Optimization of Plant Nutrition in Aquaponics: The Impact of Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus mojavensis on Lettuce and Basil Yield and Mineral Status

Metadata

Cite key: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: K. Patloková, R. Pokluda
Affiliation: Department of Vegetable Sciences and Floriculture, Mendel University in Brno, 691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic
Journal: Plants (Basel) 13, no. 2 (2024): Article 291
Date: 01/2024 (published 18 January 2024; received 13 November 2023, revised 12 January 2024, accepted 15 January 2024)
Date added: 2024-02-09
DOI: 10.3390/plants13020291
Funding: Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Horticulture, Mendel University in Brno, grant IGA-ZF/2023-SI1-005; publication also supported by project No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_017/0002334 “Research infrastructure for young scientists,” Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020291
PDF: Patloková and Pokluda - 2024 - Optimization of Plant Nutrition in Aquaponics The.pdf

Opinion

An unusually data-dense small experiment — 12 nutrient-solution x crop combinations, a full leaf mineral/pigment/vitamin-C panel, a system-level nutrient-use-efficiency calculation, and a separate short-term biofilter-safety assay — but the central design weakness undercuts every significance test in the paper: each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) was run in exactly one physical 180 L closed system with no independent system-level replicate (“each of which had one repetition,” Methods 3.1.2), despite the paper’s own description of the design as a “completely randomized design.” The randomization applies only to which of the 10 plants per crop went where within a system; the n=9/n=4/n=3 figures reported throughout are measurement-level subsamples from that single system, not independent replicates of the treatment. This is textbook pseudoreplication for the variable the paper is actually testing (the nutrient-solution/inoculant effect), and it means none of the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis p-values here can distinguish a true PGPM effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g., a slightly different initial fill). The authors are transparent about this in the Methods, which is to their credit, but it is not flagged as a limitation in the Abstract or Conclusions. The biological story is still worth taking seriously as a hypothesis generator: consistent, biologically plausible increases in leaf count and vitamin C with both inoculants, a directionally sensible nitrogen-use-efficiency narrative, and a genuinely interesting finding that RAS-derived nutrient solution is chronically K/P/Fe-deficient relative to hydroponic targets regardless of inoculation. Treat every p-value in this paper as a single-system observation, not a population estimate. A second, separate wrinkle: the mg/kg tissue values in Table 4 (minerals, pigments, vitamin C, nitrates) never state whether they are fresh- or dry-weight based, which the paper’s raw text leaves genuinely ambiguous (see Extraction notes).

Abstract

The present study aims to test the effect of a nutrient solution, with the addition of microbial inoculum, on the growth and mineral composition of ‘Hilbert’ and ‘Barlach’ lettuce cultivars (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L.) and basil (Ocimum basilicum, L.) cultivated in a vertical indoor farm. These crops were grown in four different variants of nutrient solution: (1) hydroponic; (2) aquaponic, derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout; (3) aquaponic, treated with Trichoderma harzianum; (4) aquaponic, treated with Bacillus mojavensis. The benefits of T. harzianum inoculation were most evident in basil, where a significantly higher number of leaves (by 44.9%), a higher nitrate content (by 36.4%), and increased vitamin C (by 126.0%) were found when compared to the aquaponic variant. Inoculation with T. harzianum can be recommended for growing basil in N-limited conditions. B. mojavensis caused a higher degree of removal of Na+ and Cl− from the nutrient solution (243.1% and 254.4% higher, in comparison to the aquaponic solution). This is desirable in aquaponics as these ions may accumulate in the system solution. B. mojavensis further increased the number of leaves in all crops (by 44.9–82.9%) and the content of vitamin C in basil and ‘Hilbert’ lettuce (by 168.3 and 45.0%) compared to the aquaponic solution. The inoculums of both microbial species used did not significantly affect the crop yield or the activity of the biofilter. The nutrient levels in RAS-based nutrient solutions are mostly suboptimal or in a form that is unavailable to the plants; thus, their utilization must be maximized. These findings can help to reduce the required level of supplemental mineral fertilizers in aquaponics.

Keywords: PGPMs; microorganisms; bacteria; fungi; inoculation; Lactuca sativa; Ocimum basilicum

Summary

Two researchers at Mendel University in Brno grew three leafy crops — red multi-leaf ‘Barlach’ lettuce, green basil, and green multi-leaf ‘Hilbert’ lettuce — in an indoor vertical DWC farm fed by four different nutrient-solution variants: a commercial hydroponic fertilizer (HYDRO), raw rainbow-trout RAS water (AQP), and the same RAS water inoculated with either Trichoderma harzianum (AQP+TricH) or Bacillus mojavensis (AQP+BM). Each of the four variants was confined to its own single 180 L closed system (rack + sump), so all three crops sharing a system also shared that system’s water chemistry; every aquaponic variant was compared against the same crop grown simultaneously in the HYDRO system, giving 9 aquaponic-vs-hydroponic trial pairings (3 crops x 3 aquaponic variants). Biometrically, HYDRO consistently out-yielded the aquaponic variants for ‘Barlach’ lettuce and basil, while ‘Hilbert’ lettuce showed no significant yield difference across any variant; both inoculants, but especially B. mojavensis, significantly increased leaf count in most crops without increasing total yield. Mineral analysis showed the aquaponic solutions were chronically low in K and P (and, by the paper’s own separate water-chemistry data, also Fe) relative to hydroponic targets, while aquaponic-grown tissue was consistently higher in Na, Ca, and Mg and markedly higher in vitamin C than hydroponic tissue. B. mojavensis increased Na+/Cl- removal from solution substantially more than the uninoculated AQP variant, and both inoculants raised leaf vitamin C content further still. A parallel short-term (10 h) biofilter assay found neither inoculant harmed nitrifying-bacteria activity. The authors frame the results as evidence that PGPM inoculation can improve nutrient utilization from an otherwise nutrient-poor aquaponic solution without a system redesign, while flagging that the single-system-per-variant design (no independent replication of the treatment itself) limits how strongly the significance tests can be interpreted.

Experiment data

Location: Indoor vertical growing system, Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre, Kaly 66, Czech Republic (49.3792886 N, 16.3515736 E)

Design: 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) x 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) = 12 variants, described by the authors as a “completely randomized design (CRD)”; each nutrient-solution variant, however, was confined to exactly one 180 L closed system with no independent system-level replicate (“each of which had one repetition,” Methods 3.1.2) — recorded as quasi-experiment, see Extraction notes

Replicates / n: True treatment-level replication is n=1 (one rack per nutrient-solution variant); reported n values are measurement-level subsamples drawn from that single system — n=9 for biometrics (Table 1), n=4 for mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content (Table 4), n=3 for water chemistry (Tables 2-3)

Duration: 3-week pre-growth on HYDRO solution (all variants) + 4-week (28 d) growth phase after transplant into the 4 systems; sown 24 April 2023

Organisms: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (off-site RAS water source only, no fish performance data reported) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) ‘Barlach’ and ‘Hilbert’ cultivars / Basil (Ocimum basilicum)

Statistics: Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12

Yield (above-ground biomass, g/plant): HYDRO significantly higher than all aquaponic variants for ‘Barlach’ lettuce (152.78 vs 103.32-116.00) and basil (53.36 vs 30.95-38.63); no significant differences across any variant for ‘Hilbert’ lettuce (85.38-100.65)

Leaf count: B. mojavensis significantly increased leaf number vs AQP in all 3 crops (+44.9 to +82.9%); T. harzianum significantly increased leaf number vs AQP in basil only (+44.9%)

Nutrient solution deficiencies: RAS-derived AQP solution chronically low in K, P and Fe relative to HYDRO targets at both T0 and T1 (Table 2); K-use efficiency and Mg-use efficiency were nonetheless higher in AQP variants than HYDRO (Table 5), meaning aquaponic-grown plants extracted a larger fraction of the K/Mg present even though absolute solution levels were lower

Vitamin C: significantly higher in all aquaponic variants than HYDRO for every crop; T. harzianum and B. mojavensis further increased basil vitamin C by 126.0% and 168.3% respectively vs AQP (876.7% and 1059.7% vs HYDRO)

Na+/Cl- removal: B. mojavensis variant removed 243.1% (Na+) and ~244% (Cl-, recomputed; abstract states 254.4%, see Extraction notes) more of these ions from solution than the uninoculated AQP variant

Biofilter safety: neither inoculant significantly altered TAN/NO2-/NO3- dynamics vs a non-inoculated control over 10 h (separate assay, no crop involved, not a trials.csv row)

Biometric yield and leaf count

This paper: Total weight and above-ground biomass (yield) were highest in HYDRO for ‘Barlach’ lettuce and basil; HYDRO ‘Barlach’ yield (152.78 +/- 17.00 g) was significantly higher than AQP (103.32 +/- 14.50) and AQP+BM (110.89 +/- 9.48), with AQP+TricH intermediate (116.00 +/- 10.68, not significantly different from either). HYDRO basil yield (53.36 +/- 12.94 g) was significantly higher than AQP (34.21 +/- 6.48) and AQP+TricH (30.95 +/- 3.27), with AQP+BM intermediate (38.63 +/- 7.61). ‘Hilbert’ lettuce showed no significant yield differences among any of the 4 variants (85.38-100.65 g), which the authors interpret as evidence of lower nutritional sensitivity in this cultivar. Neither inoculant increased or decreased total yield relative to the uninoculated AQP variant in any crop. Leaf count told a different story: B. mojavensis significantly increased leaf number over AQP in all three crops (Barlach 46->73, basil 49->71, Hilbert 35->64), and T. harzianum did the same in basil specifically (49->71). Root biomass and root:shoot ratio (not schema columns, recorded only in trials.csv remarks) were comparable across variants for lettuce but basil grown in HYDRO had a significantly lower root:shoot ratio (0.29) than any AQP variant (0.37-0.42), consistent with a nutrient-foraging response under the lower-nutrient aquaponic solution.

