Yield of two cultivars of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in hydroponic and aquaponic systems
Metadata
- Cite key: pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018
- Item type: Conference Paper (Acta Horticulturae / ISHS proceedings, Proc. Int. Symp. GreenSys2017)
- Authors: J. Pineda-Pineda, A. Valdez-Zamora, I. Miranda-Velázquez, J.E. Rodríguez-Pérez, J.A. Ramírez-Arias, A. Lozano-Toledano
- Affiliation: Soil Department, Autonomous Chapingo University, Texcoco, Mexico (Pineda-Pineda); Institute of Horticulture, Autonomous Chapingo University, Texcoco, Mexico (Valdez-Zamora, Rodríguez-Pérez, Lozano-Toledano); Agriculture High School, Autonomous Chapingo University, Texcoco, Mexico (Miranda-Velázquez, Ramírez-Arias)
- Journal: Acta Horticulturae 1227 (2018) 347-354
- Date: 11/2018
- Date added: 2026-08-09
- DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.43
- Funding: Not stated in the paper
- URL: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.43
- PDF:
Pineda-Pineda et al. - 2018 - Yield of two cultivars of lettuce ( iLactuca sat.pdf(a ResearchGate reprint; the paper’s own title renders correctly on p.2, the PDF filename’s “iLactuca sat[ivai]” artifact is from italic markup around the species name failing to convert cleanly)
Opinion
A compact, single-cycle-style factorial study (fish-feed dose x cultivar x crop cycle, though only the dose factor is ever crossed against a hydroponic control) whose main practical finding — 120% of the normal tilapia ration gave the only aquaponic treatment that significantly beat hydroponics on lettuce fresh weight, while 100% dose actually underperformed hydroponics — is clean and clearly tabulated. The paper’s most serious problem is self-inflicted: the Results-section prose describing which leaf-tissue nutrients differed significantly by feed dose (Table 6) states the exact opposite of what Table 6’s own Tukey letter-groupings show (see Extraction notes) — this is a big enough error that it undermines confidence in reading the paper’s own words rather than its tables. No SD/SE is reported anywhere, only Tukey-letter groupings and DMSH values, and unlike most other aquaponics-vs-hydroponics papers in this vault, three separate ANOVA “main-effect” tables (cycle, cultivar, and cultivar x nutrient) are reported purely for the aquaponic side, pooled across the other factors, which don’t reduce to a single trial row and are left as narrative context. Fish performance data is oddly time-stamped (160 and 230 elapsed days from an unstated start point that appears to predate this lettuce study, since the fish are explicitly reused from a prior tomato trial), which makes the fish-side duration and “final” weight interpretation genuinely uncertain.
Abstract
This research was carried out in order to evaluate the performance of two cultivars of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in an aquaponic system in comparison with a hydroponic system. The studied factor was the dose of food supplied with a commercial diet for tilapia (Oreochromis sp.); the treatments were 80, 100 and 120% of the recommended diet, and, as a control, the hydroponic Steiner universal nutrient solution, arranged in an experimental design of randomized complete blocks with four replications. The variables measured were related to vegetative development (plant height, stem diameter, diameter of foliage, fresh weight and dry matter) and nutrient contents of plant tissue (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn) as well as nutrient concentrations (N-NH4+, N-NO3-, P-H2PO4-, P-HPO42-, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, SO42-, Fe2+, Mn2+, Zn2+, Cu2+ and H3BO3) in aquaponic nutrient solution during two crop cycles. Rocky mountain tilapia with a density of 20-25 kg m-3 in tanks and 25 lettuce plants m-2 on beds were used. It was found that treatment with 120% of the recommended fish diet produced the best fresh weight of lettuce, above hydroponic control; in the analysis of plant tissue, no nutrient deficiencies were observed. Nutrients in the aquaponic nutrient solution were within the ranges reported as adequate for optimal crop development. Supplying 80 or 120% of the recommended tilapia diet decreased by 21% or increased by 10%, respectively, tilapia weight in relation to the normal diet. The level of food supply influenced the length and weight of tilapia, the concentration of nutrients in the water and in the tissue of lettuce; aquaponics equalled or exceeded hydroponics in nutrient capacity supply for ‘Andrómeda’ and ‘Ruby Sky’ lettuce.
Summary
The authors grew two lettuce cultivars (‘Andrómeda’, green; ‘Ruby Sky’, red) across two sequential 30-day cycles in a media-bed aquaponic system (red volcanic tuff sand beds) stocked with Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.), testing three fish-feed dose levels (80%, 100%, 120% of a standard commercial ration) against a hydroponic Steiner-solution control, in a design of 4 treatments x 4 replicates. Lettuce fresh weight differed significantly by feed dose: the 120% dose gave the highest fresh weight (366.7 g/plant), significantly above the 100% dose (291.7 g/plant, the lowest of all four treatments, including hydroponics at 306.1 g/plant), while 80% (352.6 g/plant) was statistically indistinguishable from either extreme. Leaf tissue nutrient concentrations (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn), measured only in the second cycle, stayed within literature sufficiency ranges for all treatments and both cultivars, though Mn exceeded the commonly cited optimal upper bound in three of the four treatments without visible toxicity symptoms. Nutrient solution chemistry (N-NH4+, N-NO3-, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Mn, B, sulfate) showed dose-dependent trends, most clearly rising P and Ca with increasing feed and a consistently lower K than the hydroponic solution. Tilapia performance was tracked separately from the lettuce trial’s own day-count: fish were already 150-215 g at the start of this experiment (continuing from a prior tomato-aquaponics trial using the same tanks), and weight/length were recorded at two elapsed-time points (160 and 230 days) whose starting reference is not restated in this paper, with the 120% dose producing 10% more tilapia yield (50.1 kg/m3) than the 100% dose (45.3 kg/m3) and the 80% dose producing 21-25% less. The authors conclude aquaponics at the higher feed doses matched or exceeded hydroponics for both lettuce cultivars in growth and nutrient supply.
Experiment data
- Location: Experimental Module of Aquaponics greenhouse, Autonomous Chapingo University, Texcoco, Mexico (19°29’16”N, 98°53’16”W; 2240 m a.s.l.)
- Design: 4 treatments (3 aquaponic fish-feed-dose levels: 80%, 100%, 120% of normal tilapia ration; 1 hydroponic Steiner-solution control) x 4 replicates; Abstract states “randomized complete blocks,” Methods states “completely randomized design” for the same experiment — see Extraction notes (WARN-MINOR). 16 fish-tank + growing-bed experimental units total. Two sequential 30-day lettuce crop cycles; two lettuce cultivars (‘Andrómeda’, ‘Ruby Sky’) grown under the same treatment units (cultivar is not crossed against feed dose as a separate treatment factor, so no additional trial rows are created for cultivar per CLAUDE.md/SCHEMA.md guidance)
- Replicates / n: 4 per treatment
- Duration: Two 30-day lettuce cycles (60 days total plant-side); fish-side duration UNCLEAR, see Extraction notes
- Organisms: Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) (‘Andrómeda’ and ‘Ruby Sky’ cultivars) / Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.)
- Statistics: Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey test (p<=0.05), Pearson correlations; SAS/STAT (SAS Institute, 1998, Version 8)
- Yield (fresh weight, Table 5): 120% dose 366.7 g/plant (a) > 80% dose 352.6 g/plant (ab) ~ Hydroponics 306.1 g/plant (bc) > 100% dose 291.7 g/plant (c). Only the 120% dose significantly exceeded hydroponics; the 100% dose was significantly below hydroponics.
- Leaf tissue nutrients by dose (Table 6): per the table’s own Tukey letters, P, K, Cu, Zn and Mn differ significantly among treatments while N, Ca, Mg and Fe do not — the Results-section prose states the exact opposite pairing. See Extraction notes, WARN-MATERIAL.
- Tilapia yield: 120% dose 50.1 kg/m3 > 100% dose 45.3 kg/m3 > 80% dose 37.3 kg/m3 (no significance test reported for this comparison)
Effect of fish-feed dose on lettuce growth and yield
This paper: Fresh weight was the only vegetative-growth variable to differ significantly by feed dose (Table 5): 120% dose 366.7 g/plant (a), 80% dose 352.6 g/plant (ab), hydroponic control 306.1 g/plant (bc), 100% dose 291.7 g/plant (c). Plant height, stem diameter and foliage diameter showed a similar upward trend with feed dose but did not reach significance. The paper frames this as “aquaponics equalled or exceeded hydroponics,” but on a strict pairwise reading only the 120% dose significantly beat hydroponics — the 100% (label “normal”) dose was numerically and statistically the worst of all four treatments, a result the paper’s own Conclusions section does not explicitly flag.
