clarifier + 25 L net filter (Introduction p.887, Methods p.888); no separate dedicated biofilter tank. Systems filled with osmotized water and stocked with tilapia 17 days before each crop’s trial start (from 21 July for crop 1; start date for crop-2 conditioning not separately stated) to build the nutrient pool via this nitrification process before plant measurements began.) |
| Air supplement | Y (Blower supplies air lines to both the fish tank and the floating hydroponic trough (Fig. 1); no air flow rate or DO setpoint stated.) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (AP nutrient pool amended with 36 umol/L Fe (plus K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L) at system setup, before fish stocking, to raise initial EC from 0.01 to 0.4 dS/m (Methods p.888). HYD base recipe also contains Fe (35.7 umol/L) as a standard nutrient-solution component, not a distinct supplement.) |
| Remineralization | Y (One-time mineral addition at AP system setup: K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L (Methods p.888). Ongoing pH-correction reagents (CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2, H3PO4) additionally add K/Ca/P to AP water throughout the trial — paper explicitly attributes higher K/Ca in HD and higher P in LD to differential use of these buffering agents (Results p.889).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (AP pH maintained at 6.5-7.0 via CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2 and H3PO4 (Methods p.888); HYD pH maintained at 5.5 (reagent not stated). See Remineralization notes: the AP buffering agents are also identified as a source of differential K/Ca/P enrichment between LD and HD.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (AP: one-time mineral addition (K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L) at system setup, 17 days pre-trial; no further nutrient dosing during the 4-week trial itself, relying thereafter on fish waste. HYD: full mineral nutrient solution maintained throughout (NO3-N 14.0, NH4-N 1.5, P 1.2, K 5.0, Ca 4.5, S 1.9, Mg 1.8 mmol/L; Mn 7.3, Fe 35.7, B 44.7, Zn 1.5, Cu 0.8, Mo 0.2 umol/L; EC 1.7 dS/m, pH 5.5) (Methods p.888).) |
| Equipment | Hanna HI9147-04 dissolved-oxygen meter; Hanna HI98130 pH/EC meter; Thermo Helios Beta spectrophotometer (ammonia by Anderson & Ingram 1989; nitrate by Cataldo et al. 1975 salicylic-sulfuric acid method); Minolta SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter; Delta-T Devices Ltd electronic leaf area meter; ICP for plant macro/micronutrients; forced-air oven, 80C/72h, for dry biomass; SPSS 16 for Windows. |
| Control Parameters | AP pH buffered to 6.5-7.0 (CaCO3/KOH/Ca(OH)2/H3PO4); HYD pH maintained at 5.5; AP EC targets by trial (LD1 0.4, HD1 0.6, LD2 0.5, HD2 1.0 dS/m — see Experimental Remarks for a Results-narrative discrepancy on the HD trials); HYD EC 1.7 dS/m (fixed recipe); water retention time 50 min (fish tank) / 95 min (floating troughs); flow rate 250 L/h. |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and romaine lettuce; two aquaponic fish-density treatments (low-density LD, high-density HD) each compared against its own hydroponic control, floating raft/DWC, repeated across two sequential summer crop cycles (Aug-Sep and Sep-Oct 2009) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
| Lat | 42.4167 |
| Long | 12.1333 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg m-2 (yield); g plant-1 (fresh/dry weight); cm2 plant-1 (leaf area); cm2 g-1 (SLA); mg kg-1 f.wt (leaf nitrate); g kg-1 d.wt (leaf mineral composition); SPAD units (chlorophyll); mmol L-1 (water nutrients, converted to mg L-1 for TAN/NO3-N cells); dS m-1 (EC) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (SPSS 16 for Windows); Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05, on significant variables |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 5.67 |
