Response of tilapia and tomato to the complementation of nutrients in an aquaponic system
Metadata
- Cite key: pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020
- Item type: Conference Paper (Acta Horticulturae / ISHS proceedings, GreenSys 2019)
- Authors: J. Pineda-Pineda, I. Miranda-Velázquez, A. Ramírez-Arias, M. Vargas-Hernández, D. Montalvo-Hernández, S. García-Galván, N.M. García-Ramírez
- Affiliation: Soils Department (Pineda-Pineda, Vargas-Hernández); Agriculture High School Department (Miranda-Velázquez, Ramírez-Arias); Phytotecnic Department (Montalvo-Hernández, García-Galván, García-Ramírez) — all Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Km. 38.5 Carretera México–Texcoco, Chapingo, Estado de México, C.P. 56230, Mexico
- Journal: Acta Horticulturae 1296 (2020) 101-108
- Date: 11/2020
- Date added: 2026-08-09
- DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14
- Funding: Not stated in this document (poster carries no acknowledgements/funding section)
- URL: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14
- PDF:
Pineda-Pineda et al. - 2020 - Response of tilapia and tomato to the complementat.pdf
Opinion
Important caveat before anything else: the PDF in this vault is a 2-page GreenSys 2019 conference poster (a ResearchGate mirror, complete with citation/download-stats cover sheet), not the full 8-page peer-reviewed Acta Horticulturae article this poster was later published as (vol. 1296, pp.101-108, confirmed via CrossRef). A poster this dense with named-but-unquantified measurements (pH, EC, full nutrient-solution panel, water consumption, fish weight/length/width, plant height, stem diameter, dry matter) is a strong signal that the full text carries substantially more numeric detail than what could be extracted here. What is recoverable is a clean two-table core: fruit yield/quality (Table 1) and leaf/fruit tissue macronutrient content (Table 2), both with proper Tukey-lettered ANOVA-style statistics (CV, DMS, Pr>F) — genuinely useful as far as it goes. The headline finding (fruit yield and total fruit count statistically indistinguishable across all four treatments, including the un-supplemented aquaponic arm) is a clean, well-supported result. But the paper’s own narrative claim that “plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different” is asserted without a single supporting number anywhere in this document — a substantive limitation for anyone wanting to cite the growth-parameter finding rather than just the yield-parity one. If this paper is going to be cited on anything beyond fruit yield and tissue macronutrients, the full journal article should be tracked down.
Abstract
[not reported] — this document is a conference poster (Introduction / Materials and Methods / Results and Discussion / Conclusions / Literature Cited only) and has no dedicated Abstract section. The CrossRef record for the published Acta Horticulturae version (10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14) also carries no abstract field, so no verbatim abstract could be sourced from either location.
Summary
Researchers at Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (Mexico) grew tomato under a hydroponic control (paper’s own “T1”) and three aquaponic treatments varying in nutrient complementation: aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S added to the nutrient solution plus foliar fertilization with the same four macronutrients (“T2”), aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S in the nutrient solution only, no foliar (“T3”), and aquaponics with no nutrient complementation at all (“T4”), in a completely randomized design. They measured plant height, stem diameter, fruit count/weight/diameter/yield, nutrient concentration (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu) in the hydroponic and aquaponic nutrient solutions, water consumption every three days, and fish weight/length/width. Total fruit count, individual fruit weight (except T3, which was significantly lower), fruit diameter, and fruit yield (both kg/plant and kg/m²) did not differ significantly among any of the four treatments (Tukey, p≤0.05), meaning the fully un-supplemented aquaponic treatment matched hydroponic yield. Leaf and fruit tissue macronutrient analysis (Table 2) showed the complemented aquaponic treatments (“T2”, “T3”) generally had higher P, Ca and Mg than the hydroponic control and the un-supplemented aquaponic treatment, with “T2” (solution + foliar) giving the highest overall tissue nutrient concentrations. The paper concludes yield parity holds regardless of complementation level, nutrient complementation did not harm fish growth, and aquaponic water consumption was lower than hydroponic. Critically, this poster gives no numeric values at all for plant height, stem diameter, dry matter, water-solution chemistry, or fish measurements, despite narrating differences in several of them — see Extraction notes.
Experiment data
- Location: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Km. 38.5 Carretera México–Texcoco, Chapingo, Estado de México, Mexico (greenhouse; exact system/media not described in text — see Extraction notes)
- Design: Completely randomized treatment design, 1 hydroponic control (“T1”) + 3 aquaponic nutrient-complementation treatments (“T2” solution+foliar, “T3” solution only, “T4” no complementation). Replicate count not stated in this poster.