Compared with:
- todo Fundacion Produce Veracruz 2012 — traditional intensive tilapia aquaculture (80-150 fish/m3) yields 200-400 kg m-3 yr-1 at maturity; this paper’s 37.3-50.1 kg/m3 over 8 months is far below that benchmark, which the authors attribute to system immaturity/early-stage stocking rather than a system-design limitation (p.352)
Leaf tissue nutrient concentrations by fish-feed dose
This paper: Table 6 reports N, P, Ca, Mg, K (%) and Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn (mg/kg) in lettuce leaf tissue across the three feed doses and the hydroponic control, from the second growing cycle only. All values across all four treatments fell within literature sufficiency ranges (N 4.0-5.0%, P 0.40-0.93%, K 3.91-9.77%; Fe 50-500, Zn 25-100, Cu 25-100 mg/kg); Mn (60.00-323.25 mg/kg across treatments) exceeded the cited 25-130 mg/kg optimal upper bound in the 100%, 80% and hydroponic treatments, but the paper reports no visible toxicity symptoms. See Extraction notes for a major WARN-MATERIAL flag: the Results-section prose states significant differences were found in “N, Ca, Mg and Fe” and none in “P, K, Cu, Zn or Mn” — Table 6’s own Tukey letter-groupings show precisely the reverse (P, K, Cu, Zn and Mn each carry differing letters across treatments; N, Ca, Mg and Fe are uniformly lettered “a” throughout, i.e. not significant).
Compared with:
- todo Beverly 1984 — Everglades vegetable nutritional survey, cited for N sufficiency range 4.0-5.0% (p.350) and K sufficiency range 4.8-8.0% jointly with Sanchez et al. 1988 (p.350)
- todo Roorda van Eysinga and Smilde 1981 — Nutritional Disorders in Glasshouse Tomatoes, Cucumbers and Lettuce; cited for P (0.40-0.93%), K (3.91-9.77%) and Zn/Cu/Mn sufficiency framework applied throughout Tables 4 and 6 (p.350-351)
- todo Mills and Jones 1996 — Plant Analysis Handbook II, cited for Mn optimal range 25-130 mg/kg, which this paper’s own tissue Mn values (100%, 80%, HYD treatments) exceed without toxicity symptoms (p.350)
- todo Howeler 1991 — cited as the basis for judging no Mn-toxicity symptoms were apparent despite above-range tissue Mn (p.350)
Leaf tissue nutrient concentrations by lettuce cultivar (aquaponics only)
This paper: Table 4 (aquaponic treatments only, pooled across the three feed doses) shows ‘Andrómeda’ (green) had significantly higher leaf P and K than ‘Ruby Sky’ (red), while ‘Ruby Sky’ had significantly higher Ca and Mg; N, Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn did not differ between cultivars. Unlike Table 6, this table’s Tukey letters and the Results-section prose agree completely (no contradiction). This cultivar-effect breakdown pools across all three feed-dose treatments and excludes the hydroponic control entirely, so it does not correspond to any single trial row and is not carried into plant.csv or trials.csv — see Extraction notes.
Compared with:
- todo Wade 1981 — storage-physiology paper on peach, cited here only as the source of the leaf Ca sufficiency range 1.2-2.0% (p.350) — an incidental citation, not a data comparison
- todo Sanchez et al. 1988 — crisphead lettuce N/P/K on Histosols, cited for Mg sufficiency range 0.4-0.8% jointly with the K range noted above (p.350)
Nutrient concentrations in the aquaponic solution
This paper: N-NO3- and total N were higher in the 100% and 120% dose treatments than in the 80% dose and hydroponic treatments (Table 7); P and Ca rose with increasing feed dose (Tables 7-8), while K was markedly lower in all three aquaponic treatments (12.93-20.45 mg/L) than in the hydroponic solution (134.32 mg/L). Fe in the aquaponic solution (0.11-0.20 mg/L) was below the hydroponic-appropriate range (1-2 mg/L) cited by the authors at all doses, yet leaf tissue Fe (Table 6) remained within sufficiency at every treatment. Sulfate was likewise well below hydroponic levels in all aquaponic treatments (50.24-54.49 vs 132.10 mg/L) with no reported sulfur-deficiency symptoms.
Compared with:
- todo Benton 2005 — Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower; cited for P (30-50 mg/L), K (100-300 mg/L), Mg (30-60 mg/L), Fe (1-2 mg/L), Mn (0.5-1.5 mg/L), B (0.3-1.0 mg/L) reference solution concentrations against which the aquaponic solution is judged (p.350-351)
- todo Imas 1999 — fertigation nutrient management conference paper, cited jointly with Benton 2005 for the P range (p.350)
- todo Resh 2001 — Cultivos Hidropónicos, cited jointly with Benton 2005 for the K range (p.350)
- todo Cadahia 2005 — Fertirrigación reference text, cited jointly with Benton 2005 for the Zn/Mn/B ranges (p.351)
- todo Steiner 1984 — source of the hydroponic control’s own Ca target concentration and the 112 mg/L normal hydroponic sulfate concentration used as the comparison baseline (p.351-352)
Tilapia growth and yield under different feed doses
This paper: Considering 35 fish per container at the end of the lettuce cycle, tilapia yield was estimated at 50.1 kg/m3 (120% dose), 45.3 kg/m3 (100% dose, “normal”) and 37.3 kg/m3 (80% dose) — a 10% increase and a 21% decrease respectively relative to the 100% dose, and a 25% decrease relative to the 120% dose’s maximum. Individual fish weight and length were reported at two elapsed time points (160 and 230 days) per dose treatment (Table 9); no hydroponic-side fish data exists since the control has no fish. No significance test is reported for any of the Table 9 comparisons. See Extraction notes for the ambiguity in what start point the 160/230-day counts are measured from.
Compared with:
- todo Fundacion Produce Veracruz 2012 — intensive traditional aquaculture at 80-150 fish/m3 achieving 200-400 kg m-3 yr-1; this paper’s system, described as reaching “45 kg m-3 in 8 months” with the normal diet, is well below that mature-system benchmark (p.352)
- todo Torres-Novoa and Hurtado-Nery 2012 — Nile tilapia nutritional requirements, cited as general background for mineral uptake from the aquatic environment supplementing dietary intake, not a direct yield/growth data comparison (p.352-353)
Effect of crop cycle (aquaponics only)
This paper: Table 2 shows all vegetative growth variables were significantly higher in the first 30-day cycle than the second, attributed to plastic mulch used in cycle 2 raising substrate temperature and impairing root growth/water-nutrient uptake. This is an aquaponics-only, dose-pooled comparison (does not include the hydroponic control) and does not correspond to any single trial row; it is not carried into trials.csv or plant.csv. See Extraction notes.
Compared with:
- todo Fernández-Navarro 2013 — BSc thesis on nutrient-solution aeration in floating trays, cited as the mechanistic basis for how substrate/root-zone heating under mulch impairs water and nutrient uptake (p.349)
Linked claims
- Fish feed dose in aquaponics affects lettuce fresh weight yield
- A 20 percent increase in fish feed dose above normal can push aquaponic lettuce yield above a hydroponic control
- Aquaponic lettuce leaf tissue nutrient concentrations remain within sufficiency ranges despite fish-feed dose variation
- Aquaponic nutrient solution potassium concentration can remain well below hydroponic solution levels without inducing leaf tissue potassium deficiency
- Lettuce cultivar affects leaf mineral partitioning independent of aquaponic system
Citations to chase
- todo Fundacion Produce Veracruz (2012) — Manual de Producción de Tilapia con Especificaciones de Calidad e Inocuidad — intensive-aquaculture yield/density benchmark (200-400 kg m-3 yr-1)
- todo Beverly, R.B. (1984) — Nutritional survey of the Everglades vegetable industry, J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 109:649-654 — leaf N and K sufficiency ranges
- todo Roorda van Eysinga, J.P.N.L. and Smilde, K.W. (1981) — Nutritional Disorders in Glasshouse Tomatoes, Cucumbers and Lettuce — leaf P/K/Zn/Cu/Mn sufficiency framework
- todo Mills, H.A. and Jones, B.J. (1996) — Plant Analysis Handbook II — leaf Mn optimal range
- todo Howeler, R.H. (1991) — Identifying plants adaptable to low pH conditions, in Plant-Soil Interactions at Low pH — Mn toxicity symptom reference
- todo Wade, N.L. (1981) — Effects of storage atmosphere, temperature and calcium on low-temperature injury of peach fruit, Sci. Hortic. 15:145-154 — incidental source of leaf Ca sufficiency range
- todo Sanchez, C.A., Burdine, H.W., Guzman, V.L., Hall, C.B. (1988) — Yield, quality, and leaf nutrient composition of crisphead lettuce as affected by N, P, K on Histosols — leaf K/Mg sufficiency ranges
- todo Benton, J. (2005) — Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower, 2nd edn — hydroponic solution nutrient concentration references
- todo Imas, P. (1999) — Manejo de nutrientes por fertirriego en sistemas frutihorticolas — solution P range
- todo Resh, H.M. (2001) — Cultivos Hidropónicos, 5th edn — solution K range
- todo Cadahia, L.C. (2005) — Fertirrigación: Cultivos Hortícolas, Frutales y Ornamentales, 3rd edn — solution Zn/Mn/B ranges
- todo Steiner, A.A. (1984) — The universal nutrient solution — hydroponic Steiner solution formulation and Ca/sulfate baseline
- todo Torres-Novoa, D.M. and Hurtado-Nery, V.L. (2012) — Requerimientos nutricionales para tilapia del Nilo (Oreochromis niloticus), Orinoquia 16(1):63-68
- todo Fernández-Navarro, M.A. (2013) — Efecto de diferentes niveles de aireación de la solución nutritiva sobre el crecimiento y la calidad de canónigos y berros cultivados en bandejas flotantes, BSc thesis
Extraction notes
Trial structure: Recorded as three trials.csv rows, one per aquaponic fish-feed-dose treatment (T1 = 120% dose, T2 = 100% dose, T3 = 80% dose), each paired against the same hydroponic Steiner-solution control (Table 5/6/7 “Hydroponics” row), repeated across all three rows’ HYD-labelled cells per vault convention. The two lettuce cultivars (‘Andrómeda’, ‘Ruby Sky’) were grown under the same treatment units rather than as a separate crossed treatment factor (Methods states only “four treatments with four replicates,” with dose as “the study factor”; Tables 2-4’s cycle- and cultivar-effect breakdowns are pooled across all three dose treatments and reported separately as independent main effects, not as a factorial cross with dose) — per CLAUDE.md/SCHEMA.md’s guidance, a cultivar difference alone without a corresponding treatment difference is not a new trial, so no cultivar-specific rows were created. UNCLEAR scope of Table 5 (growth-by-dose): Table 4 and Table 6 (tissue nutrients) are explicitly stated to be from “the second growing cycle” only (Methods, p.349), but Table 5 (vegetative growth by dose: height, stem diameter, foliage diameter, fresh/dry weight) carries no equivalent cycle restriction anywhere in the text — it may be pooled across both 30-day cycles, or may also be second-cycle-only data reported without restating the scope. This was not treated as a numeric contradiction (no two figures conflict), so no REVIEW.md entry was made for it alone, but it is noted here since it affects how “Days Plant after transplant” (recorded as 30, the stated single-cycle length) should be interpreted if Table 5 is in fact a two-cycle pooled mean.