| HYD | 6.02 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = 2nd crop cycle (started 4 Sep 2009; duration not explicitly restated, see NOT DERIVED), aquaponic low-density (LD) fish treatment, stocked at 5.2 kg m-3 with 168 g tilapia, EC target 0.5 dS/m. Paired control = the 2nd-crop hydroponic treatment (recorded in HYD-labelled cells here), which is a SEPARATE run from T1/T2’s 1st-crop hydroponic control — see T1’s TRIAL DEFINITION for why this paper’s two crop cycles each get their own HYD baseline rather than sharing one. Design: as T1/T2 — 2 aquaponic treatments + 1 hydroponic control, each replicated 3x; ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05 (for 2nd crop, most variables were non-significant among treatments — see Tables 1, 3). Same experiment-vs-quasi-experiment judgment call as T1 applies. | WARN-MINOR Initial Stock density: abstract (p.887) states ‘6 kg m-3’ for 2nd-crop LD; Methods (p.889) gives ‘5.2 kg m-3’. Methods’ more precise value recorded here; full detail in T1’s Experimental Remarks (shared root cause with the 1st-crop LD instance). | WARN-MATERIAL EC target vs Results-narrative trend: recorded EC = 0.5 dS/m (Methods p.889, abstract p.887, stated twice, no conflict for LD — Results’ own trend statement, ‘EC levels in the LD treatment were almost settled at 0.4-0.5 dS m-1 in both crops’, p.889, is consistent with this target). No flag needed for this cell; noted here only because T4 (this crop’s HD trial) does carry a genuine EC conflict — see T4 remarks. | WARN-MATERIAL/PRIORITY NO3-N, Results narrative vs Table 2 — THE CONCLUSIONS-SECTION-RELEVANT INSTANCE: this trial’s cell (15.4 mg/L, from Table 2’s 1.1 mmol/L, p.892) differs from the Results-narrative figure for the same measurement (1.4 mmol/L = 19.6 mg/L, p.889: ‘In the second lettuce crop NO3-N concentrations at the end of the trial were 1.4 mmol L-1 (LD)…’). Critically, the Conclusions section (p.890) restates this SAME 1.4 mmol/L figure as the paper’s own headline threshold: ‘there was no difference in yields between hydroponic and aquaponic treatments whenever nitrogen concentrations were above 1.4 mmol L-1.’ This is the only one of the six Table-2-vs-Results-narrative NO3-N/TAN discrepancies (see T1 remarks for the full set) that is independently restated a second time in the paper’s own conclusions, giving 1.4 mmol/L textual reinforcement that Table 2’s 1.1 mmol/L lacks. Table 2’s value (15.4 mg/L = 1.1 mmol/L) is nonetheless recorded in this cell for consistency with the other three trials (see T1 remarks for the uniform-source rationale), but this means the recorded cell does NOT match the number the paper’s own Conclusions section relies on for its central claim. Flagged here at highest visibility: verify against Table 2 and both text passages (p.889, p.890) before citing either this cell or the paper’s ‘1.4 mmol/L’ threshold claim. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: as T1 (coordinates, mmol/L->mg/L for N species; no flow-rate conversion needed here since the Water recycle field is the same shared system-design value as T1). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish trial duration (days) and Days Plant after transplant — unlike the 1st crop, which the paper explicitly calls a ‘first 4-week trial’ (p.888), the 2nd crop’s duration is never restated as a number of days or weeks anywhere in the paper; only the start date (4 Sep 2009) and the overall period for both trials combined (‘between August and October 2009’, p.888) are given. Assuming a matching 4-week/28-day duration for the 2nd crop would be an unstated inference, not a value the paper states — left NR rather than assumed. Other NOT DERIVED fields as T1 (see T1 remarks; FCR, SGR, feed composition, fish size final, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Feed routine, Daily Water exchange rate, Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, Plant height, Leaf count, Climate control, Artificial Lighting, Water classification, Fish Category, Plant Category). | NO COLUMN: HYD-side water chemistry (2nd crop, Table 2, mmol/L, single end-of-trial value, no start reported): NO3-N 11.6 (162.4 mg/L); NH4-N 0.1 (1.4 mg/L, ns); P 0.8; K 3.6; Ca 5.6; Mg 3.2; Na 0.47 (all significant at p<0.001 except NH4-N, ns). AP-LD same-panel non-N values: P 0.9, K 0.9, Ca 1.4, Mg 1.3, Na 0.84. HYD tank volume 100 L vs AP 850 L (design constant across all trials, see T1). HYD plant fresh weight 300.9 g/plant and dry weight 15.05 g/plant (2nd crop, Table 1; ns among all 3 treatments for both). Leaf area/SLA (Table 1, 2nd crop): AP-LD 5686.9 cm2/plant (SLA 427.5b), AP-HD 5356.4 (390.5a), HYD 6073.9 (403.7a); leaf area ns, SLA significant (**). SPAD mid-cycle (Table 4, 2nd crop): AP-LD 29.7 (also captured in plant_measurements.csv). | Fish strain ambiguity: as T1 — see T1 remarks (applies equally to the 2nd crop’s two strains/treatments).
pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) |
| Initial Stock density | 20 |
| Protein | 40 |
| Fish size initial | 90 |
| Feed regime | Skretting Classic K 2P, 40% crude protein pellets |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 4.17 |
| Water volume in the system | 850 |
| Water type | Osmotized water |
| Aq pH | 6.5-7.0 |
| EC | 1.0 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 1.4 (mg/L, single end-of-trial value, Table 2; converted from 0.1 mmol/L NH4-N; no start value reported for the 2nd crop) |
| NO3-N | 137.2 (mg/L, single end-of-trial value, Table 2; converted from 9.8 mmol/L NO3-N; no start value reported for the 2nd crop) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. ‘Integral’) |
| Details | 2nd crop cycle, started 4 Sep 2009 (exact duration not restated, see Extraction notes). Same seedlings/transplant/harvest protocol as T3 (shared 2nd-crop cycle); no shading mentioned for this cycle. |
| Plants/m2 | 20 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | 34.0 |
| Plant fresh weight | 285.2 |
| Plant dry matter | 13.71 (g/plant dry weight, as reported — paper does not give a % dry matter) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | 1181.9 |
| Tissue nitrate HYD | 1591.5 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating system (floating raft, DWC) |
| Media Details | Floating rafts; raft material not specified. AP unit 1.5 m2/system (6 independent systems, 3 per density treatment); HYD unit 0.5 m2/system (3 systems) (Methods p.888) |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Floating hydroponic troughs double as the site of biological nitrification (fish-excreted ammonia to nitrate) after solids removal via a 100 L clarifier + 25 L net filter (Introduction p.887, Methods p.888); no separate dedicated biofilter tank. Systems filled with osmotized water and stocked with tilapia 17 days before each crop’s trial start (from 21 July for crop 1; start date for crop-2 conditioning not separately stated) to build the nutrient pool via this nitrification process before plant measurements began.) |
| Air supplement | Y (Blower supplies air lines to both the fish tank and the floating hydroponic trough (Fig. 1); no air flow rate or DO setpoint stated.) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (AP nutrient pool amended with 36 umol/L Fe (plus K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L) at system setup, before fish stocking, to raise initial EC from 0.01 to 0.4 dS/m (Methods p.888). HYD base recipe also contains Fe (35.7 umol/L) as a standard nutrient-solution component, not a distinct supplement.) |
| Remineralization | Y (One-time mineral addition at AP system setup: K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L (Methods p.888). Ongoing pH-correction reagents (CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2, H3PO4) additionally add K/Ca/P to AP water throughout the trial — paper explicitly attributes higher K/Ca in HD and higher P in LD to differential use of these buffering agents (Results p.889).) |
| pH Buffers | Y (AP pH maintained at 6.5-7.0 via CaCO3, KOH, Ca(OH)2 and H3PO4 (Methods p.888); HYD pH maintained at 5.5 (reagent not stated). See Remineralization notes: the AP buffering agents are also identified as a source of differential K/Ca/P enrichment between LD and HD.) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (AP: one-time mineral addition (K 1.7, P 0.4, S 0.6, Mg 0.6 mmol/L, Fe 36 umol/L) at system setup, 17 days pre-trial; no further nutrient dosing during the 4-week trial itself, relying thereafter on fish waste. HYD: full mineral nutrient solution maintained throughout (NO3-N 14.0, NH4-N 1.5, P 1.2, K 5.0, Ca 4.5, S 1.9, Mg 1.8 mmol/L; Mn 7.3, Fe 35.7, B 44.7, Zn 1.5, Cu 0.8, Mo 0.2 umol/L; EC 1.7 dS/m, pH 5.5) (Methods p.888).) |
| Equipment | Hanna HI9147-04 dissolved-oxygen meter; Hanna HI98130 pH/EC meter; Thermo Helios Beta spectrophotometer (ammonia by Anderson & Ingram 1989; nitrate by Cataldo et al. 1975 salicylic-sulfuric acid method); Minolta SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter; Delta-T Devices Ltd electronic leaf area meter; ICP for plant macro/micronutrients; forced-air oven, 80C/72h, for dry biomass; SPSS 16 for Windows. |
| Control Parameters | AP pH buffered to 6.5-7.0 (CaCO3/KOH/Ca(OH)2/H3PO4); HYD pH maintained at 5.5; AP EC targets by trial (LD1 0.4, HD1 0.6, LD2 0.5, HD2 1.0 dS/m — see Experimental Remarks for a Results-narrative discrepancy on the HD trials); HYD EC 1.7 dS/m (fixed recipe); water retention time 50 min (fish tank) / 95 min (floating troughs); flow rate 250 L/h. |