- Replicates / n: [not reported] — CV, DMS and Pr>F statistics are reported per Table, implying a formal ANOVA-type design, but no explicit sample size or “n treatments × m replicates” statement appears anywhere in this 2-page document.
- Duration: [not reported] — no trial length in days/weeks is stated for either the tomato or the tilapia component; only “water consumption each three days” (a measurement interval, not a duration) is given.
- Organisms: Tilapia (species not stated) / Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)
- Statistics: Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p≤0.05); CV (coefficient of variation) and DMS (minimum significant difference) reported per measured variable; software not stated.
- Fruit yield: ns across all four treatments — T1(HYD) 7.42 a, T2 7.16 a, T3 6.83 a, T4 7.74 a kg/plant (Pr>F 0.30); 29.66 a, 28.66 a, 27.31 a, 30.98 a kg·m⁻² (Pr>F 0.1123).
- Total fruits: ns — T1 50.75 a, T2 50.08 a, T3 50.58 a, T4 47.58 a (Pr>F 0.55).
- Individual fruit weight (kg): T3 (0.135 b) significantly lower than T4 (0.163 a); T1/T2 intermediate and not distinguishable from either (0.146 ab / 0.144 ab); Pr>F 0.0037.
- Leaf nutrient status and fruit tissue macronutrients (%, Table 2): complemented treatments (T2, T3) generally higher in P, Ca, Mg than T1 (hydroponic) and T4 (un-supplemented aquaponic); T2 highest overall. Full per-element, per-tissue values in plant.csv.
Yield and fruit quality
This paper: Fruit yield (both kg/plant and kg/m²) and total fruit count were statistically indistinguishable across all four treatments (Tukey, p≤0.05; Pr>F 0.30 and 0.1123 for the two yield metrics, 0.55 for fruit count), meaning the fully un-supplemented aquaponic treatment (“T4”) matched or nominally exceeded the hydroponic control on every yield measure despite receiving no macronutrient complementation at all. Individual fruit weight was the one Table 1 metric with a significant treatment effect (Pr>F 0.0037): “T3” (aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S in solution only, no foliar) was significantly lower (0.135 kg, group b) than “T4” (0.163 kg, group a), with “T1”/“T2” intermediate and not significantly different from either. Fruit diameter showed the same T3-low/T4-high pattern but did not reach significance at the paper’s stated threshold (Pr>F 0.076).
Compared with:
- todo Dongyun et al. 2017 — micro- and macro-nutrient addition improved aquaponic performance; cited by this paper as a similar result for the higher tissue macronutrient concentrations seen in T2, though the authors note this did not translate into greater plant growth here either (Results/Discussion)
- todo Roosta and Hamidpour 2011 — foliar application of macro- and micro-nutrients on tomato in aquaponic and hydroponic systems, Scientia Horticulturae 129:396-402; cited alongside Dongyun (2017) as giving similar results for tissue nutrient response to complementation (Results/Discussion)
Leaf and fruit tissue macronutrient content
This paper: Table 2 reports N, P, K, Ca and Mg content (%) separately for fruit and leaf tissue across all four treatments. Fruit P, Ca and Mg were all significantly higher in the complemented aquaponic treatments (T2, T3) than in T1 (hydroponic) and T4 (un-supplemented aquaponic); fruit N and fruit K (except T3, which was significantly higher) did not differ significantly among treatments. Leaf macronutrients showed a similar complementation-driven pattern for P and Ca (T2 highest for both), while leaf K was highest in T1 (hydroponic, 4.63%) and lowest in T4 (0.84%) — the un-supplemented aquaponic treatment’s leaf K was roughly a fifth of the hydroponic control’s, the single largest proportional gap anywhere in Table 2. Leaf Mg was highest in T4 (2.87%, group a) despite T4 receiving no complementation, the opposite direction from every other macronutrient in the table — the paper does not comment on or explain this reversal.
Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the tissue-macronutrient pattern specifically; the Dongyun/Roosta citations above are given only in the general context of nutrient complementation affecting tissue composition, not tied to individual elements)
Fish response to nutrient complementation
This paper: The only fish-related finding stated is qualitative: “Nutrient complementation to the aquaponic system did not decrease the weight, length and width of the fishes” (Results and Conclusions, verbatim, repeated near-identically in both sections). No fish species, stocking density, initial/final measurements, feed regime, or any numeric value is given anywhere in this document to support or quantify this claim.
Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the fish-performance finding)
Linked claims
- Aquaponic tomato yield can match hydroponic yield even without nutrient complementation
- Complementing aquaponic nutrient solution with macronutrients increases leaf and fruit tissue nutrient concentration
- Nutrient complementation of aquaponic water does not impair fish growth
Citations to chase
- todo Aguilera, M.M.E.; Hernández, S.F.; Mendieta, S.E.; Herrera, F.C. (2012) — Producción integral sustentable de alimentos, Ra Ximhai 8:71-74 — cited in the Introduction for the general aquaponics-as-sustainable-food-model framing, not a data comparison
- todo Dongyun, R.; Jikai, L.; Zhen, H.; Yina, Z.; Liping, J.; Xiaodian, C.; Zhenting, L. (2017) — Improvement of aquaponic performance through micro- and macro-nutrient addition, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg — similar tissue-nutrient-response result to this paper’s T2/T3
- todo Roosta, H.R.; Hamidpour, M. (2011) — Effects of foliar application of some macro- and micro-nutrients on tomato plants in aquaponic and hydroponic systems, Scientia Horticulturae 129:396-402 — similar tissue-nutrient-response result
Extraction notes
PDF is a poster, not the full article. The only PDF available in pdfs/ for this paper is a 2-page GreenSys 2019 (Angers, France, 16-20 June 2019) conference poster, uploaded to ResearchGate with a self-assigned DOI (10.13140/RG.2.2.30977.20323, visible on the ResearchGate cover sheet, page 1 of the PDF) that is not the citable DOI for this paper. The actual peer-reviewed publication is Acta Horticulturae 1296:101-108 (2020), DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14, confirmed by title-search and direct lookup against https://api.crossref.org/works/{DOI}. The frontmatter, trials.csv, and plant.csv all use the CrossRef-confirmed ISHS DOI, not the ResearchGate one. Only page 2 of the PDF (the single physical poster) carries any content; page 1 is entirely a ResearchGate citation/stats cover sheet and contributed nothing to extraction. Tables 1 and 2 were embedded as raster graphics in the poster (not extractable as text), so both were read from a rendered image of page 2 at 8-10x zoom; all values were cross-checked twice against the rendered image and are transcribed as displayed, with no OCR ambiguity encountered (crisp vector-quality table graphics, not scanned/photographed).
No abstract exists for this paper in any source consulted. The poster has no Abstract section (poster format: Introduction / Materials and Methods / Results and Discussion / Conclusions / Literature Cited), and the CrossRef metadata record for the ISHS DOI carries no abstract field either. Recorded as such rather than substituting the Introduction paragraph, which is framing/context rather than a paper summary.
Trial structure: Three trials.csv rows. The paper defines four of its own treatments, T1-T4, where T1 is the hydroponic control (not an aquaponic arm) and T2/T3/T4 are three aquaponic arms varying only in nutrient-complementation level. Per SCHEMA.md’s one-row-per-aquaponic-treatment rule, T1 (paper’s own label) never gets its own trials.csv row — it is repeated as the HYD-column value in all three rows. Vault Trial ID -T1 = paper’s “T2” (solution + foliar), -T2 = paper’s “T3” (solution only), -T3 = paper’s “T4” (no complementation). This label collision (paper’s own “T1”-“T4” vs. this vault’s “-T1”-“-T3”) is stated explicitly in each row’s Experimental Remarks to prevent future confusion.
No numeric contradictions found; no ⚠️ flags raised. The Results and Discussion section and the Conclusions section restate the same findings in near-identical language (typical of poster format, where Conclusions is essentially a compressed re-statement rather than independent synthesis), and every number that appears in running text is consistent with Table 1/Table 2 wherever both are given for the same quantity. No REVIEW.md entry was needed for this paper.
[not reported] fields, grouped (see also each trial row’s Experimental Remarks for the full text):
- Fish: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K/protein, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Replicates (n) — Methods states fish weight/length/width “were obtained” and Conclusions states complementation did not decrease them, but no fish species, stocking count, feed identity, or single numeric fish value appears anywhere in the document.
- Water: Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — Methods states pH, EC, and nutrient concentration (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu) in the nutrient solution, plus water consumption every three days, were all measured; none of these appear as values anywhere in the visible text or in Tables 1-2 (which cover only fruit yield/quality and tissue macronutrients).
- Plant: Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (%), Days Plant after transplant, Plants/m², SPAD, Plant Category, System type, Media Details — Results/Conclusions assert plant height, stem diameter, and dry matter “were different” among treatments (T4 lowest) without giving a single value for any of the three.
- Site: Lat/Long, Average room Temperature — full institutional address given (see Metadata) but no coordinates or greenhouse temperature record anywhere.
- Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — the paper reports tissue N/P/K/Ca/Mg (%, Table 2) but never nitrate (NO3) tissue content specifically; not the same measurement.
- FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE — not stated as efficiency ratios; only the qualitative claim “water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system,” with no volumes for either side.