Compared with:

todo Goddek and Vermeulen 2018 — found RAS-derived (common carp) water gave a 7.9% higher lettuce fresh weight than hydroponic control and up to 33.2% higher dry-weight%; this study’s basil DW% trended the same direction (HYDRO 7.30% vs AQP 8.44%) but its own aquaponic lettuce/basil yields were lower, not higher, than hydroponic (p.4)
todo Day et al. 2021 — lettuce productivity under microbial inocula in N-limited aquaponic conditions, cited in the nitrate-uptake discussion as relevant context for recommending T. harzianum inoculation under N-limited RAS operation (p.13)

Nutrient solution chemistry (pH, EC, water nutrients)

This paper: The RAS-derived AQP solutions started at a near-neutral pH (~7.0) that rose further during the 4-week trial, most in the inoculated variants (AQP+TricH to 7.63, AQP+BM to 7.73, vs AQP to 7.17), attributed to alkalization from nitrate assimilation (OH-/HCO3- formation) and, in the inoculated variants, additional ammonia-N production by the microbial inoculants themselves. EC dropped by 37.5% in HYDRO over the trial (suggesting good nutrient uptake) vs smaller relative drops in the AQP variants. All AQP variants were markedly lower than HYDRO in K+, PO4(2-), Mg2+ and Total Mn at both T0 and T1, and lower in F-; Ca2+ and Na+/Cl- were higher in the AQP variants than HYDRO throughout.

Compared with:

todo Lennard and Goddek 2019 — higher pH conditions reduce micronutrient (Fe, Mn, B, Cu, Zn) uptake from solution, cited to explain why the alkalizing AQP solutions may have compounded their existing micronutrient deficiencies (p.7)
todo Yang and Kim 2020 — RAS pH in tomato/basil/lettuce aquaponic and hydroponic systems; this study’s rainbow-trout RAS pH was similar to their reported values (p.7)
todo Sanchez, Vivian-Rogers and Urakawa 2019 — Nile tilapia RAS water as a PGPB source; this study’s pH was lower than 3 of 4 of their tilapia tanks, and its AQP-variant EC was equal to or greater than their reported values (p.7)
todo Pokluda and Kobza 2011 — EC of 1.2-1.6 mS/cm cited as suitable for lettuce growth; used to confirm all 4 solution variants in this study started at an optimal EC (p.7)
todo Loyless and Malone 1997 — sodium bicarbonate dosing for pH management in RAS, cited as the likely source of additional Na+ not captured by this study’s Cl—based Na+ calculation method (p.10)

Leaf mineral composition and nutrient-use efficiency

This paper: Aquaponic-grown tissue (all 3 crops) was consistently lower in K and generally lower in P than HYDRO, and consistently higher in Na than HYDRO — basil and ‘Hilbert’ lettuce also showed markedly higher tissue Mg under AQP variants, while ‘Barlach’ lettuce and basil showed higher tissue Ca under AQP variants (0.0 +/- 0.0 mg/kg in HYDRO Ca for both crops; the paper itself notes this reflects Ca-phosphate precipitation in the HYDRO solution caused by high well-water Ca and a pH spike above 6.3 during setup, and states outright that “a comparison of the PO4(2-) and Ca2+ in the HYDRO and AQP solutions is not relevant,” p.8). Despite the solution-level P deficiency, phosphorus-use efficiency (PUE), potassium-use efficiency (KUE) and magnesium-use efficiency (MgUE) were all significantly higher in the AQP variants (especially AQP+BM for PUE/KUE, AQP+TricH for MgUE) than HYDRO, meaning aquaponic-grown plants captured a larger proportion of the K/P/Mg actually present in solution even though the absolute pool was smaller. Calcium-use efficiency (CaUE) showed the opposite pattern — highest in HYDRO, lowest in AQP+BM — consistent with HYDRO’s very low initial soluble Ca driving a higher fractional uptake of what little was present.

Compared with:

todo Goddek and Vermeulen 2018 — stimulated K uptake from RAS-derived water, matching this study’s finding that >70% of input K was incorporated into AQP-variant plant tissue vs a lower fraction in HYDRO; also reported a significantly higher Mg content in lettuce grown in RAS-derived water, which this study’s own lettuce data did NOT reproduce (a stated contradiction the authors note directly, p.9); their common-carp RAS water also had lower Ca than this study’s rainbow-trout RAS water (p.9)
todo Cerozi and Fitzsimmons 2017 — reported a PUE of 29.4% based on P content of the fish feed as the input basis; this study’s Table 5 PUE values (2.19-6.26%) use the P present in the nutrient solution as the input basis instead, so the two are not directly comparable despite superficial similarity (p.8)
todo Saravanakumar, Arasu and Kathiresan 2013 — Trichoderma isolates showed in vitro Ca3(PO4)2-solubilizing activity, cited as a plausible mechanism for the 137.6% higher mean Ca observed in T. harzianum-inoculated ‘Barlach’ lettuce vs uninoculated AQP (p.9-10)

Chlorophyll, carotenoids, and vitamin C

This paper: Chlorophyll a and b showed no significant differences among variants within any crop, though AQP+BM ‘Barlach’ lettuce and AQP+TricH basil trended higher than their HYDRO/AQP counterparts. Carotenoid content was significantly higher in AQP+TricH basil (highest of all groups) than HYDRO basil (-46.4%), with a non-significant 24.2% increase over uninoculated AQP. Vitamin C was, without exception, higher in every aquaponic variant than the paired HYDRO value for every crop, and both inoculants pushed vitamin C higher still: T. harzianum and B. mojavensis increased basil vitamin C by 126.0% and 168.3% respectively vs AQP (876.7% and 1059.7% vs HYDRO); B. mojavensis increased ‘Hilbert’ lettuce vitamin C by 45.0% vs AQP (87.7% vs HYDRO), and AQP+TricH ‘Hilbert’ lettuce was 40.0% higher than HYDRO.

Compared with:

todo Uddin et al. 2016 — higher chlorophyll content in Trichoderma-inoculated tomato, cited as a precedent consistent with this study’s (non-significant) chlorophyll trend under T. harzianum (p.11)
todo Andrzejak and Janowska 2022 — higher chlorophyll and carotenoid content in ornamental plants inoculated with Trichoderma, corroborating direction of this study’s carotenoid result (p.11)
todo Vukelić et al. 2021 — observed a 13% REDUCTION in chlorophyll in tomato inoculated with T. harzianum, opposite direction to the (non-significant) trend seen here; cited by the authors as a contrary finding (p.11)
todo Jamil 2021 — significantly higher vitamin C in tomato treated with T. viride or T. harzianum, cited as corroborating this study’s basil vitamin-C result (p.11-12)
todo Chen et al. 2021 — a Trichoderma atroviride + T. citrinoviride mixture gave the highest vitamin C values in pak choi, cited as a related Trichoderma/vitamin-C precedent (p.12)

Nitrates and nitrogen dynamics

This paper: Although initial nitrate content was higher in the AQP variants than HYDRO, the largest fractional nitrate uptake (decline in solution NO3-) was in HYDRO (40.0%), followed by AQP+BM (33.0%), AQP (28.2%) and AQP+TricH (22.9%). AQP+BM showed almost 17% higher nitrate uptake from solution than uninoculated AQP (not statistically significant), but this was NOT reflected as higher tissue nitrate — tissue nitrate in AQP+BM was, if anything, numerically lower than AQP for 2 of 3 crops. T. harzianum showed the opposite disconnect: significantly LOWER nitrate uptake from solution than AQP, yet significantly HIGHER tissue nitrate in basil specifically (+36.4% vs AQP), which the authors treat as a potentially undesirable finding for basil food-safety framing (recommending T. harzianum instead for N-limited/extensive RAS operation where excess tissue nitrate is less of a concern). Theoretical nitrogen-use efficiency (Table 6, calculated as output N / input N x 100, not a measured value) was highest in HYDRO (40.0%) and lowest in AQP+TricH (22.9%).

Compared with:

todo Prajakta et al. 2019 — B. mojavensis exhibits nitrogen-fixation activity, cited to help explain the higher nitrate removal (uptake) observed in the AQP+BM variant relative to AQP (p.12)
todo Kasozi, Kaiser and Wilhelmi 2021 — Bacillus spp. (B. subtilis + B. licheniformis) inoculation of aquaponic system water increased nitrate concentration via enhanced biological nitrification, in both of their trials; the authors combine this with their own finding to hypothesize that Bacillus inoculation could simultaneously raise nitrate formation and plant N uptake (p.12)
todo Pandey et al. 2018 — a Bacillus pumilus + B. subtilis mixture increased crude protein by 22.1% in amaranth seeds, cited as a plausible parallel mechanism for the nitrate/tissue-N findings here (p.12)
todo Singh et al. 2019 — Trichoderma increases nitrogen-use efficiency in several soil experiments via increased nitrate reductase transcription and NRT nitrate-transporter induction, cited as the likely mechanism behind basil’s higher tissue nitrate under T. harzianum despite lower solution uptake (p.12)
todo Marsic and Osvald 2002 — lettuce grown at 13 mM NO3-/L used to derive the 1.4% “N fixed in nitrates out of total N” conversion factor applied in this study’s Table 6 NUE calculation (p.12-13)

Biofilter safety (10 h assay)

This paper: In a separate assay (no crop plants involved), samples from the RAS biofilter were split into three beakers (non-inoculated control, T. harzianum, B. mojavensis) with ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L. TAN and nitrite followed a similar declining trend across all three variants over 10 h with no significant differences; nitrate followed the same increasing trend in all three. The authors conclude neither inoculant, at the manufacturer-recommended dosage, harmed nitrifying-bacteria activity over this short window, while noting that a longer-term assessment would be needed to rule out competitive effects or inoculum overgrowth.

Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the biofilter-safety result specifically)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Trial structure: 9 trials.csv rows (patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1 through -T9), one per crop x aquaponic-variant pairing: T1-T3 = ‘Barlach’ lettuce (AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM respectively, each vs HYDRO); T4-T6 = basil (same order); T7-T9 = ‘Hilbert’ lettuce (same order). The paper itself frames its design as “12 variants” (4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops), but only 9 of those 12 are aquaponic-vs-hydroponic comparisons — the 3 HYDRO-only cells are the shared control, not separate trial rows. Because all 3 crops sharing a nutrient-solution variant drew water from the same single 180 L system, the water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is byte-identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant: T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry, T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH, T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM. Only the biometric (Table 1) and tissue-mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate (Table 4) data are crop-specific.

Type classification judgment call (all 9 rows): Recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a “completely randomized design (CRD)” (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant went into which position within a system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: “The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)” (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates — strictly, this is pseudoreplication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the within-system biometric/tissue comparisons but means the reported ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation. Flagged prominently here and in the Opinion above rather than silently accepted, per SCHEMA.md decision rule 2.

WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs. dry weight), all 9 rows, Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6 (PDF p.8, p.16-17). Table 1 separately reports “Dry weight [%]” via gravimetry at 105degC (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C, and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed “fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated” CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in the trials.csv Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step per CSV convention. This is a single underlying issue repeated identically across all 9 trials.csv rows and all 72 plant.csv rows — CHECK severity never affects the quality score per SCHEMA.md.

WARN-MINOR — Na+/Cl- removal percentage, Abstract vs. recomputation from Table 3 (PDF p.1, p.10), on T3/T6/T9 (AQP+BM rows). Abstract: “B. mojavensis caused a higher degree of removal of Na+ and Cl- from the nutrient solution (243.1% and 254.4% higher, in comparison to the aquaponic solution).” Recomputing from Table 3’s Na+/Cl- change values (mg/L removed, T0-T1): Na+ AQP 5.8 (+/-4.5), AQP+BM 19.9 (+/-2.9) -> (19.9-5.8)/5.8 = 243.10%, matching the abstract’s 243.1% exactly. Cl- AQP 9 (+/-7), AQP+BM 31 (+/-5) -> (31-9)/9 = 244.44%, NOT the abstract’s stated 254.4% (a ~10-point discrepancy, plausibly a transposition/typo in the last digit). No trials.csv or plant.csv cell is affected: Na+/Cl- removal % has no dedicated column (NO COLUMN, raw Table 3 values used instead), so only the narrative percentage itself is in question. One underlying issue, repeated identically on all 3 AQP+BM rows — MINOR severity never affects the quality score.

[not reported] fields, grouped (all 9 rows):

Fish: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K %, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the RAS supplying AQP water is an established off-site facility (Future Farming Ltd.) whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper; this is a plant-nutrition study, not a fish-performance study. NOT DERIVED per SCHEMA.md even though the paper is entirely built around this RAS.
Water: Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Daily Water exchange rate, Water classification — none of these are reported as measured trial-mean values anywhere in the paper.
Plant: Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — not measured; the paper reports leaf count and biomass but not plant height or a chlorophyll-meter (SPAD) reading (pigments were measured by acetone-extraction spectrophotometry instead).

NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, repeated identically across all 9 rows’ Experimental Remarks):

Table 1: Root biomass (g) and Root:shoot ratio, per crop per variant — no dedicated trials.csv field for either.
Table 5: Nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE, KUE, CaUE, MgUE, %), system-level (not per-crop) — computed as the sum of the analyte fixed across all 3 crops per variant, divided by total input analyte in the 180 L system, x 100. Full values by variant are preserved in each row’s Experimental Remarks.
Table 6: System-level nitrogen dynamics (g N/100L) — N input, N dynamics (T0-T1), N incorporated to plants as NO3-, N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota, and theoretical NUE%, all system-level not per-crop.
Full water-mineral panel beyond the schema’s named columns: PO4(2-), K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, SO4(2-), Na+ (Cl—derived), Cl-, Total Mn, F- (all mg/L, T0/T1, Table 2) — preserved in Experimental Remarks per trial row.
Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2): TAN/NO2-/NO3- dynamics over 10 h in 3 beakers (Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter — no plant/crop dimension, not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md’s “distinct treatment arm” test (this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Summarized narratively above.
Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

plant.csv scope decision: Table 4’s leaf mineral panel (K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, mineral category) and pigment/vitamin-C panel (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, carotenoids, vitamin C, biochemistry category) were extracted to plant.csv, one row per analyte per system (AP/HYD) per trial — 8 analytes x 2 systems x 9 trials = 144 rows, though HYD-side mineral/pigment values repeat identically within each crop’s 3 aquaponic-variant trials (since HYD is the same physical system for all 3), matching the same “duplicate the shared control across sibling trial rows” convention established in earlier vault papers. Table 4’s Nitrates row 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 (per the convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012) — duplicating it into plant.csv as well was judged redundant rather than additive.

No water panel excluded. The full Table 2 water-mineral dataset (PO4, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, SO4, Na+, Cl-, Mn, F-) is real trial-mean-adjacent data with no column home in trials.csv and does not fit plant_measurements.csv’s plant-analyte scope either; it is preserved in full in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) rather than discarded, per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to flag rather than silently drop water panels judged too valuable to lose.

Tags judgment call: Meta/Fish/Trout applied because rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is the sole aquaculture organism whose RAS water supplies all three aquaponic variants, even though no fish performance data is reported and the RAS is an off-site, pre-existing facility rather than part of the experimental design — consistent with the vault’s precedent of tagging the water-source organism even when it was not itself studied (see e.g. lobanovPlantsDictateRoot2022’s tagging rationale). Note: the vault has two existing spellings for this facet — Meta/Fish/Trout (used in alcarrazQualityLettuceLactuca2018, biroloEffectsStockingDensity2020, buzbyScalingAquaponicSystems2014, khalilGrowthPerformanceNutrients2018) and Meta/Fish/RainbowTrout (used once, in atiqueAquaponicsBeneficialTerms2022, for the same species). This note reuses the majority spelling (Trout) rather than creating a third variant; flagging the existing fragmentation per CLAUDE.md rather than silently picking one. Meta/Plant/Lettuce covers both ‘Barlach’ and ‘Hilbert’ cultivars (no separate cultivar-level facet exists in the vault). Meta/Plant/Basil reused as already spelled elsewhere (e.g. aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023, ceroziFulvicAcidIncreases2020).

New wikilink targets introduced: K. Patloková, R. Pokluda (no existing author notes found in the vault). Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) reuses the parenthetical-species-name convention seen elsewhere in the vault (e.g. Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012); Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Basil (Ocimum basilicum) likewise. Claim-style links (PGPM leaf-count effect, T. harzianum nitrate/vitamin-C effect, B. mojavensis Na/Cl removal effect, RAS nutrient deficiency, biofilter safety, nutrient-use efficiency) are new — checked for near-duplicates against the two example notes read for style but no existing equivalents were found in the excerpts reviewed; flagging for reconciliation against the full vault if overlapping claim notes surface elsewhere.

PDF quality: Clean, fully extractable text layer (20 pages, MDPI two-column typesetting). One extraction quirk worth noting: the source PDF appears to contain two overlapping text layers for much of the body (an early/proof “Plants 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW” pagination alongside the final “Plants 2024, 13, 291” pagination), which produces visibly duplicated/interleaved sentences when the PDF’s raw text is extracted programmatically (e.g., in Table 1’s ‘Hilbert’ lettuce row). This is a layout artifact of the publisher’s file, not an OCR or scan-quality problem — all values were cross-checked against the clean, non-duplicated instance of each figure and against Tables 1-6 directly; no NEEDS_OCR.md entry required.

Source: Patloková and Pokluda - 2024 - Optimization of Plant Nutrition in Aquaponics The.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