WARN-MATERIAL — Table 6 leaf-tissue significance narrative inverted relative to the table itself (p.350-351). Results-section running text states: “The effect of the dose of fish food on the concentration of nutrients in tissue (Table 6) indicated significant statistical differences in the concentrations of N, Ca, Mg and Fe; however, there were no differences in P, K, Cu, Zn or Mn.” Table 6’s own Tukey letter-groupings show precisely the opposite pairing: N (4.10a/4.16a/3.58a/4.26a), Ca (1.88a/1.80a/1.90a/1.94a), Mg (0.74a/0.88a/0.92a/0.92a) and Fe (455.50a/388.00a/404.50a/345.25a) are uniformly lettered “a” across all four treatments (120%/100%/80%/HYD) — i.e. NOT significant by Tukey’s test — while P (0.71a/0.51b/0.58ab/0.54b), K (7.50a/6.18ab/5.11b/4.95b), Cu (18.50b/20.37ab/27.75a/23.75ab), Zn (48.25b/76.38ab/104.88a/68.50ab) and Mn (60.00b/239.63a/300.25a/323.25a) all carry differing letters across treatments — i.e. significant. The two lists (4 elements: N/Ca/Mg/Fe; 5 elements: P/K/Cu/Zn/Mn) match exactly between text and table, only with “significant” and “not significant” swapped — consistent with an editing/copy-paste error rather than two independently measured or computed figures. Table 6’s own statistical letters (the actual Tukey-test output) were judged more reliable than the prose summary and are used verbatim in plant.csv’s Significance field for every Table 6 row; the prose claim is preserved here for the record but not used anywhere. No trials.csv cell is affected (no dedicated per-nutrient tissue-concentration columns exist beyond Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, which this paper does not report — see below). Affects: plant.csv Significance field for all mineral-category rows sourced from Table 6, all three trials.
WARN-MINOR — experimental design description, “randomized complete blocks” vs. “completely randomized design” (Abstract vs. Methods, p.347 vs p.348). Abstract: “arranged in an experimental design of randomized complete blocks with four replications.” Methods, “Experimental design and treatments”: “We evaluated four treatments with four replicates… which were distributed in the experimental area in a completely randomized design.” These are two different, mutually exclusive named designs (RCBD implies blocking; CRD implies none). No basis in the text to prefer one description over the other; both stated once each, verbatim, with no reconciling statement. Recorded the Abstract’s RCBD language in the note’s Design field since SCHEMA.md’s decision-rule test for experiment vs quasi-experiment is specifically the presence of “randomized” language, which both descriptions in fact satisfy — so the type classification (experiment) is unaffected regardless of which design description is correct. No trials.csv cell holds a “design type” value, so no cell is affected; noted here for the record only.
WARN-CHECK — Fish trial duration / “final” weight reference point unclear (p.348, 352, Table 9). The lettuce-phase fish are stated to weigh 150-215 g “in continuation of an experiment with tomato” at the START of this study (Methods, p.348) — i.e. these are not newly stocked fish. Table 9 (p.352) then reports tilapia length and weight at “160 days” and “230 days” per dose treatment, with no statement of what start date these elapsed-day counts are measured from; Table 1’s feed-dosing schedule (Day 46, 76, 130, 160) uses the same day-numbering system, which is consistent with cumulative days from an unstated single start point that plausibly predates the two 30-day lettuce cycles reported in this paper (i.e. may include time from the earlier tomato trial). This is the classic “duration counted from stocking, transplant, first sampling, or final harvest” CHECK case from SCHEMA.md — several readings (elapsed since tomato-trial stocking vs. elapsed since lettuce-trial start vs. elapsed since fish restocking for this study) are each plausible and the paper does not disambiguate. Fish size final was recorded using the later (230-day) Table 9 figure per treatment (T1/120% = 214.9 g, T2/100% = 194.0 g, T3/80% = 160.1 g) since it is unambiguously the later of the two stated time points, but Fish trial duration (days) itself was recorded as UNCLEAR for all three trials since no candidate day-count can be confidently attributed to “this lettuce study’s fish trial” specifically. Added to REVIEW.md.
WARN-CHECK — Fresh vs. dry weight basis not stated for any leaf tissue nutrient concentration (Tables 4 and 6, p.350-351). All leaf tissue N/P/Ca/Mg/K (%) and Fe/Cu/Zn/Mn (mg/kg) values in Tables 4 and 6 are given without stating whether the tissue was analysed fresh or dried before digestion/analysis — Methods (“Measured variables,” p.349) states only that “chemical analysis of plant tissue” was performed, with no drying-basis statement anywhere in the paper. This is one of SCHEMA.md’s own listed CHECK examples (“Fresh vs dry weight where the basis is not stated”). Recorded in plant.csv Unit column as stated in the table (% and mg/kg, with no fw/dw qualifier), flagged UNCLEAR as to basis. Affects: every mineral-category plant.csv row from Table 6 (all three trials, both AP and HYD sides). Added to REVIEW.md.