- Funding — no acknowledgements or funding section present in the 2-page poster format.
Judgment calls on the paired presence/detail columns (Nutrient supplemented, Remineralization, Iron supplemented):
Nutrient supplemented= Y for -T1/-T2 (paper’s T2/T3, both explicitly defined by name as adding N-K-Ca-S to the nutrient solution), N for -T3 (paper’s T4, explicitly named “aquaponics without nutrient complementation” — an explicit statement of absence, not silence, soNrather thanNRis justified here per SCHEMA.md’s N-vs-NR distinction).Remineralizationmapped onto the same N-K-Ca-S solution-enrichment action asNutrient supplemented(Y for -T1/-T2, N for -T3), following the precedent set inlevizouCircularTriTrophicSystem2025(DCAP’s fertilizer-enrichment of aquaponic-loop water recorded as bothNutrient supplementedandRemineralization= Y). This is a judgment call, not a paper-stated category — flagged here since the paper itself never uses the word “remineralization” or describes buffering/alkalinity correction specifically; it may be worth revisiting if the vault’s Remineralization column is intended more narrowly (e.g. carbonate/alkalinity buffering rather than any nutrient-solution enrichment).Iron supplementedleftNR(notN) for all three trials, even though the named complementation treatments are explicitly “N-K-Ca-S” (Fe not included). The paper never makes an explicit statement that Fe was withheld — it only measures Fe as part of the water-nutrient-concentration panel (values not given) — so recordingNhere was judged too close to “manufacturing a finding from silence” per SCHEMA.md’s caution on this exact distinction. Noted as a close call for the user to revisit if a stricter reading is preferred.
NO COLUMN items (full text preserved in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks): Table 1’s Total fruits (count), individual Fruit weight (kg), and Fruit diameter (mm) columns, with Tukey letters and CV/DMS/Pr>F statistics, for all four paper treatments — no dedicated trials.csv column exists for fruit count, individual fruit weight, or fruit diameter. The HYD-side (paper’s T1) kg/m² and kg/plant yield figures are also NO-COLUMN relative to the single-value Plant fresh weight column (which holds only the AP-side value per the mehdiEvaluatingPerformanceLimitations2026/pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012 precedent) — the HYD-side kg/plant value (7.42 kg/plant → 7420 g/plant) is given in each row’s remarks for reference alongside the AP-side value actually entered in the cell.
plant_measurements.csv scope decision: Table 2’s full leaf and fruit macronutrient panel (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, %, all four paper treatments) was extracted to plant.csv (Category mineral), 60 rows total (3 trials × 2 systems × 2 tissues × 5 elements), duplicating the shared hydroponic-control (“T1”) values across all three trial IDs per the convention established in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023/levizouCircularTriTrophicSystem2025/pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012. Analyte names follow the Element (Symbol) in {tissue} pattern already established by graberAquaponicSystemsNutrient2009’s “Potassium (K) in fruit” entry, extended here to both tissues and all five elements for consistency (Nitrogen (N) in fruit, Nitrogen (N) in leaf, etc.) — flagging this extension for auditability since it is a new combination of an existing naming pattern, not a wholly new one. SD is NR throughout: the paper reports only Tukey grouping letters and pooled CV/DMS/Pr>F per column, never a per-treatment SD/SE.
Tags judgment call: Meta/Fish/Tilapia applied even though the paper never states a tilapia species or subspecies (generic “tilapia” throughout, including the title) — the organism is unambiguously identified at genus/common-name level and was studied (not a passing mention), satisfying CLAUDE.md’s “only tag an organism if the paper studied it” rule despite the taxonomic vagueness. Meta/Plant/Tomato and Meta/Region/NorthAmerica reused exactly as already spelled in deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025 (also a Mexico-sited tilapia/tomato aquaponics paper) rather than the alternative North-America spelling used elsewhere in the vault (e.g. abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022) — this fragmentation already exists in the vault and is not resolved here, only avoided from growing further. No new tag facets introduced.
New wikilink targets introduced: J. Pineda-Pineda, I. Miranda-Velázquez, A. Ramírez-Arias, M. Vargas-Hernández, D. Montalvo-Hernández, S. García-Galván, N.M. García-Ramírez (no existing notes for any of these authors found in the vault). Reused existing canonical forms: Tilapia (generic, matching akterComparisonIndianSpinach2025/mendoncaLettuceProductionHydroponic2023/nuquiSeedlingDevelopmentResponses2025), Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) (matching armentabojorquezPacificWhiteShrimp2021/deleonramirezPhysiologicalStressYield2025/several others).