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic nutrient solution derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout, no microbial inoculum added (Methods 3.1.2)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.17 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.1 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 << (below detection) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 101.6 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/450 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce ‘Barlach’ (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L., multi-leaf red, RijkZwaan Ltd.)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Leafy vegetables (Methods 3.1.2, p.15)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	46 (+/-8)
Plant fresh weight	103.32 (+/-14.5) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	5.07 (+/-0.6)
Tissue nitrate AP	2156.2 (+/-195.41) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	3924.4 (+/-388.5) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Barlach under AQP vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	103.32 (+/-14.5) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	152.78 (+/-17.0) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1 = Barlach grown in the AQP nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic nutrient solution derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout, no microbial inoculum added (Methods 3.1.2)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Barlach: Total weight HYDRO 162.18 (+/-17.97) A vs AQP 116.13 (+/-15.17) B; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 152.78 (+/-17.0) A vs AQP 103.32 (+/-14.5) B; Root biomass HYDRO 9.4 (+/-1.33) a vs AQP 12.81 (+/-1.42) a [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.06 (+/-0.01) a vs AQP 0.13 (+/-0.02) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 63 (+/-8) a vs AQP 46 (+/-8) b; Dry weight% HYDRO 4.23 (+/-0.16) a vs AQP 5.07 (+/-0.6) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Barlach: K HYDRO 3565.1 (+/-192.54) A vs AQP 1220.7 (+/-212.1) AB; Na HYDRO 39.7 (+/-6.02) B vs AQP 1352.5 (+/-149.04) A; Ca HYDRO 0.0 (+/-0.0) B vs AQP 176.0 (+/-50.5) AB; Mg HYDRO 0.0 (+/-0.0) A vs AQP 209.7 (+/-117.56) A; P HYDRO 35.6 (+/-1.97) A vs AQP 21.0 (+/-1.98) AB; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 162.1 (+/-5.41) a vs AQP 185.0 (+/-33.52) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 76.8 (+/-2.52) a vs AQP 83.6 (+/-15.16) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 41.1 (+/-1.21) a vs AQP 56.7 (+/-10.49) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 50.6 (+/-5.59) d vs AQP 91.2 (+/-6.2) bc; Nitrates HYDRO 3924.4 (+/-388.5) A vs AQP 2156.2 (+/-195.41) AB (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.17(+/-0.06) [AQP]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.1 [AQP]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 450(+/-10) [AQP]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 << [AQP]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 6.2 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.4 [AQP] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 88 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 20 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 90 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 43.6 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 67 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.04 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.68 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Trichoderma harzianum (TrikoLogic (R), Terra Aquatica; 10^8 spores/g; dosed 0.1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.63 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.2 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 0.16 (+/-0.02) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 109.1 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/483 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce ‘Barlach’ (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L., multi-leaf red, RijkZwaan Ltd.)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Leafy vegetables (Methods 3.1.2, p.15)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	46 (+/-5)
Plant fresh weight	116.0 (+/-10.68) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	4.49 (+/-0.45)
Tissue nitrate AP	2310.8 (+/-291.67) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	3924.4 (+/-388.5) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP+TricH inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Barlach under AQP+TricH vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	116.0 (+/-10.68) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	152.78 (+/-17.0) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2 = Barlach grown in the AQP+TricH nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Trichoderma harzianum (TrikoLogic (R), Terra Aquatica; 10^8 spores/g; dosed 0.1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Barlach: Total weight HYDRO 162.18 (+/-17.97) A vs AQP+TricH 125.19 (+/-13.11) AB; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 152.78 (+/-17.0) A vs AQP+TricH 116.0 (+/-10.68) AB; Root biomass HYDRO 9.4 (+/-1.33) a vs AQP+TricH 9.19 (+/-2.66) a [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.06 (+/-0.01) a vs AQP+TricH 0.08 (+/-0.02) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 63 (+/-8) a vs AQP+TricH 46 (+/-5) b; Dry weight% HYDRO 4.23 (+/-0.16) a vs AQP+TricH 4.49 (+/-0.45) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Barlach: K HYDRO 3565.1 (+/-192.54) A vs AQP+TricH 1089.6 (+/-66.01) B; Na HYDRO 39.7 (+/-6.02) B vs AQP+TricH 1198.4 (+/-73.63) AB; Ca HYDRO 0.0 (+/-0.0) B vs AQP+TricH 418.1 (+/-78.53) A; Mg HYDRO 0.0 (+/-0.0) A vs AQP+TricH 82.5 (+/-6.93) A; P HYDRO 35.6 (+/-1.97) A vs AQP+TricH 20.4 (+/-1.06) B; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 162.1 (+/-5.41) a vs AQP+TricH 183.0 (+/-32.12) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 76.8 (+/-2.52) a vs AQP+TricH 88.8 (+/-17.14) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 41.1 (+/-1.21) a vs AQP+TricH 48.3 (+/-11.17) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 50.6 (+/-5.59) d vs AQP+TricH 70.0 (+/-2.45) cd; Nitrates HYDRO 3924.4 (+/-388.5) A vs AQP+TricH 2310.8 (+/-291.67) AB (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP+TricH vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.63(+/-0.06) [AQP+TricH]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.2 [AQP+TricH]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 483(+/-12) [AQP+TricH]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 0.16 [AQP+TricH]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 8.0 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.1 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 97 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 22 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 98 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 43.4 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 67 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.13 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.59 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Bacillus mojavensis (amazoN microbial adjuvant, Bioved 2005 Ltd.; strain KN32, NCAIM 497/2020, >=5x10^9 CFU/m3 on perlite carrier; dosed 1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.73 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.1 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 0.29 (+/-0.11) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 94.8 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/420 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce ‘Barlach’ (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L., multi-leaf red, RijkZwaan Ltd.)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Leafy vegetables (Methods 3.1.2, p.15)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	73 (+/-8)
Plant fresh weight	110.89 (+/-9.48) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	4.93 (+/-0.21)
Tissue nitrate AP	1557.6 (+/-81.38) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	3924.4 (+/-388.5) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP+BM inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Barlach under AQP+BM vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	110.89 (+/-9.48) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	152.78 (+/-17.0) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3 = Barlach grown in the AQP+BM nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Bacillus mojavensis (amazoN microbial adjuvant, Bioved 2005 Ltd.; strain KN32, NCAIM 497/2020, >=5x10^9 CFU/m3 on perlite carrier; dosed 1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Barlach: Total weight HYDRO 162.18 (+/-17.97) A vs AQP+BM 120.14 (+/-10.93) B; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 152.78 (+/-17.0) A vs AQP+BM 110.89 (+/-9.48) B; Root biomass HYDRO 9.4 (+/-1.33) a vs AQP+BM 9.25 (+/-1.97) a [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.06 (+/-0.01) a vs AQP+BM 0.08 (+/-0.01) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 63 (+/-8) a vs AQP+BM 73 (+/-8) a; Dry weight% HYDRO 4.23 (+/-0.16) a vs AQP+BM 4.93 (+/-0.21) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Barlach: K HYDRO 3565.1 (+/-192.54) A vs AQP+BM 1174.6 (+/-143.02) AB; Na HYDRO 39.7 (+/-6.02) B vs AQP+BM 1162.7 (+/-120.01) AB; Ca HYDRO 0.0 (+/-0.0) B vs AQP+BM 167.7 (+/-252.83) AB; Mg HYDRO 0.0 (+/-0.0) A vs AQP+BM 111.5 (+/-164.5) A; P HYDRO 35.6 (+/-1.97) A vs AQP+BM 21.8 (+/-0.9) AB; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 162.1 (+/-5.41) a vs AQP+BM 203.4 (+/-14.61) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 76.8 (+/-2.52) a vs AQP+BM 98.7 (+/-6.51) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 41.1 (+/-1.21) a vs AQP+BM 61.8 (+/-3.14) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 50.6 (+/-5.59) d vs AQP+BM 100.9 (+/-7.89) ab; Nitrates HYDRO 3924.4 (+/-388.5) A vs AQP+BM 1557.6 (+/-81.38) B (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP+BM vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.73(+/-0.06) [AQP+BM]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.1 [AQP+BM]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 420(+/-0) [AQP+BM]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 0.29 [AQP+BM]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 8.9 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.1 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 83 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 21 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 90 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 29.6 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 46 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.14 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.73 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record. | WARN-MINOR — Na+/Cl- removal percentage in Abstract vs recomputation from Table 3, p.1/p.10 (not crop-specific, paper-wide, repeated on all AQP+BM rows for visibility). Abstract: ‘B. mojavensis caused a higher degree of removal of Na+ and Cl- from the nutrient solution (243.1% and 254.4% higher, in comparison to the aquaponic solution)’. Recomputing from Table 3’s Na+/Cl- change values (mg/L removed, T0-T1): Na+ AQP 5.8(+/-4.5), AQP+BM 19.9(+/-2.9) -> (19.9-5.8)/5.8 = 243.10%, matches the abstract’s 243.1% exactly. Cl- AQP 9(+/-7), AQP+BM 31(+/-5) -> (31-9)/9 = 244.44%, NOT the abstract’s stated 254.4% (a ~10-point discrepancy, plausibly a transposition/typo in the last digit). No trials.csv or plant.csv cell is affected: Na+/Cl- removal % has no dedicated column (NO COLUMN, raw Table 3 values used above), so only the narrative percentage itself is in question, not any recorded value.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic nutrient solution derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout, no microbial inoculum added (Methods 3.1.2)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.17 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.1 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 << (below detection) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 101.6 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/450 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Basil (Ocimum basilicum, L., green, Suba Seeds Company JSC)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Herb (Methods 3.1.2, p.15: ‘leafy vegetables and herbs’)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	49 (+/-9)
Plant fresh weight	34.21 (+/-6.48) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	8.44 (+/-0.71)
Tissue nitrate AP	3772.8 (+/-281.35) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	4313.4 (+/-447.15) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Basil under AQP vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	34.21 (+/-6.48) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	53.36 (+/-12.94) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4 = Basil grown in the AQP nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic nutrient solution derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout, no microbial inoculum added (Methods 3.1.2)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Basil: Total weight HYDRO 69.15 (+/-18.47) A vs AQP 48.21 (+/-8.7) B; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 53.36 (+/-12.94) A vs AQP 34.21 (+/-6.48) B; Root biomass HYDRO 15.78 (+/-6.0) A vs AQP 14.0 (+/-3.09) A [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.29 (+/-0.05) b vs AQP 0.42 (+/-0.09) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 50 (+/-6) b vs AQP 49 (+/-9) b; Dry weight% HYDRO 7.3 (+/-0.89) a vs AQP 8.44 (+/-0.71) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Basil: K HYDRO 4647.6 (+/-640.86) A vs AQP 1353.9 (+/-104.4) AB; Na HYDRO 61.0 (+/-8.42) a vs AQP 63.9 (+/-12.26) a; Ca HYDRO 622.2 (+/-36.54) A vs AQP 160.3 (+/-12.59) B; Mg HYDRO 131.2 (+/-15.61) B vs AQP 819.3 (+/-61.14) AB; P HYDRO 92.7 (+/-17.03) A vs AQP 33.2 (+/-2.52) B; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 287.4 (+/-29.93) a vs AQP 295.0 (+/-24.08) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 125.9 (+/-9.66) a vs AQP 126.6 (+/-11.86) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 73.0 (+/-9.27) b vs AQP 86.0 (+/-5.88) ab; Vitamin C HYDRO 5.5 (+/-2.86) b vs AQP 23.6 (+/-4.64) b; Nitrates HYDRO 4313.4 (+/-447.15) ab vs AQP 3772.8 (+/-281.35) b (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.17(+/-0.06) [AQP]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.1 [AQP]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 450(+/-10) [AQP]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 << [AQP]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 6.2 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.4 [AQP] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 88 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 20 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 90 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 43.6 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 67 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.04 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.68 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Trichoderma harzianum (TrikoLogic (R), Terra Aquatica; 10^8 spores/g; dosed 0.1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.63 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.2 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 0.16 (+/-0.02) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 109.1 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/483 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Basil (Ocimum basilicum, L., green, Suba Seeds Company JSC)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Herb (Methods 3.1.2, p.15: ‘leafy vegetables and herbs’)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	71 (+/-7)