NOT DERIVED, left NR (per no-derivation rule, even though some are computable from stated figures):
- FCR, SGR — feed amounts (Table 1) and fish weights (Table 9) are both given but FCR/SGR are never stated as such and would require computation
- Total Feed (kg) — Table 1 gives four discrete per-treatment feed amounts (g) at named days; the paper never states a summed total, and summing them would produce a number the authors did not themselves report
- Fish biomass created (kg) — Table 9 gives yield as kg/m3 (a density), not total kg; converting via the stated 200 L tank volume would combine two separately-stated figures into a new one
- Fish weight gain (per fish, g) — initial (150-215 g, at study start) and two later weights (Table 9) are all stated, but no single stated “gain” figure exists; the paper only states relative percentage differences (“decreased by 21%… increased by 10%… in relation to the normal diet”) which are themselves recorded narratively above, not computed into a gram figure here
- Fish survival rate — only “35 fish by container at the end of the lettuce cycle” is given, with no initial stocking count per container stated in a way that yields a percentage without assumption
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish: Fish Category, N/P/K feed composition (beyond the stated 30% protein/3% fat for the fattening-stage diet only), % of body weight, Feed routine (frequency/day), Fish trial duration (recorded UNCLEAR, not NR, per the CHECK flag above)
- Water: Water recycle (L/min), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH (only the control/adjustment threshold of 7.0-7.5 is stated, no measured trial mean), FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, NO2-N — pH and EC are explicitly stated to have been “measured” daily but no values are given anywhere in the text or tables (effectively “data not shown,” though the paper never uses that phrase)
- Plant: Plant Category, SPAD, Leaf count — foliage diameter (cm) was measured instead of leaf count and has no dedicated schema column (see NO COLUMN below)
- Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — the paper measured leaf total nitrogen (%, Tables 4/6) but never leaf nitrate (NO3-, mg/kg fw) specifically; these are different quantities and N% was not substituted into the nitrate columns
- Average room Temperature — greenhouse used, fish tank heaters mentioned “to raise the temperature of the water when this was required,” but no measured or setpoint room/air temperature is given anywhere
- Funding — no funding or acknowledgements section in this 8-page proceedings paper
NO COLUMN items (no dedicated trials.csv/plant.csv column exists; preserved here for reference):
- Stem diameter (mm) and foliage diameter (cm), Tables 2, 3 and 5, all treatments/cultivars/cycles — e.g. Table 5 by dose: stem diameter 18.14a/17.32a/17.59a/16.01a (120%/100%/80%/HYD), foliage diameter 28.00a/26.96a/28.71a/25.87a; none significant by Tukey’s test
- Table 2 (crop-cycle effect, aquaponics only, pooled across dose and cultivar): cycle 1 significantly outperformed cycle 2 on every growth variable (plant height 35.60a vs 30.73b cm; stem diameter 20.15a vs 14.37b mm; foliage diameter 31.53a vs 23.25b cm; fresh weight 355.60a vs 303.02b g; dry weight 17.16a vs 12.07b g), attributed to plastic mulch used in cycle 2 raising substrate temperature
- Table 3 (cultivar effect, aquaponics only, pooled across dose and cycle): ‘Andrómeda’ significantly outperformed ‘Ruby Sky’ in foliage diameter (28.40a vs 26.37b cm), fresh weight (371.28a vs 287.34b g) and dry weight (16.03a vs 13.20b g); height and stem diameter not significant
- Table 4 (cultivar x tissue-nutrient, aquaponics only, pooled across dose): ‘Andrómeda’ higher P (0.62a vs 0.54b %) and K (7.49a vs 5.71b %); ‘Ruby Sky’ higher Ca (2.18a vs 1.58b %) and Mg (0.97a vs 0.76b %); N, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn not significant between cultivars — this table’s text and letters agree completely, no contradiction
- Table 1: full feed-dosing schedule by day and stage (Stage 1/initial: Day 46, 76; Stage 2/fattening: Day 130, 160), per-treatment gram amounts, preserved in each row’s Feed regime field but the summed total is NOT entered per the no-derivation rule above
- Table 7/8 remaining solution-chemistry panel not mapped to a trials.csv column: P (mg/L, by dose: 42.00/32.13/23.32/14.62 for 120%/100%/80%/HYD), K (20.45/17.60/12.93/134.32), Ca (116.35/118.11/157.40/161.75), Mg (86.61/99.10/102.76/83.54), Fe (0.11/0.18/0.13/0.20), Zn (0.10/0.16/0.09/0.08), Mn (0.77/0.60/0.80/0.30), B (0.48/0.42/0.35/0.42), S-SO4 (50.24/50.93/54.49/132.10) — HYD-side values given here for reference since HYD-side aquaponic-loop chemistry is out of scope for the schema’s aquaponic-loop-only water columns
- Table 9 tilapia length (cm) at 160 and 230 days, per dose treatment (120%: 18.0/21.3; 100%: 18.0/20.0; 80%: 16.8/19.8) — no dedicated length column exists
- DMSH (Tukey’s honest significant minimal difference) values for every table — preserved implicitly via the letter groupings quoted throughout this note and in plant.csv, not as a separate figure
plant_measurements.csv scope decision: Only Table 6 (leaf tissue mineral concentrations by fish-feed dose, second cycle) was extracted to plant.csv, duplicated across all three trial IDs for the shared hydroponic-control values, per the convention established in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023/pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012. Table 4 (the cultivar-effect breakdown of the same nine analytes) was deliberately NOT extracted to plant.csv: it pools across all three dose treatments and excludes the hydroponic control entirely, so it cannot be attributed to any single TrialID without either fragmenting a paired comparison the paper never reports (cultivar x dose x HYD) or fabricating a HYD-side value that doesn’t exist for this breakdown. It is preserved narratively in the “Leaf tissue nutrient concentrations by lettuce cultivar” section above and under NO COLUMN. No SD/SE is reported for any measurement in this paper — only Tukey letter groupings and DMSH values per table — so plant.csv’s SD column is NR throughout, consistent with the paper never reporting dispersion for anything.
No water panel excluded beyond what’s noted above — the full Table 7/8 macro/micronutrient solution panel is aquaponic-loop water chemistry (not a plant analyte), so per SCHEMA.md it does not belong in plant.csv regardless of value; the N-species subset with dedicated trials.csv columns (TAN/NH4-N, NO3-N) was extracted there, and the remainder is preserved under NO COLUMN above rather than discarded.
Tags judgment call: Tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia for “Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.)” — reusing the vault’s existing generic Tilapia facet rather than creating a species/strain-specific sub-facet, consistent with mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023 and barbosaPerformanceNileTilapia2020’s treatment of different tilapia species/strains under one facet. Tagged Meta/Region/North-America for Mexico, matching the facet spelling used in abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022. Meta/Plant/Lettuce reuses the existing facet (as in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012 and barbosaPerformanceNileTilapia2020) rather than creating cultivar-specific sub-facets for ‘Andrómeda’/‘Ruby Sky’.
New wikilink targets introduced: J. Pineda-Pineda, A. Valdez-Zamora, I. Miranda-Velázquez, J.E. Rodríguez-Pérez, J.A. Ramírez-Arias, A. Lozano-Toledano (no existing notes for these authors found in the vault). Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) is a new organism wikilink (distinct from the vault’s existing Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and generic Tilapia/Red tilapia targets — “Rocky mountain tilapia” appears to be a common/trade name for a farmed Oreochromis sp. strain in Mexico, not a distinct species; listed here per CLAUDE.md rather than silently merging it into an existing tilapia wikilink). Reused Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), the existing canonical form from pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012.
Coordinates: 19°29’16”N, 98°53’16”W (Methods, p.348) — both minutes/seconds values are valid DMS (<60), converted directly: Lat 19.4878, Long -98.8878 (West is negative). Consistent with Texcoco, State of Mexico, the paper’s stated location. UNIT CONVERSION ONLY, no derivation.
Metadata note: No zotero-export.csv was present in the vault for this batch; DOI was read from page 1 of the PDF (also visible on p.2’s running header) and confirmed against Crossref (https://api.crossref.org/works/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.43), which returned an identical title, author list, journal, volume (1227) and page range (347-354) to the PDF itself — no metadata discrepancy to flag.
PDF quality: Clean, fully extractable text layer throughout (8 content pages, standard two-column Acta Horticulturae typesetting). The file is a ResearchGate-hosted reprint with one extra cover page (publication stats, author profile cards, “View publication stats” footer) prepended and appended around the actual 8-page article; these ResearchGate wrapper pages were not treated as part of the paper’s own content. No OCR issues.
Source: Pineda-Pineda et al. - 2018 - Yield of two cultivars of lettuce ( iLactuca sat.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
pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) |
| Initial Stock density | 20-25 |
| Protein | 30 (fattening-stage diet only; initial-stage protein % not restated, see Extraction notes) |
| Fish size initial | 150-215 |
| Fish size final | 214.9 |
| Feed regime | 120% of normal tilapia ration (Table 1): 12.6 g (Day 46), 28.8 g (Day 76) - Stage 1/initial; 38.4 g (Day 130), 57.6 g (Day 160) - Stage 2/fattening |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 200 (fish tank/pond only, per experimental unit; separate 240 L grow bed not summed into a single system total, see remarks) |
| pHOptimal | 7.0-7.5 (adjusted to 7.0 with sulfuric or nitric acid whenever the upper limit of 7.5 was exceeded, measured daily, Methods p.348) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 15.86 |
| NO3-N | 70.96 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), cvs. ‘Andromeda’ (green) and ‘Ruby Sky’ (red mist), pooled |
| Details | Transplanted at 3 weeks of age at 25 plants/m2; two sequential 30-day cultivation cycles; Table 5/6 values pooled across both cultivars (Table 6 explicitly second-cycle only; Table 5’s cycle scope is unclear, see Extraction notes) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Plants/m2 | 25 |
| Plant height | 33.46 |
| Plant fresh weight | 366.7 |
| Plant dry matter | 15.03 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media bed (red volcanic tuff sand-filled growing bed); gravity return to fish tank |