PDF quality: Both pages have a clean, fully extractable vector text layer for the running text (no OCR needed for prose). Tables 1 and 2 are embedded as raster/vector graphics rather than text-layer tables, so their contents were read from a high-resolution page render rather than pdfplumber text extraction — not a scanned-document quality issue, just a poster-layout one. No NEEDS_OCR.md entry warranted.
Source: Pineda-Pineda et al. - 2020 - Response of tilapia and tomato to the complementat.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (species not stated) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) |
| Details | Greenhouse-grown tomato; growth parameters measured were plant height, stem diameter, and fruit number/weight/diameter/yield (Table 1); leaf and fruit macronutrient content (N,P,K,Ca,Mg %) analyzed post-harvest (Table 2). Photo in poster shows plants grown in individual containers/pots in a greenhouse; substrate/media not described in text (visual observation only, not entered as System type/Media Details per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule). |
| Plant fresh weight | 7160 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Remineralization | Y (Same basis as Nutrient supplemented Y/Details above (fish-tank/aquaponic-loop water enriched with N-K-Ca-S); judgment call — see Extraction notes on mapping this paper’s ‘nutrient complementation’ onto the Remineralization column) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Nutrient solution supplemented with N, K, Ca and S (rates not stated in this poster) plus foliar application of the same four macronutrients (paper’s own treatment T2: ‘aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S in nutrient solution + foliar fertilization’)) |
| Combination | Tilapia (species unspecified) and tomato; hydroponic control vs three aquaponic treatments varying macronutrient (N-K-Ca-S) complementation to the nutrient solution and/or foliage |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant, kg.m-2 (fruit yield); kg (individual fruit weight); mm (fruit diameter); count (total fruits); % (macronutrient content in fruit/leaf tissue) |
| Statistic Details | Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p<=0.05); CV (coefficient of variation) and DMS (minimum significant difference) reported per Table 1/2; software not stated |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| AP | 28.66 |
| HYD | 29.66 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = paper’s own ‘T2’ treatment (aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S added to the nutrient solution + foliar fertilization with the same four macronutrients), paired against paper’s own ‘T1’ (hydroponic control, standard nutrient solution, no aquaponic water), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells. NOTE: the paper’s own T1-T4 labels are NOT this vault’s Trial ID numbering — paper’s T2/T3/T4 map to this vault’s -T1/-T2/-T3 respectively, all three sharing paper’s T1 as the repeated HYD control, per SCHEMA.md’s one-row-per-aquaponic-treatment convention. | PDF QUALITY CAVEAT: the only PDF available for this paper is a 2-page GreenSys 2019 conference POSTER (ResearchGate cover sheet as p.1, the single physical poster page reproduced as p.2), not the full peer-reviewed 8-page Acta Horticulturae article (vol. 1296, pp.101-108, DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14, confirmed via CrossRef) this poster was later published as. Posters compress heavily: Methods states pH, EC, nutrient concentration (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Fe,Mn,Cu) in the nutrient solution, water consumption (measured every three days), and fish weight/length/width were all measured, but no numeric value for any of them appears anywhere in this 2-page document — only Table 1 (fruit yield/quality) and Table 2 (leaf/fruit tissue N-P-K-Ca-Mg %) are reproduced. Results/Conclusions narrate some of these qualitatively (‘plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different’; ‘water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system’) without ever giving the supporting numbers. Every such gap is recorded NR below per the prime directive, never inferred from the qualitative claim. The full journal article likely contains the missing numeric detail. | NOT DERIVED / [not reported], grouped: Fish — Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Protein/N/P/K (feed), % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Replicates (n) — no fish species, stocking numbers, feed identity, or numeric fish measurement given anywhere; only the qualitative claim that complementation ‘did not decrease the weight, length and width of the fishes.’ | Water — Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — Methods states pH/EC/nutrient concentration in solution and water consumption (every three days) were measured, but no values given. | Plant — Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (%), Days Plant after transplant, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant Category, System type, Media Details — none stated; Results/Conclusions assert plant height and dry matter ‘were different’ among treatments without a single supporting value. | Site — Lat/Long, Average room Temperature — greenhouse address given (see note Metadata) but no coordinates or measured temperature anywhere. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — paper reports tissue N/P/K/Ca/Mg (%, Table 2) but never tissue nitrate (NO3) specifically. | FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE — not stated. | NO COLUMN (Table 1, no trials.csv column exists for these): Total fruits (count), Fruit weight (kg, individual fruit), Fruit diameter (mm), all with Tukey grouping letters (p<=0.05) — paper’s T1(HYD) 50.75a/0.146ab/59.40ab, T2 50.08a/0.144ab/59.66ab, T3 50.58a/0.135b/58.55b, T4 47.58a/0.163a/61.38a; CV/DMS/Pr>F per column: Total fruits CV 12.19, DMS 6.62, Pr>F 0.55; Fruit weight CV 12.12, DMS 0.0194, Pr>F 0.0037; Fruit diameter CV 9.66, DMS 2.51, Pr>F 0.076. Fruit yield (kg.m-2), all four paper treatments, Tukey letters and stats: T1(HYD) 29.66a, T2 28.66a, T3 27.31a, T4 30.98a; CV 5.27, DMS 4.34, Pr>F 0.1123 (this trial’s own AP-side kg/m2 value is also recorded in the AP column above). Fruit yield (kg/plant) stats: CV 16.50, DMS 1.31, Pr>F 0.30 (Tukey letters all ‘a’, ns). Qualitative-only findings with no supporting number anywhere in the document: ‘plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different [among treatments], aquaponic without nutrient complementation [paper’s T4] showed the lowest plant growth’ (Results/Conclusions, verbatim); ‘Water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system’ (Conclusions, verbatim, no volumes given for either side). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Plant fresh weight 7.16 kg/plant (this trial’s AP arm, Table 1) -> 7160 g/plant. HYD-side Plant fresh weight (paper’s T1, not entered in the single-value Plant fresh weight column per vault convention) = 7.42 kg/plant -> 7420 g/plant, given here for reference.
pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (species not stated) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) |
| Details | Greenhouse-grown tomato; growth parameters measured were plant height, stem diameter, and fruit number/weight/diameter/yield (Table 1); leaf and fruit macronutrient content (N,P,K,Ca,Mg %) analyzed post-harvest (Table 2). Photo in poster shows plants grown in individual containers/pots in a greenhouse; substrate/media not described in text (visual observation only, not entered as System type/Media Details per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule). |
| Plant fresh weight | 6830 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Remineralization | Y (Same basis as Nutrient supplemented Y/Details above; judgment call — see Extraction notes) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Nutrient solution supplemented with N, K, Ca and S (rates not stated in this poster), no foliar application (paper’s own treatment T3: ‘aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S in nutrient solution’)) |
| Combination | Tilapia (species unspecified) and tomato; hydroponic control vs three aquaponic treatments varying macronutrient (N-K-Ca-S) complementation to the nutrient solution and/or foliage |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant, kg.m-2 (fruit yield); kg (individual fruit weight); mm (fruit diameter); count (total fruits); % (macronutrient content in fruit/leaf tissue) |
| Statistic Details | Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p<=0.05); CV (coefficient of variation) and DMS (minimum significant difference) reported per Table 1/2; software not stated |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| AP | 27.31 |
| HYD | 29.66 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = paper’s own ‘T3’ treatment (aquaponics + N-K-Ca-S added to the nutrient solution only, no foliar application), paired against paper’s own ‘T1’ (hydroponic control), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells. Same HYD values as -T1 (shared control, repeated per convention). See -T1’s remarks for the paper’s-label-to-vault-Trial-ID mapping. | PDF QUALITY CAVEAT: the only PDF available for this paper is a 2-page GreenSys 2019 conference POSTER (ResearchGate cover sheet as p.1, the single physical poster page reproduced as p.2), not the full peer-reviewed 8-page Acta Horticulturae article (vol. 1296, pp.101-108, DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14, confirmed via CrossRef) this poster was later published as. Posters compress heavily: Methods states pH, EC, nutrient concentration (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Fe,Mn,Cu) in the nutrient solution, water consumption (measured every three days), and fish weight/length/width were all measured, but no numeric value for any of them appears anywhere in this 2-page document — only Table 1 (fruit yield/quality) and Table 2 (leaf/fruit tissue N-P-K-Ca-Mg %) are reproduced. Results/Conclusions narrate some of these qualitatively (‘plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different’; ‘water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system’) without ever giving the supporting numbers. Every such gap is recorded NR below per the prime directive, never inferred from the qualitative claim. The full journal article likely contains the missing numeric detail. | NOT DERIVED / [not reported], grouped: Fish — Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Protein/N/P/K (feed), % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Replicates (n) — no fish species, stocking numbers, feed identity, or numeric fish measurement given anywhere; only the qualitative claim that complementation ‘did not decrease the weight, length and width of the fishes.’ | Water — Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — Methods states pH/EC/nutrient concentration in solution and water consumption (every three days) were measured, but no values given. | Plant — Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (%), Days Plant after transplant, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant Category, System type, Media Details — none stated; Results/Conclusions assert plant height and dry matter ‘were different’ among treatments without a single supporting value. | Site — Lat/Long, Average room Temperature — greenhouse address given (see note Metadata) but no coordinates or measured temperature anywhere. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — paper reports tissue N/P/K/Ca/Mg (%, Table 2) but never tissue nitrate (NO3) specifically. | FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE — not stated. | NO COLUMN (Table 1, no trials.csv column exists for these): Total fruits (count), Fruit weight (kg, individual fruit), Fruit diameter (mm), all with Tukey grouping letters (p<=0.05) — paper’s T1(HYD) 50.75a/0.146ab/59.40ab, T2 50.08a/0.144ab/59.66ab, T3 50.58a/0.135b/58.55b, T4 47.58a/0.163a/61.38a; CV/DMS/Pr>F per column: Total fruits CV 12.19, DMS 6.62, Pr>F 0.55; Fruit weight CV 12.12, DMS 0.0194, Pr>F 0.0037; Fruit diameter CV 9.66, DMS 2.51, Pr>F 0.076. Fruit yield (kg.m-2), all four paper treatments, Tukey letters and stats: T1(HYD) 29.66a, T2 28.66a, T3 27.31a, T4 30.98a; CV 5.27, DMS 4.34, Pr>F 0.1123 (this trial’s own AP-side kg/m2 value is also recorded in the AP column above). Fruit yield (kg/plant) stats: CV 16.50, DMS 1.31, Pr>F 0.30 (Tukey letters all ‘a’, ns). Qualitative-only findings with no supporting number anywhere in the document: ‘plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different [among treatments], aquaponic without nutrient complementation [paper’s T4] showed the lowest plant growth’ (Results/Conclusions, verbatim); ‘Water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system’ (Conclusions, verbatim, no volumes given for either side). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Plant fresh weight 6.83 kg/plant (this trial’s AP arm, Table 1) -> 6830 g/plant. HYD-side Plant fresh weight (paper’s T1, not entered in the single-value Plant fresh weight column per vault convention) = 7.42 kg/plant -> 7420 g/plant, given here for reference.
pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Tilapia (species not stated) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) |
| Details | Greenhouse-grown tomato; growth parameters measured were plant height, stem diameter, and fruit number/weight/diameter/yield (Table 1); leaf and fruit macronutrient content (N,P,K,Ca,Mg %) analyzed post-harvest (Table 2). Photo in poster shows plants grown in individual containers/pots in a greenhouse; substrate/media not described in text (visual observation only, not entered as System type/Media Details per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule). |
| Plant fresh weight | 7740 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Remineralization | N (No complementation of the aquaponic-loop water in this arm (paper’s own T4)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Aquaponics without nutrient complementation (paper’s own treatment T4, the lowest-input aquaponic arm); no macronutrients added to solution or foliage) |
| Combination | Tilapia (species unspecified) and tomato; hydroponic control vs three aquaponic treatments varying macronutrient (N-K-Ca-S) complementation to the nutrient solution and/or foliage |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | kg/plant, kg.m-2 (fruit yield); kg (individual fruit weight); mm (fruit diameter); count (total fruits); % (macronutrient content in fruit/leaf tissue) |
| Statistic Details | Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p<=0.05); CV (coefficient of variation) and DMS (minimum significant difference) reported per Table 1/2; software not stated |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| AP | 30.98 |
| HYD | 29.66 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = paper’s own ‘T4’ treatment (aquaponics without nutrient complementation, the paper’s baseline/lowest-input aquaponic arm), paired against paper’s own ‘T1’ (hydroponic control), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells. Same HYD values as -T1/-T2 (shared control, repeated per convention). Results/Conclusions single out this arm by name as showing ‘the lowest plant growth’ among all four treatments (qualitative only, no value given). See -T1’s remarks for the paper’s-label-to-vault-Trial-ID mapping. | PDF QUALITY CAVEAT: the only PDF available for this paper is a 2-page GreenSys 2019 conference POSTER (ResearchGate cover sheet as p.1, the single physical poster page reproduced as p.2), not the full peer-reviewed 8-page Acta Horticulturae article (vol. 1296, pp.101-108, DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.14, confirmed via CrossRef) this poster was later published as. Posters compress heavily: Methods states pH, EC, nutrient concentration (N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Fe,Mn,Cu) in the nutrient solution, water consumption (measured every three days), and fish weight/length/width were all measured, but no numeric value for any of them appears anywhere in this 2-page document — only Table 1 (fruit yield/quality) and Table 2 (leaf/fruit tissue N-P-K-Ca-Mg %) are reproduced. Results/Conclusions narrate some of these qualitatively (‘plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different’; ‘water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system’) without ever giving the supporting numbers. Every such gap is recorded NR below per the prime directive, never inferred from the qualitative claim. The full journal article likely contains the missing numeric detail. | NOT DERIVED / [not reported], grouped: Fish — Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Protein/N/P/K (feed), % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days), Replicates (n) — no fish species, stocking numbers, feed identity, or numeric fish measurement given anywhere; only the qualitative claim that complementation ‘did not decrease the weight, length and width of the fishes.’ | Water — Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — Methods states pH/EC/nutrient concentration in solution and water consumption (every three days) were measured, but no values given. | Plant — Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter (%), Days Plant after transplant, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant Category, System type, Media Details — none stated; Results/Conclusions assert plant height and dry matter ‘were different’ among treatments without a single supporting value. | Site — Lat/Long, Average room Temperature — greenhouse address given (see note Metadata) but no coordinates or measured temperature anywhere. | Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — paper reports tissue N/P/K/Ca/Mg (%, Table 2) but never tissue nitrate (NO3) specifically. | FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE — not stated. | NO COLUMN (Table 1, no trials.csv column exists for these): Total fruits (count), Fruit weight (kg, individual fruit), Fruit diameter (mm), all with Tukey grouping letters (p<=0.05) — paper’s T1(HYD) 50.75a/0.146ab/59.40ab, T2 50.08a/0.144ab/59.66ab, T3 50.58a/0.135b/58.55b, T4 47.58a/0.163a/61.38a; CV/DMS/Pr>F per column: Total fruits CV 12.19, DMS 6.62, Pr>F 0.55; Fruit weight CV 12.12, DMS 0.0194, Pr>F 0.0037; Fruit diameter CV 9.66, DMS 2.51, Pr>F 0.076. Fruit yield (kg.m-2), all four paper treatments, Tukey letters and stats: T1(HYD) 29.66a, T2 28.66a, T3 27.31a, T4 30.98a; CV 5.27, DMS 4.34, Pr>F 0.1123 (this trial’s own AP-side kg/m2 value is also recorded in the AP column above). Fruit yield (kg/plant) stats: CV 16.50, DMS 1.31, Pr>F 0.30 (Tukey letters all ‘a’, ns). Qualitative-only findings with no supporting number anywhere in the document: ‘plant height, stem diameter and dry matter were different [among treatments], aquaponic without nutrient complementation [paper’s T4] showed the lowest plant growth’ (Results/Conclusions, verbatim); ‘Water consumption in aquaponic systems was less than in the hydroponic system’ (Conclusions, verbatim, no volumes given for either side). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: Plant fresh weight 7.74 kg/plant (this trial’s AP arm, Table 1) -> 7740 g/plant. HYD-side Plant fresh weight (paper’s T1, not entered in the single-value Plant fresh weight column per vault convention) = 7.42 kg/plant -> 7420 g/plant, given here for reference.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in fruit | 2.19 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in fruit | 2.43 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in fruit | 0.87 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in fruit | 0.47 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) in fruit | 5.59 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) in fruit | 5.04 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in fruit | 0.58 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in fruit | 0.35 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in fruit | 0.75 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in fruit | 0.2 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in leaf | 2.31 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in leaf | 2.57 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in leaf | 0.8 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in leaf | 0.18 | % | c | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) in leaf | 3.6 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) in leaf | 4.63 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in leaf | 5.31 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in leaf | 1.16 | % | d | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in leaf | 1.87 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in leaf | 1.47 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in fruit | 2.68 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in fruit | 2.43 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in fruit | 0.82 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in fruit | 0.47 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) in fruit | 6.35 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) in fruit | 5.04 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in fruit | 0.54 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in fruit | 0.35 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in fruit | 0.39 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in fruit | 0.2 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in leaf | 2.45 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in leaf | 2.57 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in leaf | 0.42 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in leaf | 0.18 | % | c | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) in leaf | 3.62 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) in leaf | 4.63 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in leaf | 3.84 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in leaf | 1.16 | % | d | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in leaf | 1.76 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in leaf | 1.47 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in fruit | 2.55 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in fruit | 2.43 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in fruit | 0.38 | % | c | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in fruit | 0.47 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) in fruit | 4.76 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) in fruit | 5.04 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in fruit | 0.25 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in fruit | 0.35 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in fruit | 0.31 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in fruit | 0.2 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in leaf | 1.97 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) in leaf | 2.57 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in leaf | 0.32 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) in leaf | 0.18 | % | c | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) in leaf | 0.84 | % | c | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) in leaf | 4.63 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in leaf | 3.22 | % | c | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) in leaf | 1.16 | % | d | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in leaf | 2.87 | % | a | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |
| pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020-T3 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) in leaf | 1.47 | % | b | Table 2, p.2 (poster) |