Plant fresh weight	30.95 (+/-3.27) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	8.63 (+/-0.96)
Tissue nitrate AP	5144.8 (+/-444.29) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	4313.4 (+/-447.15) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP+TricH inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Basil under AQP+TricH vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	30.95 (+/-3.27) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	53.36 (+/-12.94) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5 = Basil grown in the AQP+TricH nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Trichoderma harzianum (TrikoLogic (R), Terra Aquatica; 10^8 spores/g; dosed 0.1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Basil: Total weight HYDRO 69.15 (+/-18.47) A vs AQP+TricH 43.25 (+/-5.21) B; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 53.36 (+/-12.94) A vs AQP+TricH 30.95 (+/-3.27) B; Root biomass HYDRO 15.78 (+/-6.0) A vs AQP+TricH 12.29 (+/-2.36) A [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.29 (+/-0.05) b vs AQP+TricH 0.4 (+/-0.07) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 50 (+/-6) b vs AQP+TricH 71 (+/-7) a; Dry weight% HYDRO 7.3 (+/-0.89) a vs AQP+TricH 8.63 (+/-0.96) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Basil: K HYDRO 4647.6 (+/-640.86) A vs AQP+TricH 1458.2 (+/-219.66) AB; Na HYDRO 61.0 (+/-8.42) a vs AQP+TricH 80.8 (+/-11.26) a; Ca HYDRO 622.2 (+/-36.54) A vs AQP+TricH 200.1 (+/-42.66) AB; Mg HYDRO 131.2 (+/-15.61) B vs AQP+TricH 1043.2 (+/-205.27) A; P HYDRO 92.7 (+/-17.03) A vs AQP+TricH 45.1 (+/-7.45) AB; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 287.4 (+/-29.93) a vs AQP+TricH 319.1 (+/-62.2) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 125.9 (+/-9.66) a vs AQP+TricH 135.9 (+/-29.26) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 73.0 (+/-9.27) b vs AQP+TricH 106.8 (+/-18.33) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 5.5 (+/-2.86) b vs AQP+TricH 53.4 (+/-8.58) a; Nitrates HYDRO 4313.4 (+/-447.15) ab vs AQP+TricH 5144.8 (+/-444.29) a (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP+TricH vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.63(+/-0.06) [AQP+TricH]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.2 [AQP+TricH]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 483(+/-12) [AQP+TricH]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 0.16 [AQP+TricH]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 8.0 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.1 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 97 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 22 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 98 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 43.4 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 67 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.13 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.59 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Bacillus mojavensis (amazoN microbial adjuvant, Bioved 2005 Ltd.; strain KN32, NCAIM 497/2020, >=5x10^9 CFU/m3 on perlite carrier; dosed 1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.73 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.1 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 0.29 (+/-0.11) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 94.8 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/420 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Basil (Ocimum basilicum, L., green, Suba Seeds Company JSC)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Herb (Methods 3.1.2, p.15: ‘leafy vegetables and herbs’)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	71 (+/-13)
Plant fresh weight	38.63 (+/-7.61) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	8.5 (+/-0.69)
Tissue nitrate AP	3651.9 (+/-391.94) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	4313.4 (+/-447.15) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP+BM inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Basil under AQP+BM vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	38.63 (+/-7.61) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	53.36 (+/-12.94) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6 = Basil grown in the AQP+BM nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Bacillus mojavensis (amazoN microbial adjuvant, Bioved 2005 Ltd.; strain KN32, NCAIM 497/2020, >=5x10^9 CFU/m3 on perlite carrier; dosed 1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Basil: Total weight HYDRO 69.15 (+/-18.47) A vs AQP+BM 52.88 (+/-10.91) AB; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 53.36 (+/-12.94) A vs AQP+BM 38.63 (+/-7.61) AB; Root biomass HYDRO 15.78 (+/-6.0) A vs AQP+BM 14.26 (+/-3.83) A [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.29 (+/-0.05) b vs AQP+BM 0.37 (+/-0.06) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 50 (+/-6) b vs AQP+BM 71 (+/-13) a; Dry weight% HYDRO 7.3 (+/-0.89) a vs AQP+BM 8.5 (+/-0.69) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Basil: K HYDRO 4647.6 (+/-640.86) A vs AQP+BM 1226.6 (+/-191.66) B; Na HYDRO 61.0 (+/-8.42) a vs AQP+BM 60.8 (+/-21.56) a; Ca HYDRO 622.2 (+/-36.54) A vs AQP+BM 189.7 (+/-19.29) AB; Mg HYDRO 131.2 (+/-15.61) B vs AQP+BM 950.3 (+/-54.99) A; P HYDRO 92.7 (+/-17.03) A vs AQP+BM 42.8 (+/-5.56) AB; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 287.4 (+/-29.93) a vs AQP+BM 268.4 (+/-29.1) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 125.9 (+/-9.66) a vs AQP+BM 112.7 (+/-14.08) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 73.0 (+/-9.27) b vs AQP+BM 88.5 (+/-8.84) ab; Vitamin C HYDRO 5.5 (+/-2.86) b vs AQP+BM 63.4 (+/-7.25) a; Nitrates HYDRO 4313.4 (+/-447.15) ab vs AQP+BM 3651.9 (+/-391.94) b (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP+BM vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.73(+/-0.06) [AQP+BM]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.1 [AQP+BM]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 420(+/-0) [AQP+BM]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 0.29 [AQP+BM]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 8.9 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.1 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 83 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 21 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 90 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 29.6 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 46 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.14 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.73 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record. | WARN-MINOR — Na+/Cl- removal percentage in Abstract vs recomputation from Table 3, p.1/p.10 (not crop-specific, paper-wide, repeated on all AQP+BM rows for visibility). Abstract: ‘B. mojavensis caused a higher degree of removal of Na+ and Cl- from the nutrient solution (243.1% and 254.4% higher, in comparison to the aquaponic solution)’. Recomputing from Table 3’s Na+/Cl- change values (mg/L removed, T0-T1): Na+ AQP 5.8(+/-4.5), AQP+BM 19.9(+/-2.9) -> (19.9-5.8)/5.8 = 243.10%, matches the abstract’s 243.1% exactly. Cl- AQP 9(+/-7), AQP+BM 31(+/-5) -> (31-9)/9 = 244.44%, NOT the abstract’s stated 254.4% (a ~10-point discrepancy, plausibly a transposition/typo in the last digit). No trials.csv or plant.csv cell is affected: Na+/Cl- removal % has no dedicated column (NO COLUMN, raw Table 3 values used above), so only the narrative percentage itself is in question, not any recorded value.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic nutrient solution derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout, no microbial inoculum added (Methods 3.1.2)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.17 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.1 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 << (below detection) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 101.6 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/450 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce ‘Hilbert’ (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L., multi-leaf green, RijkZwaan Ltd.)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Leafy vegetables (Methods 3.1.2, p.15)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	35 (+/-4)
Plant fresh weight	85.38 (+/-18.65) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	5.18 (+/-0.41)
Tissue nitrate AP	2269.6 (+/-524.58) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	3569.9 (+/-148.93) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Hilbert under AQP vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	85.38 (+/-18.65) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	100.65 (+/-23.57) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7 = Hilbert grown in the AQP nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic nutrient solution derived from a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rainbow trout, no microbial inoculum added (Methods 3.1.2)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Hilbert: Total weight HYDRO 108.17 (+/-25.64) a vs AQP 95.6 (+/-21.98) a; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 100.65 (+/-23.57) a vs AQP 85.38 (+/-18.65) a; Root biomass HYDRO 7.51 (+/-3.31) a vs AQP 10.21 (+/-3.59) a [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.08 (+/-0.03) a vs AQP 0.12 (+/-0.03) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 42 (+/-4) AB vs AQP 35 (+/-4) B; Dry weight% HYDRO 4.4 (+/-0.61) a vs AQP 5.18 (+/-0.41) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Hilbert: K HYDRO 3606.1 (+/-435.51) A vs AQP 1324.3 (+/-105.02) A; Na HYDRO 32.5 (+/-7.78) B vs AQP 1162.8 (+/-195.15) A; Ca HYDRO 281.9 (+/-192.37) A vs AQP 496.1 (+/-83.8) A; Mg HYDRO 60.6 (+/-41.87) A vs AQP 92.4 (+/-11.19) A; P HYDRO 36.3 (+/-5.8) A vs AQP 21.3 (+/-1.46) A; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 242.5 (+/-39.05) a vs AQP 276.9 (+/-31.3) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 140.3 (+/-24.58) a vs AQP 164.3 (+/-22.58) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 56.7 (+/-7.93) a vs AQP 67.4 (+/-4.54) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 67.6 (+/-12.88) c vs AQP 87.5 (+/-20.45) bc; Nitrates HYDRO 3569.9 (+/-148.93) a vs AQP 2269.6 (+/-524.58) b (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.17(+/-0.06) [AQP]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.1 [AQP]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 450(+/-10) [AQP]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 << [AQP]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 6.2 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.4 [AQP] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 88 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 20 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 90 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 43.6 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 67 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.04 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.68 [AQP] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Trichoderma harzianum (TrikoLogic (R), Terra Aquatica; 10^8 spores/g; dosed 0.1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.63 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.2 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 0.16 (+/-0.02) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 109.1 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/483 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce ‘Hilbert’ (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L., multi-leaf green, RijkZwaan Ltd.)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Leafy vegetables (Methods 3.1.2, p.15)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	39 (+/-3)
Plant fresh weight	83.22 (+/-28.19) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	4.71 (+/-0.37)
Tissue nitrate AP	2408.0 (+/-440.33) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	3569.9 (+/-148.93) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP+TricH inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Hilbert under AQP+TricH vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	83.22 (+/-28.19) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	100.65 (+/-23.57) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8 = Hilbert grown in the AQP+TricH nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Trichoderma harzianum (TrikoLogic (R), Terra Aquatica; 10^8 spores/g; dosed 0.1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Hilbert: Total weight HYDRO 108.17 (+/-25.64) a vs AQP+TricH 90.86 (+/-30.89) a; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 100.65 (+/-23.57) a vs AQP+TricH 83.22 (+/-28.19) a; Root biomass HYDRO 7.51 (+/-3.31) a vs AQP+TricH 7.65 (+/-3.03) a [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.08 (+/-0.03) a vs AQP+TricH 0.09 (+/-0.02) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 42 (+/-4) AB vs AQP+TricH 39 (+/-3) B; Dry weight% HYDRO 4.4 (+/-0.61) a vs AQP+TricH 4.71 (+/-0.37) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Hilbert: K HYDRO 3606.1 (+/-435.51) A vs AQP+TricH 1194.7 (+/-160.31) A; Na HYDRO 32.5 (+/-7.78) B vs AQP+TricH 970.1 (+/-118.61) AB; Ca HYDRO 281.9 (+/-192.37) A vs AQP+TricH 228.2 (+/-154.02) A; Mg HYDRO 60.6 (+/-41.87) A vs AQP+TricH 270.5 (+/-128.27) A; P HYDRO 36.3 (+/-5.8) A vs AQP+TricH 21.6 (+/-2.47) A; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 242.5 (+/-39.05) a vs AQP+TricH 236.7 (+/-18.38) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 140.3 (+/-24.58) a vs AQP+TricH 138.5 (+/-13.43) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 56.7 (+/-7.93) a vs AQP+TricH 63.9 (+/-5.03) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 67.6 (+/-12.88) c vs AQP+TricH 94.6 (+/-14.98) b; Nitrates HYDRO 3569.9 (+/-148.93) a vs AQP+TricH 2408.0 (+/-440.33) b (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP+TricH vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.63(+/-0.06) [AQP+TricH]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.2 [AQP+TricH]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 483(+/-12) [AQP+TricH]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 0.16 [AQP+TricH]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 8.0 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.1 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 97 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 22 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 98 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 43.4 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 67 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.13 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.59 [AQP+TricH] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record.