| Media Details | 16 rectangular 240-L polyethylene containers (0.6 x 1 x 0.4 m) filled with red volcanic tuff sand, serving as filter and growing bed; irrigation pump (lift capacity 3 m) + 1/2-inch PVC distribution network; gravity return to fish ponds; 16 round 200-L polyethylene containers as fish ponds; each fish-pond+bed pair = one experimental unit; individual fish-tank heaters |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Same tanks/growing beds and fish stock continuing from a prior tomato aquaponics trial (Methods p.348: fish ‘in continuation of an experiment with tomato’); implies an already-established biofilter/media-bed microbial community rather than a freshly cycled-in system, though the paper does not use the word ‘established’ explicitly) |
| pH Buffers | Y (pH corrected to 7.0 with sulfuric or nitric acid whenever it exceeded the aquaponic system’s upper limit of 7.5 (measured daily, Methods p.348)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Aquaponic solution received no added fertilizer; nutrient inputs derive solely from fish feed/waste (Methods p.348-349); commercial chemical fertilizers were used only for the hydroponic control’s Steiner solution (Methods p.348)) |
| Equipment | Pump with 3 m lift capacity + 1/2-inch PVC distribution network per experimental unit; gravity return from growing bed to fish pond; individual fish-tank heaters; SAS/STAT Version 8 software |
| Control Parameters | pH kept <=7.5, corrected to 7.0 with acid when exceeded; EC and daily water-loss volume monitored (values not reported) |
| Combination | Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cvs. Andromeda and Ruby Sky); aquaponic fish-feed-dose treatments (80/100/120% of normal ration) vs. hydroponic Steiner-solution control, media-bed (red volcanic tuff sand) system |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
| Lat | 19.4878 |
| Long | -98.8878 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (plant height); g (fresh/dry weight); % or mg/kg (leaf tissue nutrients); mg/L (nutrient solution concentrations) |
| Statistic Details | Analysis of variance (ANOVA); comparison of means by Tukey test (p<=0.05); Pearson correlations; SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute, Inc., 1998) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
| AP | 366.7 |
| HYD | 306.1 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = aquaponic treatment at 120% of the normal tilapia feed ration (Table 1). Paired control = hydroponic Steiner-solution treatment (Table 5/6/7, ‘Hydroponics’ row), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells, shared identically across all three trial rows in this paper (T1=120%, T2=100%, T3=80% dose) per one-hydroponic-control-per-paper convention. Design: 4 treatments (3 aquaponic dose levels + hydroponic control) x 4 replicates, 16 fish-tank+growing-bed experimental units total; two lettuce cultivars (‘Andromeda’, ‘Ruby Sky’) grown within the same treatment units, not as a separate crossed factor, so no cultivar-specific trial rows were created (a cultivar difference alone without a corresponding treatment difference is not a new trial per CLAUDE.md/SCHEMA.md). Feed schedule (Table 1, g per tank): 12.6 g (Day 46), 28.8 g (Day 76) - Stage 1/initial; 38.4 g (Day 130), 57.6 g (Day 160) - Stage 2/fattening. Fattening-stage feed only: 30% crude protein, 3% fat, plus calcium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferrous sulfate, copper sulfate, magnesium sulfate, manganese sulfate, zinc oxide (p.351); initial-stage composition not restated. | WARN-MATERIAL Table 6 leaf-tissue significance narrative inverted relative to the table itself (p.350-351). Results text: ‘indicated significant statistical differences in the concentrations of N, Ca, Mg and Fe; however, there were no differences in P, K, Cu, Zn or Mn.’ Table 6’s own Tukey letters show the opposite: N (4.10a/4.16a/3.58a/4.26a), Ca (1.88a/1.80a/1.90a/1.94a), Mg (0.74a/0.88a/0.92a/0.92a) and Fe (455.50a/388.00a/404.50a/345.25a) are uniformly ‘a’ across all four treatments (120%/100%/80%/HYD) = NOT significant; P (0.71a/0.51b/0.58ab/0.54b), K (7.50a/6.18ab/5.11b/4.95b), Cu (18.50b/20.37ab/27.75a/23.75ab), Zn (48.25b/76.38ab/104.88a/68.50ab) and Mn (60.00b/239.63a/300.25a/323.25a) all carry differing letters = significant. The two lists match exactly in size/membership with ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ swapped — read as an editing error. Table 6’s own letters (the actual Tukey output) used in plant.csv Significance field; prose claim not used anywhere. No trials.csv cell affected (no dedicated per-nutrient tissue columns beyond Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, NR here since this paper reports leaf total N%, not nitrate). Affects: plant.csv Significance for all Table 6 rows, all three trials. | WARN-MINOR experimental design description conflict (Abstract p.347 vs Methods p.348): Abstract states ‘randomized complete blocks with four replications’; Methods states ‘distributed in the experimental area in a completely randomized design’ for the same four-treatments-four-replicates experiment. No basis to prefer either; both stated once, verbatim, no reconciling statement. Type classification (experiment) unaffected since SCHEMA.md’s test is presence of ‘randomized’ language, satisfied by both descriptions. No trials.csv cell holds a design-type value, so no cell affected. | WARN-CHECK Fish trial duration / ‘final’ weight reference point unclear (p.348, 352, Table 9): fish weighed 150-215 g at the START of this study ‘in continuation of an experiment with tomato’ (not newly stocked). Table 9 reports weight/length at ‘160 days’ and ‘230 days’ per dose treatment with no stated start reference; Table 1’s feed-day numbering (Day 46/76/130/160) uses the same scale, consistent with cumulative days from an unstated single start point that may predate this paper’s two 30-day lettuce cycles. Classic SCHEMA.md CHECK case (‘duration counted from stocking, transplant, first sampling, or final harvest’) — several readings equally plausible, paper does not disambiguate. Fish size final recorded from the later (230-day) Table 9 figure (unambiguously the later timepoint); Fish trial duration itself recorded UNCLEAR since no candidate day-count can be confidently attributed to this lettuce study’s fish trial specifically. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Fresh vs dry weight basis not stated for leaf tissue nutrient concentrations (Tables 4, 6, p.350-351): Methods (‘Measured variables’, p.349) states only that ‘chemical analysis of plant tissue’ was performed, no fw/dw statement anywhere. One of SCHEMA.md’s own listed CHECK examples. Recorded in plant.csv Unit column exactly as tabulated (% and mg/kg, no fw/dw qualifier), flagged UNCLEAR as to basis. Affects: every mineral-category plant.csv row from Table 6, all three trials, both AP and HYD. Added to REVIEW.md. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR, SGR (feed amounts and fish weights both given, ratio never stated); Total Feed (kg) (Table 1 gives four discrete per-treatment feed amounts at named days, never summed by the authors; summing would produce an unstated figure); Fish biomass created (kg) (Table 9 gives yield as kg/m3, a density, not total kg; converting via the stated 200 L tank volume would combine two separately-stated figures into a new one); Fish weight gain per fish (initial 150-215 g and two later Table 9 weights all stated, but no single ‘gain’ figure stated; only relative percentages ‘21% decrease / 10% increase vs normal diet’ given, recorded narratively in the note, not computed to grams here); Fish survival rate (‘35 fish by container at the end of the lettuce cycle’ given, no initial per-container stocking count stated). | [not reported] fields, grouped: Fish Category; feed N/P/K composition beyond the stated 30% protein/3% fat (fattening-stage diet only, initial-stage composition not restated); % of body weight; Feed routine (frequency/day not stated); Water recycle (L/min); Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate; Aq pH (only the 7.0-7.5 control/adjustment threshold is stated — pH ‘measured daily’ per Methods but no values given anywhere, effectively data-not-shown though the paper never uses that phrase); FUE AP/HYD; WUE; Dissolved Oxygen; EC (also ‘measured daily’, no values given); Water temperature; NO2-N; Plant Category; SPAD; Leaf count (foliage diameter was measured instead, NO COLUMN); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (paper measured leaf total N%, a different quantity from leaf nitrate mg/kg fw, not substituted); Average room Temperature; Funding (no funding/acknowledgements section in this 8-page proceedings paper). | NO COLUMN items: stem diameter (mm) and foliage diameter (cm), Tables 2/3/5 — by dose (Table 5): stem diameter 18.14a/17.32a/17.59a/16.01a, foliage diameter 28.00a/26.96a/28.71a/25.87a for 120%/100%/80%/HYD, none significant. Table 2 (crop-cycle effect, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose/cultivar): cycle 1 significantly outperformed cycle 2 on every growth variable (height 35.60a vs 30.73b cm; stem diam 20.15a vs 14.37b mm; foliage diam 31.53a vs 23.25b cm; fresh wt 355.60a vs 303.02b g; dry wt 17.16a vs 12.07b g), attributed to plastic mulch in cycle 2 raising substrate temperature. Table 3 (cultivar effect, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose/cycle): Andromeda > Ruby Sky in foliage diameter (28.40a vs 26.37b cm), fresh weight (371.28a vs 287.34b g), dry weight (16.03a vs 13.20b g); height/stem diameter ns. Table 4 (cultivar x tissue-nutrient, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose, text and letters agree, no contradiction): Andromeda higher P (0.62a vs 0.54b%) and K (7.49a vs 5.71b%); Ruby Sky higher Ca (2.18a vs 1.58b%) and Mg (0.97a vs 0.76b%); N/Fe/Cu/Zn/Mn ns — not extracted to plant.csv since it pools across all three dose treatments and excludes HYD, so it cannot be attributed to a single TrialID (see Extraction notes in the paper’s note). HYD-side Plant height (32.90), Plant fresh weight (306.1 g, = this row’s HYD cell), Plant dry matter (13.50 g) from Table 5, per vault convention (mehdiEvaluatingPerformanceLimitations2026/pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012) that these AP-labelled columns hold only the AP-side value. Full Table 7/8 solution-chemistry panel beyond N species: P (mg/L) 42.00/32.13/23.32/14.62; K 20.45/17.60/12.93/134.32; Ca 116.35/118.11/157.40/161.75; Mg 86.61/99.10/102.76/83.54; Fe 0.11/0.18/0.13/0.20; Zn 0.10/0.16/0.09/0.08; Mn 0.77/0.60/0.80/0.30; B 0.48/0.42/0.35/0.42; S-SO4 50.24/50.93/54.49/132.10 (all 120%/100%/80%/HYD, mg/L, Tables 7-8). Table 9 tilapia length (cm) at 160/230 days: 120% 18.0/21.3; 100% 18.0/20.0; 80% 16.8/19.8 — no dedicated column. DMSH values throughout preserved implicitly via the letter groupings quoted here and in plant.csv. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 19 deg 29’ 16” N, 98 deg 53’ 16” W (Methods p.348) — both DMS valid (<60) -> decimal Lat 19.4878, Long -98.8878 (West negative), consistent with Texcoco, State of Mexico. | Metadata: no zotero-export.csv present for this batch; DOI read from PDF p.1/p.2 header, confirmed against Crossref (https://api.crossref.org/works/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.43) — identical title, author list, journal, volume 1227, pages 347-354, no discrepancy.
pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) |
| Initial Stock density | 20-25 |
| Protein | 30 (fattening-stage diet only; initial-stage protein % not restated, see Extraction notes) |
| Fish size initial | 150-215 |
| Fish size final | 194.0 |
| Feed regime | 100% of normal tilapia ration (Table 1): 10.5 g (Day 46), 24.0 g (Day 76) - Stage 1/initial; 32.0 g (Day 130), 48.0 g (Day 160) - Stage 2/fattening |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 200 (fish tank/pond only, per experimental unit; separate 240 L grow bed not summed into a single system total, see remarks) |
| pHOptimal | 7.0-7.5 (adjusted to 7.0 with sulfuric or nitric acid whenever the upper limit of 7.5 was exceeded, measured daily, Methods p.348) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 15.52 |
| NO3-N | 76.3 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), cvs. ‘Andromeda’ (green) and ‘Ruby Sky’ (red mist), pooled |
| Details | Transplanted at 3 weeks of age at 25 plants/m2; two sequential 30-day cultivation cycles; Table 5/6 values pooled across both cultivars (Table 6 explicitly second-cycle only; Table 5’s cycle scope is unclear, see Extraction notes) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Plants/m2 | 25 |
| Plant height | 32.96 |
| Plant fresh weight | 291.7 |
| Plant dry matter | 13.78 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media bed (red volcanic tuff sand-filled growing bed); gravity return to fish tank |
| Media Details | 16 rectangular 240-L polyethylene containers (0.6 x 1 x 0.4 m) filled with red volcanic tuff sand, serving as filter and growing bed; irrigation pump (lift capacity 3 m) + 1/2-inch PVC distribution network; gravity return to fish ponds; 16 round 200-L polyethylene containers as fish ponds; each fish-pond+bed pair = one experimental unit; individual fish-tank heaters |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Same tanks/growing beds and fish stock continuing from a prior tomato aquaponics trial (Methods p.348: fish ‘in continuation of an experiment with tomato’); implies an already-established biofilter/media-bed microbial community rather than a freshly cycled-in system, though the paper does not use the word ‘established’ explicitly) |
| pH Buffers | Y (pH corrected to 7.0 with sulfuric or nitric acid whenever it exceeded the aquaponic system’s upper limit of 7.5 (measured daily, Methods p.348)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Aquaponic solution received no added fertilizer; nutrient inputs derive solely from fish feed/waste (Methods p.348-349); commercial chemical fertilizers were used only for the hydroponic control’s Steiner solution (Methods p.348)) |
| Equipment | Pump with 3 m lift capacity + 1/2-inch PVC distribution network per experimental unit; gravity return from growing bed to fish pond; individual fish-tank heaters; SAS/STAT Version 8 software |
| Control Parameters | pH kept <=7.5, corrected to 7.0 with acid when exceeded; EC and daily water-loss volume monitored (values not reported) |
| Combination | Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cvs. Andromeda and Ruby Sky); aquaponic fish-feed-dose treatments (80/100/120% of normal ration) vs. hydroponic Steiner-solution control, media-bed (red volcanic tuff sand) system |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
| Lat | 19.4878 |
| Long | -98.8878 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (plant height); g (fresh/dry weight); % or mg/kg (leaf tissue nutrients); mg/L (nutrient solution concentrations) |
| Statistic Details | Analysis of variance (ANOVA); comparison of means by Tukey test (p<=0.05); Pearson correlations; SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute, Inc., 1998) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
| AP | 291.7 |
| HYD | 306.1 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = aquaponic treatment at 100% of the normal tilapia feed ration (Table 1). Paired control = hydroponic Steiner-solution treatment (Table 5/6/7, ‘Hydroponics’ row), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells, shared identically across all three trial rows in this paper (T1=120%, T2=100%, T3=80% dose) per one-hydroponic-control-per-paper convention. Design: 4 treatments (3 aquaponic dose levels + hydroponic control) x 4 replicates, 16 fish-tank+growing-bed experimental units total; two lettuce cultivars (‘Andromeda’, ‘Ruby Sky’) grown within the same treatment units, not as a separate crossed factor, so no cultivar-specific trial rows were created (a cultivar difference alone without a corresponding treatment difference is not a new trial per CLAUDE.md/SCHEMA.md). Feed schedule (Table 1, g per tank): 10.5 g (Day 46), 24.0 g (Day 76) - Stage 1/initial; 32.0 g (Day 130), 48.0 g (Day 160) - Stage 2/fattening. Fattening-stage feed only: 30% crude protein, 3% fat, plus calcium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferrous sulfate, copper sulfate, magnesium sulfate, manganese sulfate, zinc oxide (p.351); initial-stage composition not restated. | WARN-MATERIAL Table 6 leaf-tissue significance narrative inverted relative to the table itself (p.350-351). Results text: ‘indicated significant statistical differences in the concentrations of N, Ca, Mg and Fe; however, there were no differences in P, K, Cu, Zn or Mn.’ Table 6’s own Tukey letters show the opposite: N (4.10a/4.16a/3.58a/4.26a), Ca (1.88a/1.80a/1.90a/1.94a), Mg (0.74a/0.88a/0.92a/0.92a) and Fe (455.50a/388.00a/404.50a/345.25a) are uniformly ‘a’ across all four treatments (120%/100%/80%/HYD) = NOT significant; P (0.71a/0.51b/0.58ab/0.54b), K (7.50a/6.18ab/5.11b/4.95b), Cu (18.50b/20.37ab/27.75a/23.75ab), Zn (48.25b/76.38ab/104.88a/68.50ab) and Mn (60.00b/239.63a/300.25a/323.25a) all carry differing letters = significant. The two lists match exactly in size/membership with ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ swapped — read as an editing error. Table 6’s own letters (the actual Tukey output) used in plant.csv Significance field; prose claim not used anywhere. No trials.csv cell affected (no dedicated per-nutrient tissue columns beyond Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, NR here since this paper reports leaf total N%, not nitrate). Affects: plant.csv Significance for all Table 6 rows, all three trials. | WARN-MINOR experimental design description conflict (Abstract p.347 vs Methods p.348): Abstract states ‘randomized complete blocks with four replications’; Methods states ‘distributed in the experimental area in a completely randomized design’ for the same four-treatments-four-replicates experiment. No basis to prefer either; both stated once, verbatim, no reconciling statement. Type classification (experiment) unaffected since SCHEMA.md’s test is presence of ‘randomized’ language, satisfied by both descriptions. No trials.csv cell holds a design-type value, so no cell affected. | WARN-CHECK Fish trial duration / ‘final’ weight reference point unclear (p.348, 352, Table 9): fish weighed 150-215 g at the START of this study ‘in continuation of an experiment with tomato’ (not newly stocked). Table 9 reports weight/length at ‘160 days’ and ‘230 days’ per dose treatment with no stated start reference; Table 1’s feed-day numbering (Day 46/76/130/160) uses the same scale, consistent with cumulative days from an unstated single start point that may predate this paper’s two 30-day lettuce cycles. Classic SCHEMA.md CHECK case (‘duration counted from stocking, transplant, first sampling, or final harvest’) — several readings equally plausible, paper does not disambiguate. Fish size final recorded from the later (230-day) Table 9 figure (unambiguously the later timepoint); Fish trial duration itself recorded UNCLEAR since no candidate day-count can be confidently attributed to this lettuce study’s fish trial specifically. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Fresh vs dry weight basis not stated for leaf tissue nutrient concentrations (Tables 4, 6, p.350-351): Methods (‘Measured variables’, p.349) states only that ‘chemical analysis of plant tissue’ was performed, no fw/dw statement anywhere. One of SCHEMA.md’s own listed CHECK examples. Recorded in plant.csv Unit column exactly as tabulated (% and mg/kg, no fw/dw qualifier), flagged UNCLEAR as to basis. Affects: every mineral-category plant.csv row from Table 6, all three trials, both AP and HYD. Added to REVIEW.md. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR, SGR (feed amounts and fish weights both given, ratio never stated); Total Feed (kg) (Table 1 gives four discrete per-treatment feed amounts at named days, never summed by the authors; summing would produce an unstated figure); Fish biomass created (kg) (Table 9 gives yield as kg/m3, a density, not total kg; converting via the stated 200 L tank volume would combine two separately-stated figures into a new one); Fish weight gain per fish (initial 150-215 g and two later Table 9 weights all stated, but no single ‘gain’ figure stated; only relative percentages ‘21% decrease / 10% increase vs normal diet’ given, recorded narratively in the note, not computed to grams here); Fish survival rate (‘35 fish by container at the end of the lettuce cycle’ given, no initial per-container stocking count stated). | [not reported] fields, grouped: Fish Category; feed N/P/K composition beyond the stated 30% protein/3% fat (fattening-stage diet only, initial-stage composition not restated); % of body weight; Feed routine (frequency/day not stated); Water recycle (L/min); Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate; Aq pH (only the 7.0-7.5 control/adjustment threshold is stated — pH ‘measured daily’ per Methods but no values given anywhere, effectively data-not-shown though the paper never uses that phrase); FUE AP/HYD; WUE; Dissolved Oxygen; EC (also ‘measured daily’, no values given); Water temperature; NO2-N; Plant Category; SPAD; Leaf count (foliage diameter was measured instead, NO COLUMN); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (paper measured leaf total N%, a different quantity from leaf nitrate mg/kg fw, not substituted); Average room Temperature; Funding (no funding/acknowledgements section in this 8-page proceedings paper). | NO COLUMN items: stem diameter (mm) and foliage diameter (cm), Tables 2/3/5 — by dose (Table 5): stem diameter 18.14a/17.32a/17.59a/16.01a, foliage diameter 28.00a/26.96a/28.71a/25.87a for 120%/100%/80%/HYD, none significant. Table 2 (crop-cycle effect, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose/cultivar): cycle 1 significantly outperformed cycle 2 on every growth variable (height 35.60a vs 30.73b cm; stem diam 20.15a vs 14.37b mm; foliage diam 31.53a vs 23.25b cm; fresh wt 355.60a vs 303.02b g; dry wt 17.16a vs 12.07b g), attributed to plastic mulch in cycle 2 raising substrate temperature. Table 3 (cultivar effect, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose/cycle): Andromeda > Ruby Sky in foliage diameter (28.40a vs 26.37b cm), fresh weight (371.28a vs 287.34b g), dry weight (16.03a vs 13.20b g); height/stem diameter ns. Table 4 (cultivar x tissue-nutrient, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose, text and letters agree, no contradiction): Andromeda higher P (0.62a vs 0.54b%) and K (7.49a vs 5.71b%); Ruby Sky higher Ca (2.18a vs 1.58b%) and Mg (0.97a vs 0.76b%); N/Fe/Cu/Zn/Mn ns — not extracted to plant.csv since it pools across all three dose treatments and excludes HYD, so it cannot be attributed to a single TrialID (see Extraction notes in the paper’s note). HYD-side Plant height (32.90), Plant fresh weight (306.1 g, = this row’s HYD cell), Plant dry matter (13.50 g) from Table 5, per vault convention (mehdiEvaluatingPerformanceLimitations2026/pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012) that these AP-labelled columns hold only the AP-side value. Full Table 7/8 solution-chemistry panel beyond N species: P (mg/L) 42.00/32.13/23.32/14.62; K 20.45/17.60/12.93/134.32; Ca 116.35/118.11/157.40/161.75; Mg 86.61/99.10/102.76/83.54; Fe 0.11/0.18/0.13/0.20; Zn 0.10/0.16/0.09/0.08; Mn 0.77/0.60/0.80/0.30; B 0.48/0.42/0.35/0.42; S-SO4 50.24/50.93/54.49/132.10 (all 120%/100%/80%/HYD, mg/L, Tables 7-8). Table 9 tilapia length (cm) at 160/230 days: 120% 18.0/21.3; 100% 18.0/20.0; 80% 16.8/19.8 — no dedicated column. DMSH values throughout preserved implicitly via the letter groupings quoted here and in plant.csv. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 19 deg 29’ 16” N, 98 deg 53’ 16” W (Methods p.348) — both DMS valid (<60) -> decimal Lat 19.4878, Long -98.8878 (West negative), consistent with Texcoco, State of Mexico. | Metadata: no zotero-export.csv present for this batch; DOI read from PDF p.1/p.2 header, confirmed against Crossref (https://api.crossref.org/works/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.43) — identical title, author list, journal, volume 1227, pages 347-354, no discrepancy.
pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) |
| Initial Stock density | 20-25 |
| Protein | 30 (fattening-stage diet only; initial-stage protein % not restated, see Extraction notes) |
| Fish size initial | 150-215 |
| Fish size final | 160.1 |
| Feed regime | 80% of normal tilapia ration (Table 1): 8.4 g (Day 46), 19.2 g (Day 76) - Stage 1/initial; 25.6 g (Day 130), 38.4 g (Day 160) - Stage 2/fattening |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 200 (fish tank/pond only, per experimental unit; separate 240 L grow bed not summed into a single system total, see remarks) |
| pHOptimal | 7.0-7.5 (adjusted to 7.0 with sulfuric or nitric acid whenever the upper limit of 7.5 was exceeded, measured daily, Methods p.348) |
| TAN / NH4-N | 16.01 |
| NO3-N | 53.81 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), cvs. ‘Andromeda’ (green) and ‘Ruby Sky’ (red mist), pooled |
| Details | Transplanted at 3 weeks of age at 25 plants/m2; two sequential 30-day cultivation cycles; Table 5/6 values pooled across both cultivars (Table 6 explicitly second-cycle only; Table 5’s cycle scope is unclear, see Extraction notes) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 30 |
| Plants/m2 | 25 |
| Plant height | 33.34 |
| Plant fresh weight | 352.6 |
| Plant dry matter | 16.15 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media bed (red volcanic tuff sand-filled growing bed); gravity return to fish tank |
| Media Details | 16 rectangular 240-L polyethylene containers (0.6 x 1 x 0.4 m) filled with red volcanic tuff sand, serving as filter and growing bed; irrigation pump (lift capacity 3 m) + 1/2-inch PVC distribution network; gravity return to fish ponds; 16 round 200-L polyethylene containers as fish ponds; each fish-pond+bed pair = one experimental unit; individual fish-tank heaters |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Same tanks/growing beds and fish stock continuing from a prior tomato aquaponics trial (Methods p.348: fish ‘in continuation of an experiment with tomato’); implies an already-established biofilter/media-bed microbial community rather than a freshly cycled-in system, though the paper does not use the word ‘established’ explicitly) |
| pH Buffers | Y (pH corrected to 7.0 with sulfuric or nitric acid whenever it exceeded the aquaponic system’s upper limit of 7.5 (measured daily, Methods p.348)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Aquaponic solution received no added fertilizer; nutrient inputs derive solely from fish feed/waste (Methods p.348-349); commercial chemical fertilizers were used only for the hydroponic control’s Steiner solution (Methods p.348)) |
| Equipment | Pump with 3 m lift capacity + 1/2-inch PVC distribution network per experimental unit; gravity return from growing bed to fish pond; individual fish-tank heaters; SAS/STAT Version 8 software |
| Control Parameters | pH kept <=7.5, corrected to 7.0 with acid when exceeded; EC and daily water-loss volume monitored (values not reported) |
| Combination | Rocky mountain tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cvs. Andromeda and Ruby Sky); aquaponic fish-feed-dose treatments (80/100/120% of normal ration) vs. hydroponic Steiner-solution control, media-bed (red volcanic tuff sand) system |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | Mexico |
| Lat | 19.4878 |
| Long | -98.8878 |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | cm (plant height); g (fresh/dry weight); % or mg/kg (leaf tissue nutrients); mg/L (nutrient solution concentrations) |
| Statistic Details | Analysis of variance (ANOVA); comparison of means by Tukey test (p<=0.05); Pearson correlations; SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute, Inc., 1998) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 4 |
| AP | 352.6 |
| HYD | 306.1 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = aquaponic treatment at 80% of the normal tilapia feed ration (Table 1). Paired control = hydroponic Steiner-solution treatment (Table 5/6/7, ‘Hydroponics’ row), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells, shared identically across all three trial rows in this paper (T1=120%, T2=100%, T3=80% dose) per one-hydroponic-control-per-paper convention. Design: 4 treatments (3 aquaponic dose levels + hydroponic control) x 4 replicates, 16 fish-tank+growing-bed experimental units total; two lettuce cultivars (‘Andromeda’, ‘Ruby Sky’) grown within the same treatment units, not as a separate crossed factor, so no cultivar-specific trial rows were created (a cultivar difference alone without a corresponding treatment difference is not a new trial per CLAUDE.md/SCHEMA.md). Feed schedule (Table 1, g per tank): 8.4 g (Day 46), 19.2 g (Day 76) - Stage 1/initial; 25.6 g (Day 130), 38.4 g (Day 160) - Stage 2/fattening. Fattening-stage feed only: 30% crude protein, 3% fat, plus calcium phosphate, potassium iodide, ferrous sulfate, copper sulfate, magnesium sulfate, manganese sulfate, zinc oxide (p.351); initial-stage composition not restated. | WARN-MATERIAL Table 6 leaf-tissue significance narrative inverted relative to the table itself (p.350-351). Results text: ‘indicated significant statistical differences in the concentrations of N, Ca, Mg and Fe; however, there were no differences in P, K, Cu, Zn or Mn.’ Table 6’s own Tukey letters show the opposite: N (4.10a/4.16a/3.58a/4.26a), Ca (1.88a/1.80a/1.90a/1.94a), Mg (0.74a/0.88a/0.92a/0.92a) and Fe (455.50a/388.00a/404.50a/345.25a) are uniformly ‘a’ across all four treatments (120%/100%/80%/HYD) = NOT significant; P (0.71a/0.51b/0.58ab/0.54b), K (7.50a/6.18ab/5.11b/4.95b), Cu (18.50b/20.37ab/27.75a/23.75ab), Zn (48.25b/76.38ab/104.88a/68.50ab) and Mn (60.00b/239.63a/300.25a/323.25a) all carry differing letters = significant. The two lists match exactly in size/membership with ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ swapped — read as an editing error. Table 6’s own letters (the actual Tukey output) used in plant.csv Significance field; prose claim not used anywhere. No trials.csv cell affected (no dedicated per-nutrient tissue columns beyond Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, NR here since this paper reports leaf total N%, not nitrate). Affects: plant.csv Significance for all Table 6 rows, all three trials. | WARN-MINOR experimental design description conflict (Abstract p.347 vs Methods p.348): Abstract states ‘randomized complete blocks with four replications’; Methods states ‘distributed in the experimental area in a completely randomized design’ for the same four-treatments-four-replicates experiment. No basis to prefer either; both stated once, verbatim, no reconciling statement. Type classification (experiment) unaffected since SCHEMA.md’s test is presence of ‘randomized’ language, satisfied by both descriptions. No trials.csv cell holds a design-type value, so no cell affected. | WARN-CHECK Fish trial duration / ‘final’ weight reference point unclear (p.348, 352, Table 9): fish weighed 150-215 g at the START of this study ‘in continuation of an experiment with tomato’ (not newly stocked). Table 9 reports weight/length at ‘160 days’ and ‘230 days’ per dose treatment with no stated start reference; Table 1’s feed-day numbering (Day 46/76/130/160) uses the same scale, consistent with cumulative days from an unstated single start point that may predate this paper’s two 30-day lettuce cycles. Classic SCHEMA.md CHECK case (‘duration counted from stocking, transplant, first sampling, or final harvest’) — several readings equally plausible, paper does not disambiguate. Fish size final recorded from the later (230-day) Table 9 figure (unambiguously the later timepoint); Fish trial duration itself recorded UNCLEAR since no candidate day-count can be confidently attributed to this lettuce study’s fish trial specifically. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK Fresh vs dry weight basis not stated for leaf tissue nutrient concentrations (Tables 4, 6, p.350-351): Methods (‘Measured variables’, p.349) states only that ‘chemical analysis of plant tissue’ was performed, no fw/dw statement anywhere. One of SCHEMA.md’s own listed CHECK examples. Recorded in plant.csv Unit column exactly as tabulated (% and mg/kg, no fw/dw qualifier), flagged UNCLEAR as to basis. Affects: every mineral-category plant.csv row from Table 6, all three trials, both AP and HYD. Added to REVIEW.md. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR, SGR (feed amounts and fish weights both given, ratio never stated); Total Feed (kg) (Table 1 gives four discrete per-treatment feed amounts at named days, never summed by the authors; summing would produce an unstated figure); Fish biomass created (kg) (Table 9 gives yield as kg/m3, a density, not total kg; converting via the stated 200 L tank volume would combine two separately-stated figures into a new one); Fish weight gain per fish (initial 150-215 g and two later Table 9 weights all stated, but no single ‘gain’ figure stated; only relative percentages ‘21% decrease / 10% increase vs normal diet’ given, recorded narratively in the note, not computed to grams here); Fish survival rate (‘35 fish by container at the end of the lettuce cycle’ given, no initial per-container stocking count stated). | [not reported] fields, grouped: Fish Category; feed N/P/K composition beyond the stated 30% protein/3% fat (fattening-stage diet only, initial-stage composition not restated); % of body weight; Feed routine (frequency/day not stated); Water recycle (L/min); Water type; Water classification; Daily Water exchange rate; Aq pH (only the 7.0-7.5 control/adjustment threshold is stated — pH ‘measured daily’ per Methods but no values given anywhere, effectively data-not-shown though the paper never uses that phrase); FUE AP/HYD; WUE; Dissolved Oxygen; EC (also ‘measured daily’, no values given); Water temperature; NO2-N; Plant Category; SPAD; Leaf count (foliage diameter was measured instead, NO COLUMN); Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (paper measured leaf total N%, a different quantity from leaf nitrate mg/kg fw, not substituted); Average room Temperature; Funding (no funding/acknowledgements section in this 8-page proceedings paper). | NO COLUMN items: stem diameter (mm) and foliage diameter (cm), Tables 2/3/5 — by dose (Table 5): stem diameter 18.14a/17.32a/17.59a/16.01a, foliage diameter 28.00a/26.96a/28.71a/25.87a for 120%/100%/80%/HYD, none significant. Table 2 (crop-cycle effect, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose/cultivar): cycle 1 significantly outperformed cycle 2 on every growth variable (height 35.60a vs 30.73b cm; stem diam 20.15a vs 14.37b mm; foliage diam 31.53a vs 23.25b cm; fresh wt 355.60a vs 303.02b g; dry wt 17.16a vs 12.07b g), attributed to plastic mulch in cycle 2 raising substrate temperature. Table 3 (cultivar effect, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose/cycle): Andromeda > Ruby Sky in foliage diameter (28.40a vs 26.37b cm), fresh weight (371.28a vs 287.34b g), dry weight (16.03a vs 13.20b g); height/stem diameter ns. Table 4 (cultivar x tissue-nutrient, aquaponics-only, pooled across dose, text and letters agree, no contradiction): Andromeda higher P (0.62a vs 0.54b%) and K (7.49a vs 5.71b%); Ruby Sky higher Ca (2.18a vs 1.58b%) and Mg (0.97a vs 0.76b%); N/Fe/Cu/Zn/Mn ns — not extracted to plant.csv since it pools across all three dose treatments and excludes HYD, so it cannot be attributed to a single TrialID (see Extraction notes in the paper’s note). HYD-side Plant height (32.90), Plant fresh weight (306.1 g, = this row’s HYD cell), Plant dry matter (13.50 g) from Table 5, per vault convention (mehdiEvaluatingPerformanceLimitations2026/pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012) that these AP-labelled columns hold only the AP-side value. Full Table 7/8 solution-chemistry panel beyond N species: P (mg/L) 42.00/32.13/23.32/14.62; K 20.45/17.60/12.93/134.32; Ca 116.35/118.11/157.40/161.75; Mg 86.61/99.10/102.76/83.54; Fe 0.11/0.18/0.13/0.20; Zn 0.10/0.16/0.09/0.08; Mn 0.77/0.60/0.80/0.30; B 0.48/0.42/0.35/0.42; S-SO4 50.24/50.93/54.49/132.10 (all 120%/100%/80%/HYD, mg/L, Tables 7-8). Table 9 tilapia length (cm) at 160/230 days: 120% 18.0/21.3; 100% 18.0/20.0; 80% 16.8/19.8 — no dedicated column. DMSH values throughout preserved implicitly via the letter groupings quoted here and in plant.csv. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: coordinates 19 deg 29’ 16” N, 98 deg 53’ 16” W (Methods p.348) — both DMS valid (<60) -> decimal Lat 19.4878, Long -98.8878 (West negative), consistent with Texcoco, State of Mexico. | Metadata: no zotero-export.csv present for this batch; DOI read from PDF p.1/p.2 header, confirmed against Crossref (https://api.crossref.org/works/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.43) — identical title, author list, journal, volume 1227, pages 347-354, no discrepancy.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 4.1 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 4.26 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.71 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.54 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 1.88 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 1.94 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.74 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.92 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 7.5 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 4.95 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 455.5 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 345.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Copper (Cu) | 18.5 | mg/kg | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Copper (Cu) | 23.75 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | 48.25 | mg/kg | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | 68.5 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | AP | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | 60.0 | mg/kg | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T1 | HYD | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | 323.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 4.16 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 4.26 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.51 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.54 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 1.8 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 1.94 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.88 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.92 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 6.18 | % | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 4.95 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 388.0 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 345.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Copper (Cu) | 20.37 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Copper (Cu) | 23.75 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | 76.38 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | 68.5 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | AP | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | 239.63 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T2 | HYD | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | 323.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 3.58 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | 4.26 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.58 | % | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.54 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 1.9 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 1.94 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.92 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 0.92 | % | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 5.11 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 4.95 | % | b | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 404.5 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | 345.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Copper (Cu) | 27.75 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Copper (Cu) | 23.75 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | 104.88 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | 68.5 | mg/kg | ab | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | AP | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | 300.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |
| pinedapinedaYieldTwoCultivars2018-T3 | HYD | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | 323.25 | mg/kg | a | Table 6, p.351 (second growing cycle only) |