| Combination | Nile tilapia and romaine lettuce; two aquaponic fish-density treatments (low-density LD, high-density HD) each compared against its own hydroponic control, floating raft/DWC, repeated across two sequential summer crop cycles (Aug-Sep and Sep-Oct 2009) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
| Lat | 42.4167 |
| Long | 12.1333 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg m-2 (yield); g plant-1 (fresh/dry weight); cm2 plant-1 (leaf area); cm2 g-1 (SLA); mg kg-1 f.wt (leaf nitrate); g kg-1 d.wt (leaf mineral composition); SPAD units (chlorophyll); mmol L-1 (water nutrients, converted to mg L-1 for TAN/NO3-N cells); dS m-1 (EC) |
| Statistic Details | ANOVA (SPSS 16 for Windows); Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05, on significant variables |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
| AP | 5.70 |
| HYD | 6.02 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = 2nd crop cycle (started 4 Sep 2009; duration not explicitly restated, see NOT DERIVED), aquaponic high-density (HD) fish treatment, stocked at 20 kg m-3 with 90 g tilapia, EC target 1.0 dS/m. Paired control = the SAME 2nd-crop hydroponic treatment as T3 (same HYD values repeated per one-row-per-treatment convention). Design: as T1-T3; ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, p=0.05. Same experiment-vs-quasi-experiment judgment call as T1 applies. | WARN-MATERIAL EC target vs Results-narrative trend for this specific trial (HD, 2nd crop): recorded EC = 1.0 dS/m (Methods p.889, abstract p.887, stated twice: ‘raised EC levels to 0.5 and 1.0 dS m-1’). Results (p.889) instead narrates the measured trend for HD across both crops as continuous: ‘…0.8 to 1.2 dS m-1 in the second crop’, i.e. an endpoint of 1.2, not matching the separately stated 1.0 target, and a starting point (0.8) that implies the 2nd crop’s HD EC picked up exactly where the (also-disputed) 1st-crop HD trend left off rather than being reset to a fresh target. Recorded 1.0 per the twice-stated Methods/abstract source; full detail and the paired 1st-crop (T2) instance of this same issue are given in T1’s Experimental Remarks (shared root cause). | WARN-MATERIAL NO3-N/TAN, Results narrative vs Table 2: this trial’s cell (137.2 mg/L, from Table 2’s 9.8 mmol/L) differs from the Results-narrative equivalent (9.3 mmol/L = 130.2 mg/L, p.889: ‘…9.3 mmol L-1 (HD)’). Table 2 preferred for the reasons given in T1’s Experimental Remarks (same consolidated flag, shared root cause across all four trials). Unlike T3’s LD instance, this HD value is not separately reinforced by the Conclusions section. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: as T1 (coordinates, mmol/L->mg/L for N species). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Fish trial duration (days) and Days Plant after transplant — same reasoning as T3 (2nd crop duration never explicitly restated as days/weeks anywhere in the paper). Other NOT DERIVED fields as T1/T3 (FCR, SGR, feed composition, fish size final, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Feed routine, Daily Water exchange rate, Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, Plant height, Leaf count, Climate control, Artificial Lighting, Water classification, Fish Category, Plant Category). | NO COLUMN: same shared 2nd-crop HYD water/plant panel as T3 (see T3 remarks for full figures; not repeated here to avoid duplication — values are identical since this is the same hydroponic control). AP-HD same-panel non-N water values (Table 2, 2nd crop, mmol/L): P 0.3, K 2.7, Ca 4.5, Mg 1.8, Na 0.76. SPAD mid-cycle (Table 4, 2nd crop): AP-HD 31.8 (also captured in plant_measurements.csv). | Fish strain ambiguity: as T1 — see T1 remarks.