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum)

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	180 (L, per closed system: rack + pipes + sump tank, Methods 3.1.1, Figure 5)
Water type	Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Bacillus mojavensis (amazoN microbial adjuvant, Bioved 2005 Ltd.; strain KN32, NCAIM 497/2020, >=5x10^9 CFU/m3 on perlite carrier; dosed 1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)
Aq pH	T0 7.0 (+/-0.1) -> T1 7.73 (+/-0.06) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
EC	T0 1.4 (+/-0.0) -> T1 1.1 (+/-0.0) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported) [reported as mS/cm; UNIT LABEL: 1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m, numerically identical, no conversion applied]
TAN / NH4-N	T0 << (below detection) -> T1 0.29 (+/-0.11) (range only, no trial-duration mean reported)
NO3-N	T0 141.6 -> T1 94.8 (range only, no trial-duration mean reported; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from NO3- 627/420 mg/L x 14/62)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Lettuce ‘Hilbert’ (Lactuca sativa var. crispa, L., multi-leaf green, RijkZwaan Ltd.)
Details	Sown 24 Apr 2023 on rockwool cubes (40x40x40mm); pre-grown 3 weeks on HYDRO solution (AQP+TricH/AQP+BM pre-grown on separate rafts to avoid cross-contamination, inoculated 1 week after sowing); transplanted into the 4 closed systems and grown a further 4 weeks to harvest (Methods 3.1.4); 10 plants/system, n=9 biometric subsample, n=4 mineral/pigment/vitamin C subsample
Plant Category	Leafy vegetables (Methods 3.1.2, p.15)
Days Plant after transplant	28 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: ‘grow for another four weeks’ after transplant, Methods 3.1.4, 4 weeks x 7 = 28 d)
Leaf count	64 (+/-11)
Plant fresh weight	86.36 (+/-22.57) [above-ground biomass, i.e. yield, excludes roots; Table 1]
Plant dry matter	4.92 (+/-0.49)
Tissue nitrate AP	2302.2 (+/-171.9) [FW/DW basis not stated]
Tissue nitrate HYD	3569.9 (+/-148.93) [FW/DW basis not stated]

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Deep-water culture (DWC), vertical indoor growing rack (Methods 3.1.1)
Media Details	Rockwool germination cube (40x40x40mm); DWC rack + individual ~180L sump tank per closed system (Figure 5); LED lighting R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm above canopy, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s; growing space 20C, RH 65%, no supplemental CO2 (Methods 3.1.1)
Biological system already in use	Y (RAS with rainbow trout at the Future Farming Ltd. R&D centre (Kaly 66, Czechia) supplied the RAS-derived water for all AQP variants; the RAS itself is an established off-site facility, not otherwise described (no stocking density, feeding, or growth data given, Methods 3.1.1))
Iron supplemented	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Remineralization	N (No nutrient/fertilizer top-up of any kind during the 4-week growing phase for any variant, including AQP; only deionised UV-C-treated water was added to replace evaporative/uptake losses, specifically to track nutrient decline (Methods 3.1.4))
Climate control	Y (Indoor vertical growing system, growing space temperature set to 20C (compromise between basil and lettuce demands), RH 65% throughout, no additional CO2 supplied (Methods 3.1.1))
Artificial Lighting	Y (LED lighting, R:B ratio 2.5:1, mounted 220mm above the cultivation site, 18h/day photoperiod (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s (Methods 3.1.1))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No mineral fertilizer added to any AQP variant. NO COLUMN: this row’s own treatment is a PGPM microbial inoculant, not a fertilizer — see Water type column and Experimental Remarks for AQP+BM inoculum identity/dose (Methods 3.1.3))
Equipment	Palintest Photometer 7100 (water colorimetry: NO3-, TAN, PO4, K, Ca, Mg, SO4, Cl, Mn, F); IONOSEP 2003 isotachophoresis (tissue K, Na, Ca, Mg); spectrophotometer at 430nm (tissue P, Zbiral et al. method) and 440/662/644nm (carotenoids/chlorophyll a/b, acetone extraction); ion-selective electrode type 07-35 with mercury-sulphate reference electrode RME 121 (tissue nitrate); HPLC, ARION Polar C18 column, ECOM Ltd. (ascorbic acid); gravimetry at 105C (dry matter); VHX-6000 digital microscope (Trichoderma detection); LSM 800 laser scanning confocal microscope (Bacillus FISH detection); Statistica 12
Control Parameters	LED photoperiod 18h (06:00-00:00), PPFD 130 umol/m2/s, R:B 2.5:1 at 220mm; growing space 20C, RH 65%; no CO2 supplementation; system volume ~180L/rack; CRD, one rack (=one system) per nutrient-solution variant
Combination	Rainbow trout RAS-derived nutrient solution and three leafy crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce) vs hydroponic control, with two PGPM inoculants (Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus mojavensis) tested as aquaponic-solution amendments; this row = Hilbert under AQP+BM vs HYDRO

Site

Field	Value
Region	Europe
Country	Czech Republic
Lat	49.3792886
Long	16.3515736
Average room Temperature	20 (C, setpoint for growing space, not a measured trial mean; Methods 3.1.1)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g/plant (total/above-ground/root biomass); % (dry weight); pcs (leaf count); mg/kg (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate content — FW/DW basis not stated, see Extraction notes); mg/L (water chemistry); mS/cm (EC)
Statistic Details	Multifactorial ANOVA after Shapiro-Wilk normality check, Tukey’s HSD (p=0.05, lowercase letters) when normal; Kruskal-Wallis + multiple comparison of mean ranks (p=0.05, uppercase letters) when not normal; Statistica 12 (Section 3.3)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	9 (biometric, Table 1); 4 (mineral/pigment/vitamin C/nitrate, Table 4); 3 (water chemistry T0/T1, Tables 2-3) — see Extraction notes: TRUE treatment-level replication is n=1 (one cultivation rack per nutrient-solution variant, Methods 3.1.2: ‘each of which had one repetition’); the n given here are measurement-level subsamples of plants/solution aliquots within that single system, not independent system replicates
AP	86.36 (+/-22.57) g/plant [above-ground biomass]
HYD	100.65 (+/-23.57) g/plant [above-ground biomass]