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 33.7 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 31.8 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 26.1 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 31.8 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 8.2 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 8.1 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 6.9 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 8.1 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 75.3 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 65.7 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 74.9 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 65.7 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 12.2 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 10.7 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 12.1 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 10.7 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 7.7 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 6.5 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 6.4 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 6.5 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.12 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.23 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.16 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.23 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 1.9 | g/kg DW | c | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 0.8 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 1.2 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 0.8 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 1st crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 28.9 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 25.9 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 30.0 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 25.9 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 7.0 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 7.5 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 5.8 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 7.5 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 70.5 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 70.5 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 59.0 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 70.5 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 10.7 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 9.4 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 8.7 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 9.4 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 5.9 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 5.1 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 4.4 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 5.1 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.06 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.06 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.06 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 0.06 | g/kg DW | ns | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 1.2 | g/kg DW | b | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 0.5 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 0.6 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | mineral | Sodium (Na) | 0.5 | g/kg DW | a | Table 3, 2nd crop, harvest |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 28.0 | SPAD units | a | Table 4, 1st crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 32.4 | SPAD units | b | Table 4, 1st crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 36.2 | SPAD units | c | Table 4, 1st crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 36.2 | SPAD units | c | Table 4, 1st crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 28.8 | SPAD units | a | Table 4, 1st crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 34.1 | SPAD units | b | Table 4, 1st crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 34.7 | SPAD units | b | Table 4, 1st crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 34.7 | SPAD units | b | Table 4, 1st crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 29.7 | SPAD units | a | Table 4, 2nd crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 31.8 | SPAD units | b | Table 4, 2nd crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 33.6 | SPAD units | c | Table 4, 2nd crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 33.6 | SPAD units | c | Table 4, 2nd crop, mid (2 weeks post-transplant) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 30.9 | SPAD units | a | Table 4, 2nd crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 34.0 | SPAD units | b | Table 4, 2nd crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T3 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 30.2 | SPAD units | a | Table 4, 2nd crop, end (harvest) |
| pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012-T4 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll (SPAD) | 30.2 | SPAD units | a | Table 4, 2nd crop, end (harvest) |