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9 = Hilbert grown in the AQP+BM nutrient-solution variant (Aquaponic (RAS) nutrient solution inoculated with Bacillus mojavensis (amazoN microbial adjuvant, Bioved 2005 Ltd.; strain KN32, NCAIM 497/2020, >=5x10^9 CFU/m3 on perlite carrier; dosed 1 g/L irrigation water, applied 1 week after sowing during pre-growth and again after UV-C treatment at T0; Methods 3.1.2-3.1.3)). Paired control = the same crop grown in the HYDRO variant (commercial hydroponic fertilizer: 2.5 mL JUNGLE garden G1 [0.4% N, 2% P2O5, 4.5% K2O] + 1 mL JUNGLE garden BASE [7% N, 11.2% CaO, 0.22% Fe] per 1 L local well water, Numazon Ltd.), recorded in the HYD columns. All 4 nutrient-solution variants (HYDRO, AQP, AQP+TricH, AQP+BM) were grown simultaneously in the same experiment, each in its own single closed 180L system (rack+sump), with all 3 crops (‘Barlach’ lettuce, basil, ‘Hilbert’ lettuce, 10 plants each) sharing that one system’s water (Methods 3.1.1-3.1.2, Figures 5-6). The paper’s own ‘12 variants’ = 4 nutrient solutions x 3 crops. 9 trials.csv rows were extracted (3 crops x 3 AQP variants), each pairing one crop’s AQP-variant biometric/mineral data against that same crop’s HYDRO data; the AQP/AQP+TricH/AQP+BM water-chemistry block (Tables 2-3) is identical across the 3 crop-rows sharing that variant (T1/T4/T7 share AQP water chemistry; T2/T5/T8 share AQP+TricH; T3/T6/T9 share AQP+BM), since one physical system supplied all 3 crops. | TYPE CLASSIFICATION JUDGMENT CALL: recorded as quasi-experiment, not experiment, despite the paper’s own claim of a ‘completely randomized design (CRD)’ (Methods 3.1.2). The CRD randomization applies to which crop/plant-position went into which system, but each of the 4 nutrient-solution variants — the actual treatment of interest for every AP-vs-HYD comparison in this row — was run in exactly ONE physical closed system with no independent replicate: ‘The experiment comprised of four variants, each of which had one repetition (one cultivation rack)’ (Methods 3.1.2, p.15). The n=9/n=4/n=3 figures used throughout Tables 1-5 are measurement-level subsamples (individual plants or solution aliquots) drawn from that single system, not independent system-level replicates; strictly, this is pseudo-replication for the nutrient-solution factor. This does not invalidate the paper’s within-system biometric/tissue comparisons, but it means the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis significance tests reported here cannot distinguish a true nutrient-solution effect from any other source of between-system variation (e.g. minor differences in initial system setup). Flagged prominently rather than silently accepted; see also Opinion in the note. | BIOMETRIC DATA (Table 1, n=9, mean+/-SD; letter case: lowercase=Tukey HSD/ANOVA, uppercase=Kruskal-Wallis+mean-rank comparison, both p=0.05), Hilbert: Total weight HYDRO 108.17 (+/-25.64) a vs AQP+BM 94.58 (+/-25.27) a; Above-ground biomass (yield) HYDRO 100.65 (+/-23.57) a vs AQP+BM 86.36 (+/-22.57) a; Root biomass HYDRO 7.51 (+/-3.31) a vs AQP+BM 8.23 (+/-3.58) a [NO COLUMN, no dedicated field]; Root:shoot ratio HYDRO 0.08 (+/-0.03) a vs AQP+BM 0.09 (+/-0.03) a [NO COLUMN]; Number of leaves HYDRO 42 (+/-4) AB vs AQP+BM 64 (+/-11) A; Dry weight% HYDRO 4.4 (+/-0.61) a vs AQP+BM 4.92 (+/-0.49) a. | CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (Table 4, n=4, mean+/-SD, mg/kg, FW/DW basis NOT STATED anywhere in Methods 3.1.6 or the Table 4 caption — see WARN-CHECK below), Hilbert: K HYDRO 3606.1 (+/-435.51) A vs AQP+BM 1253.1 (+/-257.79) A; Na HYDRO 32.5 (+/-7.78) B vs AQP+BM 868.4 (+/-78.98) AB; Ca HYDRO 281.9 (+/-192.37) A vs AQP+BM 351.1 (+/-239.15) A; Mg HYDRO 60.6 (+/-41.87) A vs AQP+BM 65.3 (+/-44.16) A; P HYDRO 36.3 (+/-5.8) A vs AQP+BM 22.2 (+/-2.49) A; Chlorophyll a HYDRO 242.5 (+/-39.05) a vs AQP+BM 278.2 (+/-40.12) a; Chlorophyll b HYDRO 140.3 (+/-24.58) a vs AQP+BM 165.1 (+/-29.0) a; Carotenoids HYDRO 56.7 (+/-7.93) a vs AQP+BM 66.2 (+/-5.95) a; Vitamin C HYDRO 67.6 (+/-12.88) c vs AQP+BM 126.8 (+/-17.73) a; Nitrates HYDRO 3569.9 (+/-148.93) a vs AQP+BM 2302.2 (+/-171.9) b (recorded in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns above, per vault convention of not duplicating into plant.csv when a dedicated trials.csv column exists, established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). | WARN-CHECK — mineral/pigment/vitamin-C/nitrate content basis (fresh vs dry weight), Table 4 + Methods 3.1.6, p.8 and p.16-17. Table 1 separately reports ‘Dry weight [%]’ via gravimetry at 105C (a distinct biometric measurement), but Table 4’s mg/kg values for K, Na, Ca, Mg, P, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, vitamin C and nitrates never state whether the mg/kg denominator is fresh or dry tissue weight; Methods 3.1.6 describes the analytical methods (isotachophoresis, spectrophotometry, HPLC, ion-selective electrode) but not the sample-preparation basis for any of them. This is the SCHEMA.md-listed ‘fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated’ CHECK case. Recorded as UNCLEAR basis in the Unit field of every plant.csv row and in Tissue nitrate AP/HYD above; both candidate readings (FW, the more common convention for pigment/vitamin-C assays run on freshly harvested tissue, vs DW) remain defensible. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WATER CHEMISTRY, AQP+BM vs HYDRO (Table 2, n=3, mean+/-SD, T0=at system fill / T1=at harvest, 4 weeks later; << = below detection limit): pH T0 6.1(+/-0.0)/T1 6.07(+/-0.1) [HYDRO] vs T0 7.0(+/-0.1)/T1 7.73(+/-0.06) [AQP+BM]; EC[mS/cm] T0 1.6/T1 1.0 [HYDRO] vs T0 1.4/T1 1.1 [AQP+BM]; NO3-[mg/L, as reported, NOT NO3-N] T0 528(+/-14)/T1 317(+/-6) [HYDRO] vs T0 627(+/-12)/T1 420(+/-0) [AQP+BM]; Total ammonia N (TAN=NH4++NH3)[mg/L] T0 6.77(+/-0.35)/T1 0.16(+/-0.04) [HYDRO] vs T0 <</T1 0.29 [AQP+BM]; PO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 98.3/T1 97.5 [HYDRO] vs T0 14.7/T1 8.9 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; K+[mg/L] T0 120.0/T1 23.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 19.3/T1 6.1 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN — schema K column is feed composition %, not water K]; Ca2+[mg/L] T0 45/T1 25 [HYDRO] vs T0 130/T1 83 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Mg2+[mg/L] T0 48/T1 35 [HYDRO] vs T0 29/T1 21 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; SO4(2-)[mg/L] T0 210/T1 203 [HYDRO] vs T0 119/T1 90 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Na+[mg/L, calculated from Cl- value per Methods 3.1.6] T0 45.8/T1 38.7 [HYDRO] vs T0 49.5/T1 29.6 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Cl-[mg/L] T0 71/T1 60 [HYDRO] vs T0 76/T1 46 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; Total Mn[mg/L] T0 2.27/T1 2.15 [HYDRO] vs T0 0.28/T1 0.14 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]; F-[mg/L] T0 60.72/T1 46.86 [HYDRO] vs T0 2.8/T1 0.73 [AQP+BM] [NO COLUMN]. NO3-N cell above = NO3- x 14/62 (UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, molar-mass ratio, exact); EC recorded as reported (mS/cm; note EC column header cell records the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence). All water-chemistry values are RANGE ONLY (T0->T1), per SCHEMA.md’s guidance for a paper reporting only two time-point snapshots (not a trial-duration mean) — not averaged. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Water recycle (L/min), Water temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, NO2-N, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height — none of these are stated anywhere for the off-site RAS or the plant experiment itself; the RAS supplying AQP water is an established external facility whose own husbandry/growth data is simply not reported in this paper (it is not a fish-performance study). | NO COLUMN items (paper-wide, not crop-specific unless noted): Table 5 nutrient-use efficiencies (PUE/KUE/CaUE/MgUE, %, n=3, system-level not per-crop — computed as sum of analyte fixed in ALL 3 crops per variant / total input analyte in the 180L system x 100): PUE HYDRO 2.19(+/-0.07)B, AQP 5.37(+/-0.24)AB, AQP+TricH 5.81(+/-0.26)AB, AQP+BM 6.26(+/-0.28)A; KUE HYDRO 48.15(+/-0.00)B, AQP 73.88(+/-2.17)AB, AQP+TricH 70.11(+/-2.06)AB, AQP+BM 73.97(+/-2.17)A; CaUE HYDRO 6.83(+/-0.60)A, AQP 2.54(+/-0.10)AB, AQP+TricH 2.84(+/-0.11)AB, AQP+BM 2.17(+/-0.08)B; MgUE HYDRO 1.38(+/-0.02)B, AQP 10.05(+/-0.21)AB, AQP+TricH 11.23(+/-0.23)A, AQP+BM 9.55(+/-0.20)AB. Table 6 system-level N dynamics (g N/100L, n not stated as a dispersion, single reported values, system-level not per-crop): N input (T0) HYDRO 12, AQP 14, AQP+TricH 14, AQP+BM 14; N dynamics (T0-T1) HYDRO 5, AQP 4, AQP+TricH 3, AQP+BM 5; N incorporated to plants as NO3- HYDRO 2.4, AQP 1.1, AQP+TricH 1.3, AQP+BM 1.0; N incorporated in other organic forms/used by microbiota HYDRO 6.2, AQP 6.1, AQP+TricH 4.6, AQP+BM 7.4; theoretical NUE% HYDRO 40.0, AQP 28.2, AQP+TricH 22.9, AQP+BM 33.0. Biofilter sub-experiment (Section 2.2/3.2, separate from the plant trial, no crop involved): TAN/NO2/NO3 dynamics over 10h in 3 beakers (non-inoculated Control, TricH, BM) seeded from the RAS biofilter, ammonia adjusted to ~6 mg TAN/L; no significant differences in nitrification trend among the 3 variants (Figure 4) — reported by the paper as evidence neither inoculum harms nitrifying-bacteria activity in the short term (10h), but this sub-experiment has no plant/crop dimension and does not map to any trial row; not extracted as its own row per SCHEMA.md (‘a new trial row requires evidence of a distinct treatment arm’ with plant data — this is a bacterial-activity assay, not an aquaponic plant trial). Microscopic/FISH confirmation (Section 2.1.1/3.1.5) that both T. harzianum and B. mojavensis were detected/recoverable in root tissue (Figure 1) — qualitative, no numeric value to record. | WARN-MINOR — Na+/Cl- removal percentage in Abstract vs recomputation from Table 3, p.1/p.10 (not crop-specific, paper-wide, repeated on all AQP+BM rows for visibility). Abstract: ‘B. mojavensis caused a higher degree of removal of Na+ and Cl- from the nutrient solution (243.1% and 254.4% higher, in comparison to the aquaponic solution)’. Recomputing from Table 3’s Na+/Cl- change values (mg/L removed, T0-T1): Na+ AQP 5.8(+/-4.5), AQP+BM 19.9(+/-2.9) -> (19.9-5.8)/5.8 = 243.10%, matches the abstract’s 243.1% exactly. Cl- AQP 9(+/-7), AQP+BM 31(+/-5) -> (31-9)/9 = 244.44%, NOT the abstract’s stated 254.4% (a ~10-point discrepancy, plausibly a transposition/typo in the last digit). No trials.csv or plant.csv cell is affected: Na+/Cl- removal % has no dedicated column (NO COLUMN, raw Table 3 values used above), so only the narrative percentage itself is in question, not any recorded value.

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	mineral	K	1220.7 ± 212.1	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	mineral	Na	1352.5 ± 149.04	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	mineral	Ca	176.0 ± 50.5	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	mineral	Mg	209.7 ± 117.56	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	mineral	P	21.0 ± 1.98	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	185.0 ± 33.52	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	83.6 ± 15.16	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	56.7 ± 10.49	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	91.2 ± 6.2	mg/kg (basis unclear)	bc	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	mineral	K	3565.1 ± 192.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Na	39.7 ± 6.02	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Ca	0.0 ± 0.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	mineral	Mg	0.0 ± 0.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	mineral	P	35.6 ± 1.97	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	162.1 ± 5.41	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	76.8 ± 2.52	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	41.1 ± 1.21	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	50.6 ± 5.59	mg/kg (basis unclear)	d	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	mineral	K	1089.6 ± 66.01	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	mineral	Na	1198.4 ± 73.63	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	mineral	Ca	418.1 ± 78.53	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	mineral	Mg	82.5 ± 6.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	mineral	P	20.4 ± 1.06	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	183.0 ± 32.12	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	88.8 ± 17.14	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	48.3 ± 11.17	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	70.0 ± 2.45	mg/kg (basis unclear)	cd	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	mineral	K	3565.1 ± 192.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Na	39.7 ± 6.02	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Ca	0.0 ± 0.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	mineral	Mg	0.0 ± 0.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	mineral	P	35.6 ± 1.97	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	162.1 ± 5.41	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	76.8 ± 2.52	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	41.1 ± 1.21	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	50.6 ± 5.59	mg/kg (basis unclear)	d	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	mineral	K	1174.6 ± 143.02	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	mineral	Na	1162.7 ± 120.01	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	mineral	Ca	167.7 ± 252.83	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	mineral	Mg	111.5 ± 164.5	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	mineral	P	21.8 ± 0.9	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	203.4 ± 14.61	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	98.7 ± 6.51	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	61.8 ± 3.14	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	100.9 ± 7.89	mg/kg (basis unclear)	ab	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	mineral	K	3565.1 ± 192.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Na	39.7 ± 6.02	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Ca	0.0 ± 0.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	mineral	Mg	0.0 ± 0.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	mineral	P	35.6 ± 1.97	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	162.1 ± 5.41	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	76.8 ± 2.52	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	41.1 ± 1.21	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	50.6 ± 5.59	mg/kg (basis unclear)	d	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	mineral	K	1353.9 ± 104.4	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	mineral	Na	63.9 ± 12.26	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	mineral	Ca	160.3 ± 12.59	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	mineral	Mg	819.3 ± 61.14	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	mineral	P	33.2 ± 2.52	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	295.0 ± 24.08	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	126.6 ± 11.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	86.0 ± 5.88	mg/kg (basis unclear)	ab	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	23.6 ± 4.64	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	mineral	K	4647.6 ± 640.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Na	61.0 ± 8.42	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Ca	622.2 ± 36.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	mineral	Mg	131.2 ± 15.61	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	mineral	P	92.7 ± 17.03	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	287.4 ± 29.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	125.9 ± 9.66	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	73.0 ± 9.27	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	5.5 ± 2.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	mineral	K	1458.2 ± 219.66	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	mineral	Na	80.8 ± 11.26	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	mineral	Ca	200.1 ± 42.66	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	mineral	Mg	1043.2 ± 205.27	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	mineral	P	45.1 ± 7.45	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	319.1 ± 62.2	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	135.9 ± 29.26	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	106.8 ± 18.33	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	53.4 ± 8.58	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	mineral	K	4647.6 ± 640.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Na	61.0 ± 8.42	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Ca	622.2 ± 36.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	mineral	Mg	131.2 ± 15.61	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	mineral	P	92.7 ± 17.03	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	287.4 ± 29.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	125.9 ± 9.66	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	73.0 ± 9.27	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	5.5 ± 2.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	mineral	K	1226.6 ± 191.66	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	mineral	Na	60.8 ± 21.56	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	mineral	Ca	189.7 ± 19.29	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	mineral	Mg	950.3 ± 54.99	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	mineral	P	42.8 ± 5.56	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	268.4 ± 29.1	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	112.7 ± 14.08	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	88.5 ± 8.84	mg/kg (basis unclear)	ab	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	63.4 ± 7.25	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	mineral	K	4647.6 ± 640.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Na	61.0 ± 8.42	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Ca	622.2 ± 36.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	mineral	Mg	131.2 ± 15.61	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	mineral	P	92.7 ± 17.03	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	287.4 ± 29.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	125.9 ± 9.66	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	73.0 ± 9.27	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	5.5 ± 2.86	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	mineral	K	1324.3 ± 105.02	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	mineral	Na	1162.8 ± 195.15	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	mineral	Ca	496.1 ± 83.8	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	mineral	Mg	92.4 ± 11.19	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	mineral	P	21.3 ± 1.46	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	276.9 ± 31.3	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	164.3 ± 22.58	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	67.4 ± 4.54	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	87.5 ± 20.45	mg/kg (basis unclear)	bc	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	mineral	K	3606.1 ± 435.51	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	mineral	Na	32.5 ± 7.78	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	mineral	Ca	281.9 ± 192.37	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	mineral	Mg	60.6 ± 41.87	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	mineral	P	36.3 ± 5.8	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	242.5 ± 39.05	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	140.3 ± 24.58	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	56.7 ± 7.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	67.6 ± 12.88	mg/kg (basis unclear)	c	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	mineral	K	1194.7 ± 160.31	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	mineral	Na	970.1 ± 118.61	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	mineral	Ca	228.2 ± 154.02	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	mineral	Mg	270.5 ± 128.27	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	mineral	P	21.6 ± 2.47	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	236.7 ± 18.38	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	138.5 ± 13.43	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	63.9 ± 5.03	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	94.6 ± 14.98	mg/kg (basis unclear)	b	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	mineral	K	3606.1 ± 435.51	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	mineral	Na	32.5 ± 7.78	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	mineral	Ca	281.9 ± 192.37	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	mineral	Mg	60.6 ± 41.87	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	mineral	P	36.3 ± 5.8	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	242.5 ± 39.05	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	140.3 ± 24.58	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	56.7 ± 7.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	67.6 ± 12.88	mg/kg (basis unclear)	c	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	mineral	K	1253.1 ± 257.79	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	mineral	Na	868.4 ± 78.98	mg/kg (basis unclear)	AB	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	mineral	Ca	351.1 ± 239.15	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	mineral	Mg	65.3 ± 44.16	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	mineral	P	22.2 ± 2.49	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	278.2 ± 40.12	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	165.1 ± 29.0	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	66.2 ± 5.95	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	AP	biochemistry	Vitamin C	126.8 ± 17.73	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	mineral	K	3606.1 ± 435.51	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	mineral	Na	32.5 ± 7.78	mg/kg (basis unclear)	B	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	mineral	Ca	281.9 ± 192.37	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	mineral	Mg	60.6 ± 41.87	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	mineral	P	36.3 ± 5.8	mg/kg (basis unclear)	A	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	242.5 ± 39.05	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	140.3 ± 24.58	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	56.7 ± 7.93	mg/kg (basis unclear)	a	Table 4
patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9	HYD	biochemistry	Vitamin C	67.6 ± 12.88	mg/kg (basis unclear)	c	Table 4

Quartz 5

Explorer

Optimization of Plant Nutrition in Aquaponics: The Impact of Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus mojavensis on Lettuce and Basil Yield and Mineral Status

Optimization of Plant Nutrition in Aquaponics: The Impact of Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus mojavensis on Lettuce and Basil Yield and Mineral Status

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Biometric yield and leaf count

Nutrient solution chemistry (pH, EC, water nutrients)

Leaf mineral composition and nutrient-use efficiency

Chlorophyll, carotenoids, and vitamin C

Nitrates and nitrogen dynamics

Biofilter safety (10 h assay)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T1

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T2

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T3

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T4

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T5

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T6

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T7

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T8

patlokovaOptimizationPlantNutrition2024-T9

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks