Complementary Nutrients in Decoupled Aquaponics Enhance Basil Performance
Metadata
- Cite key: rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: D. Rodgers, E. Won, M.B. Timmons, N. Mattson
- Affiliation: Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Rodgers); Department of Animal Science, Cornell University (Won); Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University (Timmons); School of Integrative Plant Science, Horticulture Section, Cornell University (Mattson)
- Journal: Horticulturae 8(2) (2022) article 111
- Date: 01/2022
- Date added: 2026-08-10
- DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8020111
- Funding: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch/Multistate funds) and Cornell Cooperative Extension (Smith Lever funds), received via NIFA/USDA, Project No. 1237650; additional support from the Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center, Project No. 20183850028885
- URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8020111
- PDF:
Rodgers et al. - 2022 - Complementary Nutrients in Decoupled Aquaponics Enhance Basil Performance.pdf
Opinion
A clean, well-replicated (3 sequential 21-day trials, repeated Latin square, n=36/treatment, linear mixed models) three-way comparison, but the extractable numeric yield is thin: shoot fresh/dry biomass, height, SPAD, root:shoot ratio, and the full leaf-tissue mineral panel are reported only as bar charts (Figures 1, 2, 4) with relative-percentage statements in running text — no absolute values appear in any table. Per this vault’s never-read-a-figure rule, every one of those headline outcomes is
NRin trials.csv/plant.csv here, even though the paper’s entire argument rests on them. Only the solution-nutrient panel (Table 3, a real data table) and the day-21 harvest window are numerically extractable. Also worth flagging for the vault: this paper has no coupled-aquaponics (CAP) treatment at all — only DAP (unsupplemented decoupled) and DAP+ (25%-fertilizer-complemented decoupled), both against one conventional hydroponic control (CON). The secondhand summary already inmourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023.mdand (per the task brief) a second citing note describes this paper as finding “hydroponic basil outperforming both coupled and decoupled aquaponics” — the 21-day/25%-fertilizer details check out, but “coupled” is not accurate: there is no CAP arm here to have outperformed. It is also an overstatement of the DAP+ result specifically: CON only exceeded DAP+ on shoot biomass (11%); height, SPAD, and root:shoot ratio did not differ between CON and DAP+ at all. See Extraction notes for the full comparison. This note does not edit the citing papers’ files (out of scope per task instructions) but the discrepancy should be checked by whoever maintains those “Compared with” lines.
Abstract
Aquaponics combines raising fish and growing plants by recycling water and nutrients to reduce water consumption and reliance on chemical fertilizers. Coupled aquaponics systems recirculate water between fish and plant crops, whereas decoupled systems send mineralized fish effluent and wastewater unidirectionally to an independent hydroponic loop. Decoupling enables changes to the water, such as pH adjustments and complementary nutrient additions, to promote plant performance. In this study, basil, Ocimum basilicum (L.), was transplanted into 4 L containers filled with decoupled aquaponic (DAP), nutrient-complemented decoupled aquaponic (DAP+), or chemical-based conventional hydroponic (CON) nutrient solutions and grown for 21 days at pH 5.8. Plants grown in DAP+ and CON had greater biomass, height, and Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) chlorophyll index and lower root:shoot biomass ratios than those in DAP. Shoot fresh and dry biomass was 11% greater for CON than DAP+, while height, SPAD chlorophyll index, and root:shoot ratio did not differ. We concluded that added nutrients in DAP+ enhanced performance compared to DAP, and the biologically derived nutrition in DAP+ enhanced performance to be similar, but not equal, to CON. We cannot recommend specific adjustments to the targeted blend of complementary nutrients tested, but findings suggest that complementary nutrients are effective in decoupled aquaponics.
Summary
The authors grew Genovese basil in 4 L mini deep-water-culture buckets under three nutrient-solution treatments — unsupplemented decoupled aquaponic solution (DAP, mineralized koi RAS effluent, pH-adjusted only), the same DAP solution complemented with 25% (by mass) of the chemical fertilizer used in the hydroponic control (DAP+), and a conventional hydroponic control (CON) — across three sequential 21-day trials (June-August 2021) in a repeated Latin-square design, 12 plants/treatment/trial (n=36/treatment overall). They measured shoot fresh/dry biomass, height (including a height-over-time series), SPAD chlorophyll index, root:shoot dry-biomass ratio, and leaf-tissue mineral content, plus solution nutrient concentrations (N as nitrate-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, B, Cu, Mo) via ANOVA/Tukey HSD and linear mixed-effects models. DAP+ outperformed DAP on every measured parameter (e.g. 36% greater shoot fresh biomass, 53% greater dry biomass), supporting the hypothesis that complementary nutrients improve decoupled-aquaponic basil growth. DAP+ matched CON for height, SPAD index, and root:shoot ratio, but CON still produced 11% more shoot fresh and dry biomass than DAP+ — so DAP+ approached but did not fully equal conventional hydroponic performance. The authors attribute DAP+‘s near-parity with CON partly to biologically derived (rather than purely chemical) nutrition, note that leaf-tissue and solution nutrient patterns were sometimes contradictory (e.g. leaf Mg lower in DAP+ than DAP despite higher solution Mg), and conclude that more complementary fertilizer than the 25% tested may be needed to fully close the gap with hydroponics, without being able to specify an exact optimal blend.
Experiment data
- Location: Kenneth Post Lab Greenhouses, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA (glass greenhouse range, 7 x 10 x 7 m, east-west oriented)
- Design: 3 treatment solutions (CON, DAP, DAP+) x 3 sequential, identical 21-day trials (8 Jun-29 Jun; 30 Jun-21 Jul; 22 Jul-12 Aug 2021), repeated Latin square (4 squares/trial, 3 blocks of 3 treatments each), 12 plants/treatment/trial in individual 4 L buckets (mini deep water culture); seedlings randomly assigned to bucket positions
- Replicates / n: 12 plants (buckets) per treatment per trial; n=36 plants per treatment for the whole experiment (true experimental unit = individual bucket/plant, no sub-sampling)
- Duration: 21 days after transplant per trial (3 trials total, non-overlapping, same protocol)
- Organisms: Basil (Ocimum basilicum) cv. Genovese / Koi (Cyprinus carpio) (25 seven-year-old koi, water-source/mineralization-loop only, no fish growth data collected)
- Statistics: Linear mixed-effects models (fixed effect: treatment; random effects: trial, block nested in trial) for harvest-day parameters; a separate mixed model (fixed: treatment x days-after-transplant interaction; random: trial, plant ID) for the height time series, via
lmerTest, F-tests with Satterthwaite’s method; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons; ANOVA + Tukey HSD for solution/leaf-tissue nutrient concentrations; R 3.4.4 / RStudio- Shoot biomass: stated only as bar charts + relative percentages (Figure 1) — CON 11% greater than DAP+ (fresh and dry); DAP+ 36% (fresh) / 53% (dry) greater than DAP. No absolute gram values given in text or table anywhere in the paper.
- Height / SPAD / root:shoot ratio: CON ~ DAP+ > DAP (height, SPAD); CON ~ DAP+ < DAP (root:shoot ratio), all bar-chart only (Figure 2), no absolute values stated.
- Solution nutrients (Table 3, ppm, mean(SE)): NO3-N: CON 138.6(4.05) a > DAP+ 102.6(6.95) b > DAP 81.3(5.1) c; Fe: DAP+ 3.37(0.25) b > CON 2.40(0.17) a > DAP 0(0) c — the one nutrient where DAP+ exceeded CON.
Trial design and the “no coupled arm” point
This paper: Three treatments only: CON (conventional hydroponic, calcium nitrate + Jack’s 5-12-26 fertilizer), DAP (decoupled aquaponic, unsupplemented — pH-adjusted mineralized koi-RAS effluent, no added fertilizer), and DAP+ (DAP complemented with 25% by mass of CON’s fertilizer load, targeted at deficient macro/micronutrients per Table 1/2). There is no coupled aquaponic (CAP) treatment anywhere in the Methods, Results, or Discussion — the RAS and the crop buckets are never directly recirculated to each other; fish-tank/settling-tank waste is collected and mineralized in a separate 210 L barrel before reaching the crop side (Methods 2.4). Recorded as two trials.csv rows: T1 (DAP vs CON) and T2 (DAP+ vs CON), sharing one CON control.
Compared with:
- todo Roosta 2014 — basil, hydroponic:aquaponic irrigation ratio comparison; found similar performance to hydroponics only when the decoupled solution was complemented with more than one-third of the hydroponic fertilizer — broadly consistent with this paper’s finding that 25% supplementation narrows but does not close the gap (p.2, p.11)
- todo Knaus et al. 2020 — basil, decoupled aquaponics with 3 hydro-components and African catfish; found uncomplemented aquaponics already matched conventional hydroponic levels, opposite of this paper’s DAP result; authors attribute the discrepancy to Knaus’s higher stocking density and different fish species (p.2, p.11) — NB: distinct from the already-catalogued
knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024(different Knaus paper, HFS substrate, 2024), see Extraction notes - todo Delaide et al. 2016 — lettuce, decoupled aquaponic solution supplemented to fully match hydroponic target concentrations (100%, not 25%); found aquaponics outperformed hydroponics — already in vault as
delaideLettuceLactucaSativa2016(p.2) - todo Pickens 2015 — tomato and cucumber, uncomplemented decoupled aquaponics performed worse than conventional hydroponics, directionally consistent with this paper’s DAP (unsupplemented) result (p.11)
- todo Ayipio et al. 2019 — meta-analysis, coupled aquaponics can match or exceed conventional hydroponics depending on fish-plant combination and system type — already in vault as
ayipioComparisonsAquaponicConventional2019(p.2, p.11)
Shoot biomass, height, chlorophyll, and root:shoot ratio
This paper: All growth-performance outcomes are reported exclusively as bar charts (Figures 1, 2, 3) with relative-percentage or ordinal (“greater than”/“not different”) statements in running text — no table anywhere in the paper gives an absolute shoot fresh/dry weight, height, SPAD value, or root:shoot ratio. DAP+ was significantly greater than DAP on every measured parameter (36% more shoot fresh mass, 53% more dry mass; taller; higher SPAD; lower root:shoot ratio). CON exceeded DAP+ significantly only on shoot fresh and dry biomass (11% each); height, SPAD, and root:shoot ratio did not differ between CON and DAP+. Per this vault’s rule against reading numeric values off a figure, Plant height / SPAD / Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter are recorded NR in trials.csv despite being the paper’s central result — the percentages above are preserved in Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) since they are literal text, not figure-derived.
Compared with:
- todo Gillespie et al. 2020 — basil, low hydroponic solution pH reduces growth, nutrient uptake, and increases root rot incidence; cited to support the general finding that higher nutrient concentration improves crop performance (p.3)
Leaf tissue and solution nutrient status
This paper: Solution nutrient concentrations (Table 3, a genuine data table) differed significantly across treatments for NO3-N, P, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, B, Cu, and Mo, generally CON > DAP+ > DAP, except Fe and (single-measurement) B where DAP+ was highest, and P/Zn/Cu/Mo where DAP+ and DAP were statistically equal and both below CON. K did not differ across treatments. Leaf tissue nutrient concentrations (Figure 4, bar chart only, no data table) differed significantly only for Mg, Mn, and B: Mg and B were lower in DAP+ than DAP (CON not different from either), while Mn did not differ between DAP+ and CON but was lower in DAP; all other measured leaf elements (N, P, K, Ca, S, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mo) were not significantly different among treatments. The authors flag this as a genuine unresolved puzzle in their own Discussion (Section 4.3): leaf Mg was lower in DAP+ than DAP despite DAP+ having higher solution Mg, and visual deficiency symptoms (interveinal chlorosis) were more severe in DAP than DAP+ — a three-way contradiction (solution concentration vs. leaf tissue vs. visual symptom) the authors explicitly say they could not resolve, speculating the magnesium-sulfate form used in the complementary blend may not be well taken up.
Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the solution-vs-tissue nutrient contradiction specifically; presented as the authors’ own unresolved finding)
Linked claims
- Complementary chemical fertilizer improves decoupled aquaponic basil growth but does not fully close the gap with conventional hydroponics
- Unsupplemented decoupled aquaponic nutrient solution underperforms conventional hydroponics for basil
- Solution nutrient concentration and leaf tissue nutrient concentration can disagree in aquaponic systems
Citations to chase
- todo Roosta HR (2014) — Comparison of the vegetative growth, eco-physiological characteristics and mineral nutrient content of basil plants in different irrigation ratios of hydroponic:aquaponic solutions, Journal of Plant Nutrition 37:1782-1803 — already flagged as a citation-to-chase in
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023, dedupe there - todo Knaus U, Pribbernow M, Xu L, Appelaum S, Palm H (2020) — Basil (Ocimum basilicum) cultivation in decoupled aquaponics with three hydro-components (grow pipes, raft, gravel) and African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) production in northern Germany, Sustainability 12:8745 — NOT the same paper as the vault’s existing
knausAquaponicGrowthBasil2024(different Knaus basil/aquaponics paper, 2024, HFS substrate); new citation - todo Pickens JM (2015) — Evaluation of a decoupled aquaponic system for the intensive production of Marketmore 76 cucumber and Better Bush tomato, MS thesis, Auburn University
- todo Gillespie DP, Kubota C, Miller SA (2020) — Effects of low pH of hydroponic nutrient solution on plant growth, nutrient uptake, and root rot disease incidence of basil (Ocimum basilicum L.), HortScience 55:1251-1258
Extraction notes
Type classification: experiment. Randomized assignment stated explicitly (“36 seedlings…were transplanted randomly into the bucket systems,” Methods 2.3), true replication (individual buckets as experimental units, 12/treatment/trial x 3 trials), and formal inferential statistics (linear mixed-effects models, F-tests, Tukey HSD) — a clean match to SCHEMA.md’s experiment test.
Trial structure: Two trials.csv rows. T1 = DAP (unsupplemented decoupled aquaponic) vs CON. T2 = DAP+ (25%-fertilizer-complemented decoupled aquaponic) vs CON, sharing the same CON values in the HYD-labelled cells. There is no third (coupled-aquaponics) arm in this paper — see Opinion above regarding the citing notes’ “coupled and decoupled” phrasing.
Major extraction constraint — bar-chart-only headline results. Per SCHEMA.md’s rule that values shown only in a bar chart with no accompanying number in text or table must be recorded NR (“never read values off a figure”), the following are NR in trials.csv despite being central to the paper’s conclusions, because no absolute number appears anywhere except as bar height in Figures 1-2: Plant height, SPAD (aquaponics), Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, Plants/m2 (bucket spacing given as 30.5 cm on-center but converting to a density would be derivation, not unit conversion). Percentage-difference statements that ARE given as literal running text (11% CON>DAP+ fresh/dry biomass; 36%/53% DAP+>DAP fresh/dry biomass) are preserved in each row’s Experimental Remarks under NO COLUMN rather than discarded, since they are text-stated facts even though the underlying absolute values are not.
plant_measurements.csv scope decision: Leaf-tissue mineral content (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, B, Cu, Mo) is reported only in Figure 4 (bar chart, mean +/- SE, no data table) — no absolute numeric value for any element/treatment appears in running text either. Per the same figure-reading rule, all 48 plant.csv rows (12 elements x 2 systems x 2 trials) are recorded with Value/SD = NR. Significance is taken from the Results 3.5 running-text sentence, which names which three elements differed significantly (Mg, Mn, B) and their direction, rather than from reading the figure’s per-bar letter groupings directly — this mirrors the convention already used in pastorarbuluEnhancingGrowthYield2025.plant.csv for the same situation. Units (%DW for N/P/K/Ca/Mg/S, mg/kg DW for Fe/Mn/Zn/B/Cu/Mo) are taken from the figure’s axis-title text, which is a categorical label rather than a magnitude, so is treated as extractable; however, Methods 2.6 never explicitly states whether the pooled leaf sample was dried before ICP-AES/combustion analysis (only the separate root/shoot biomass sub-sample is explicitly stated as oven-dried) — [unclear] whether leaf-tissue nutrient % / mg-kg values are on a fresh- or dry-weight basis; noted in each plant.csv row’s Notes rather than assumed.
Solution nutrient panel (Table 3) is water chemistry, not plant tissue, and mostly has no trials.csv column. Table 3 gives NO3-N (labelled “N” in the table, confirmed as nitrate-nitrogen by Results 3.4’s running text: “Concentrations differed for nitrate-nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, sulfate-S, iron, manganese, zinc, boron, copper, and molybdenum”) — this maps directly to the trials.csv NO3-N column and was recorded (ppm treated as numerically equivalent to mg/L for dilute aqueous solution, not a unit conversion since the two units are equivalent for water). The other ten measured solution elements (P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, B, Cu, Mo) have no dedicated trials.csv column (P/N/K columns in the schema are feed composition, not solution chemistry) and are preserved in Experimental Remarks under NO COLUMN for each row rather than discarded or misfit into plant.csv (which is plant-analyte-only per SCHEMA.md). Table 3’s dispersion statistic is explicitly labelled standard error (“Mean nutrient concentrations in treatment solutions and (standard error)”), not SD — recorded as stated, per the kimComparisonWaterQuality2023 precedent of not converting SE to SD (would require multiplying by sqrt(n), a derivation not performed here).
Aq pH / pHOptimal mapping [unclear, judgment call]: the paper states two distinct, separately-controlled pH values: the RAS/fish system is adjusted to pH 7.0 daily using potassium carbonate (Methods 2.4), while all three crop-side treatment solutions (CON, DAP, DAP+ alike) are adjusted to pH 5.8 every 3-4 days (Methods 2.3). Recorded Aq pH = 7.0 (fish/RAS loop) and pHOptimal = 5.8 (crop-solution target, applied identically to all three treatments, not AP-specific). This mapping is a judgment call rather than a clean fit to the column definitions, since pHOptimal is not distinctively “optimal for the AP treatment” here — it is the shared target for all three solutions. Flagged for review rather than silently assumed.
Pump flow-rate ambiguity (not a contradiction, left NR): Methods 2.4 states the RAS sump pump is “rated at 113/57 Lpm” — two figures with no stated basis for the difference (likely a manufacturer spec at two different heads, not two measured operating conditions). Not treated as a paper-internal contradiction (a single spec sheet value, not two independently-reported facts disagreeing) but left out of the Water recycle column as ambiguous; both numbers given here for the record.
Boron single-measurement caveat: Table 3 footnote/data show Boron (B) was “only able to be performed once” per treatment (N=1, SE shown as “na” for all three treatments) — i.e., no dispersion is actually available for B despite appearing in the same table as the other, properly-replicated (N=4-5) elements. Not entered as a trials.csv cell (B has no dedicated column) but noted here since it affects how much weight the Fe/B “DAP+ highest” pattern mentioned in the Experiment data callout should be given for Boron specifically.
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish (both trials): Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition (only crude protein 38% and crude fat 8% given, Methods 2.4), % of body weight (fish fed a fixed 100 g/day ration, not a %BW ratio), Fish size initial/final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the 25 seven-year-old koi are a continuously-operated, mature maintenance stock feeding the mineralization loop, not tracked as a growth trial; no fish performance data of any kind is reported. Feed identity/composition (Blackwater Creek Farms Max Growth Diet, 4mm floating pellets, 38% protein/8% fat) and routine (100 g/day, pH adjusted to 7.0 daily) were recorded in Feed regime/Feed routine.
- Water (both trials): Water recycle (ambiguous dual pump rating, see above), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Dissolved Oxigen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N — none of these are given a numeric value anywhere; only instrumentation used (Oakton ECTestr 11, Bluelab METCOM Combo) is named without reported readings.
- Plant (both trials): Plant Category, Plants/m2, SPAD (aquaponics), Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (no tissue-nitrate food-safety assay performed; leaf ICP-AES/combustion measured total elemental N%, not nitrate ion) — see bar-chart-only constraint above.
- Efficiency: FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE — no fertilizer-use-efficiency or water-use-efficiency metric is computed or stated anywhere in the paper.
- Site: Lat/Long — only the place name (Kenneth Post Lab Greenhouses, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) is given; no coordinates stated anywhere in the paper, and per the prime directive none were filled from outside knowledge of where Cornell is located.
- AP/HYD (yield columns) — no per-area or per-system absolute yield figure exists (only per-plant bar-chart biomass with percentage differences, see above); left
NRrather than substituting the percentage differences, which are a different quantity (relative, not absolute).
NO COLUMN items (full detail in each row’s Experimental Remarks): Table 3’s full solution-nutrient panel (P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, B, Cu, Mo, ppm+-SE, all three treatments); Table 1/2’s targeted complementary-fertilizer recipe and calculated vs. target vs. measured concentration comparison; the 11%/36%/53% shoot-biomass percentage-difference statements; pump dual flow-rate spec; greenhouse dimensions and orientation; RAS/mineralization-tank equipment list and volumes (1500 L RAS total, 210 L mineralization barrel, individual settling-tank/biofilter volumes not stated); Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval (#2012-0127).
Tags judgment call: Tagged Meta/Fish/Koi (reusing the vault’s existing Koi leaf) even though koi in this paper are a mature, non-growing maintenance stock providing only mineralized water for the decoupled loop — consistent with how other vault notes (e.g. wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017) tag the fish species present even when no growth data is collected for it. Meta/Plant/Basil and Meta/Region/North-America reused exactly as spelled in existing vault notes (abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022, andersonGrowthTissueElemental2017). No new tag facets or leaves introduced.
New wikilink targets introduced: D. Rodgers, E. Won, M.B. Timmons, N. Mattson (no existing author notes found in the vault for any of the four). Reused existing canonical organism forms Basil (Ocimum basilicum) and Koi (Cyprinus carpio) (both already used in wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017/abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022).
PDF quality: Clean text layer throughout (14 pages, standard MDPI two-column layout), fully extractable, no OCR issues. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 are true raster/vector bar charts with no accompanying numeric data table — this is a genuine reporting limitation of the paper, not a PDF extraction problem.
Source: Rodgers et al. - 2022 - Complementary Nutrients in Decoupled Aquaponics Enhance Basil Performance.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
rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Koi (Cyprinus carpio L.) |
| Protein | 38 (Blackwater Creek Farms Max Growth Diet guaranteed analysis, Methods 2.4; single manufacturer spec, no SD/replicate stated) |
| Feed routine | Daily, fixed 100 g ration to the 25-koi RAS (Methods 2.4); not scaled to %body weight |
| Feed regime | 4 mm floating pellets, Blackwater Creek Farms Max Growth Diet, 38% crude protein / 8% crude fat, used within 6 months of mill date (Methods 2.4) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 1500 L (total RAS: 1.5 m diameter x 0.5 m deep tank + 2 settling tanks + sump; individual component volumes not stated except tank diameter/depth, Methods 2.4) |
| Aq pH | 7.0 (RAS/fish system, adjusted daily with potassium carbonate, Methods 2.4, p.4) |
| pHOptimal | 5.8 (target maintained in all three crop-side solutions incl. CON, adjusted every 3-4 days, Methods 2.3, p.3) |
| NO3-N | 81.3 +/- 5.1 (DAP; ppm treated as mg/L for dilute aqueous solution; Table 3, mean(SE) not SD, p.8) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) cv. Genovese |
| Details | 36 seedlings (of 200 available, 14-day-old, height SD=0.53 cm) transplanted randomly into 4 L DWC buckets; 12 plants/treatment/trial across 3 sequential 21-day trials (n=36/treatment total); repeated Latin square (4 squares/trial, 3 blocks x 3 treatments) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 21 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Deep water culture (mini-DWC, 4 L buckets, ‘representing mini deep water culture systems,’ Methods 2.3) |
| Media Details | 3 cm rockwool cubes for seedling/transplant support in a 2.5 cm lid hole; no other substrate, roots suspended directly in aerated nutrient solution |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Mineralization tank ‘functioned for over 6 months prior to trials to ensure stability in microbial activity’ (Methods 2.4, p.4)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Each 4 L bucket aerated with a 2x4 cm airstone on a central air pump (all treatments incl. CON); mineralization tank aerated with a 4x4x20 cm airstone for vigorous mixing (Methods 2.3-2.4)) |
| Iron supplemented | N (DAP arm received no added fertilizer, pH adjustment only (unsupplemented decoupled solution); measured solution Fe = 0(0) ppm (Table 3). CON (comparison arm) uses Jack’s 5-12-26 containing 0.30% chelated iron, target Fe 2.3 ppm (Table 2).) |
| Remineralization | Y (Siphoned fish wastewater/solid waste mineralized via aerobic microbial digestion + vigorous aeration in a 210 L HDPE barrel tank (59 cm diam x 88 cm depth); 6-12 h settling before collection, first 3-4 L discarded, tank running >6 months before trials (Methods 2.4)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (DAP solution pH-adjusted to 5.8 every 3-4 days using 0.73 M phosphoric acid (lower) or 0.72 M potassium carbonate (raise); same protocol applied to CON and DAP+ (Methods 2.3)) |
| Climate control | Y (Argus Titan monitoring/climate control system (heaters, evaporative cooling, supplemental lighting); mean temp 23.3+/-0.7C, mean DLI 24.7+/-2.8 mol/day (Methods 2.2)) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (Supplemental lighting is part of the Argus Titan climate control system used to help regulate DLI (mean 24.7+/-2.8 mol/day); no lamp type, fixture, intensity, or photoperiod stated (Methods 2.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (DAP is the unsupplemented decoupled aquaponic arm by design — no chemical fertilizer added, pH adjustment only (Methods 2.5)) |
| Equipment | Bluelab METCOM Combo pH/EC meter (calibrated weekly); Oakton ECTestr 11 conductivity meter (calibrated to 1413 uS/cm); Konica Minolta SPAD-502m chlorophyll meter; Argus Titan greenhouse monitoring/climate control system; AST XS-8000 bubble-bead biofilter; UV filter; 115V/1-phase/249W submerged utility pump (rated 113/57 Lpm); Cornell Nutrient Analysis Lab (Trial 1) / Dairy One (Trials 2-3) for solution+leaf tissue analysis (hot plate digestion + ICP-AES + C/N combustion) |
| Control Parameters | Crop solution pH target 5.8 (adjusted every 3-4 days, all 3 treatments); RAS pH target 7.0 (adjusted daily); greenhouse mean temp 23.3+/-0.7C; mean DLI 24.7+/-2.8 mol/day; fixed fish ration 100 g/day |
| Combination | Koi (Cyprinus carpio) RAS effluent mineralized in a separate barrel tank and fed, unsupplemented and pH-adjusted only, to a deep-water-culture basil (Ocimum basilicum) crop in a fully decoupled loop; this row = DAP vs CON comparison |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 23.3 +/- 0.7 C (mean for duration of experiment, Argus Titan climate control, Methods 2.2) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (shoot fresh/dry biomass, bar-chart only, not extracted); cm (height, bar-chart only); SPAD units (bar-chart only); ratio (root:shoot dry biomass, bar-chart only); ppm (solution nutrients, Table 3) |
| Statistic Details | Linear mixed-effects models (fixed: treatment; random: trial, block nested in trial) for harvest-day parameters; separate mixed model (fixed: treatment x days-after-transplant; random: trial, plant ID) for height-over-time; lmerTest package, F-tests with Satterthwaite’s method; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons; ANOVA + Tukey HSD for solution/leaf nutrient concentrations; R 3.4.4 / RStudio |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 36 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = decoupled aquaponic (DAP) treatment — unsupplemented decoupled aquaponic solution (settled/mineralized RAS effluent, pH-adjusted to 5.8 only, no chemical fertilizer added, Methods 2.5) vs conventional hydroponic control (CON, calcium nitrate + Jack’s 5-12-26 chemical fertilizer, pH 5.8). Paired control = CON, recorded in the HYD-labelled cells. Design: 3 identical sequential 21-day trials (8 Jun-29 Jun, 30 Jun-21 Jul, 22 Jul-12 Aug 2021), 12 plants/treatment/trial in a repeated Latin square (4 squares x 3 blocks x 3 treatments per trial), n=36 plants/treatment across the whole experiment; seedlings randomly assigned to bucket positions within each trial. This paper has NO coupled-aquaponics (CAP) arm — only DAP (this row, unsupplemented decoupled) and DAP+ (T2, 25%-fertilizer-complemented decoupled), both against the same CON. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (only fish count — 25 koi — and whole-RAS volume of 1500 L given, no per-tank volume or density stated; fish tank itself is 1.5 m diam x 0.5 m deep but computing a volume from those dimensions would be a geometric derivation, not a stated figure, so left NR rather than computed); Fish size initial/final, FCR, SGR, Fish weight gain, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Total Feed (kg) (fish are a mature 7-year-old maintenance stock, not part of a tracked growth trial — no weight, survival, or feed-total data reported at all, only a fixed daily ration and feed product identity); % of body weight (ration is a fixed 100 g/day, not stated as a %BW figure); Plants/m2 (bucket spacing given as 30.5 cm on-center, Methods 2.3, but converting spacing to a density would be derivation); Plant height/SPAD/Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter/Leaf count (Figures 1-2 are bar charts only — no absolute gram, cm, or SPAD-unit value is given in text or a table for any treatment, so all left NR per the never-read-a-figure rule). | NO COLUMN: Table 3 full solution-nutrient panel, ppm mean(SE) — P: DAP 29.1(2.9) b vs CON 90.4(3.6) a; K: DAP 178.9(19.6) vs CON 177.1(10.1), ns across all 3 treatments; Ca: DAP 49(2.1) c vs CON 176.1(3.0) a; Mg: DAP 17.9(0.7) c vs CON 47.0(0.7) a; S: DAP 28.7(2.1) c vs CON 91.8(4.5) a; Fe: DAP 0(0) c vs CON 2.40(0.17) a; Mn: DAP 0(0) c vs CON 0.42(0.02) a; Zn: DAP 0.02(0) b vs CON 0.22(0.01) a; B: DAP 0.09(na, n=1) vs CON 0.43(na, n=1); Cu: DAP 0.01(0) b vs CON 0.20(0.02) a; Mo: DAP 0(0) b vs CON 0.07(0) a. Dispersion in Table 3 is standard error (SE), not SD, as explicitly labelled in the table caption — recorded as stated, not converted. Table 1/2 targeted-blend recipe (not applicable to DAP, which received no complementary fertilizer) and Table 2 calculated-vs-target concentration comparison. Greenhouse dimensions 7x10x7 m (ridge), east-west oriented. IACUC approval 2012-0127 (Cornell).
rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Koi (Cyprinus carpio L.) |
| Protein | 38 (Blackwater Creek Farms Max Growth Diet guaranteed analysis, Methods 2.4; single manufacturer spec, no SD/replicate stated) |
| Feed routine | Daily, fixed 100 g ration to the 25-koi RAS (Methods 2.4); not scaled to %body weight |
| Feed regime | 4 mm floating pellets, Blackwater Creek Farms Max Growth Diet, 38% crude protein / 8% crude fat, used within 6 months of mill date (Methods 2.4) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 1500 L (total RAS: 1.5 m diameter x 0.5 m deep tank + 2 settling tanks + sump; individual component volumes not stated except tank diameter/depth, Methods 2.4) |
| Aq pH | 7.0 (RAS/fish system, adjusted daily with potassium carbonate, Methods 2.4, p.4) |
| pHOptimal | 5.8 (target maintained in all three crop-side solutions incl. CON, adjusted every 3-4 days, Methods 2.3, p.3) |
| NO3-N | 102.6 +/- 6.95 (DAP+; ppm treated as mg/L for dilute aqueous solution; Table 3, mean(SE) not SD, p.8) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) cv. Genovese |
| Details | 36 seedlings (of 200 available, 14-day-old, height SD=0.53 cm) transplanted randomly into 4 L DWC buckets; 12 plants/treatment/trial across 3 sequential 21-day trials (n=36/treatment total); repeated Latin square (4 squares/trial, 3 blocks x 3 treatments) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 21 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Deep water culture (mini-DWC, 4 L buckets, ‘representing mini deep water culture systems,’ Methods 2.3) |
| Media Details | 3 cm rockwool cubes for seedling/transplant support in a 2.5 cm lid hole; no other substrate, roots suspended directly in aerated nutrient solution |
| Biological system already in use | Y (Mineralization tank ‘functioned for over 6 months prior to trials to ensure stability in microbial activity’ (Methods 2.4, p.4)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Each 4 L bucket aerated with a 2x4 cm airstone on a central air pump (all treatments incl. CON); mineralization tank aerated with a 4x4x20 cm airstone for vigorous mixing (Methods 2.3-2.4)) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (DAP+ complementary blend includes Sprint 330 (10% DTPA Fe), 1.5 g/50L (Table 1), specifically added to reach CON-level Fe; measured solution Fe = 3.37(0.25) ppm b, HIGHER than CON’s 2.40(0.17) ppm a (Table 3) — the one nutrient where DAP+ exceeded CON.) |
| Remineralization | Y (Siphoned fish wastewater/solid waste mineralized via aerobic microbial digestion + vigorous aeration in a 210 L HDPE barrel tank (59 cm diam x 88 cm depth); 6-12 h settling before collection, first 3-4 L discarded, tank running >6 months before trials (Methods 2.4)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (DAP+ solution pH-adjusted to 5.8 every 3-4 days using 0.73 M phosphoric acid (lower) or 0.72 M potassium carbonate (raise); same protocol applied to CON and DAP (Methods 2.3)) |
| Climate control | Y (Argus Titan monitoring/climate control system (heaters, evaporative cooling, supplemental lighting); mean temp 23.3+/-0.7C, mean DLI 24.7+/-2.8 mol/day (Methods 2.2)) |
| Artificial Lighting | Y (Supplemental lighting is part of the Argus Titan climate control system used to help regulate DLI (mean 24.7+/-2.8 mol/day); no lamp type, fixture, intensity, or photoperiod stated (Methods 2.2)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (DAP+ = DAP solution complemented with 25% (by mass) of CON’s fertilizer load, formulated as a targeted blend (Table 1: Ca(NO3)2 10 g, MgSO4.7H2O 7 g, Sprint 330 1.5 g, H3BO3 0.15 g, MnSO4.H2O 0.1 g per 50 L; total 18.75 g/50L, Methods 2.5)) |
| Equipment | Bluelab METCOM Combo pH/EC meter (calibrated weekly); Oakton ECTestr 11 conductivity meter (calibrated to 1413 uS/cm); Konica Minolta SPAD-502m chlorophyll meter; Argus Titan greenhouse monitoring/climate control system; AST XS-8000 bubble-bead biofilter; UV filter; 115V/1-phase/249W submerged utility pump (rated 113/57 Lpm); Cornell Nutrient Analysis Lab (Trial 1) / Dairy One (Trials 2-3) for solution+leaf tissue analysis (hot plate digestion + ICP-AES + C/N combustion) |
| Control Parameters | Crop solution pH target 5.8 (adjusted every 3-4 days, all 3 treatments); RAS pH target 7.0 (adjusted daily); greenhouse mean temp 23.3+/-0.7C; mean DLI 24.7+/-2.8 mol/day; fixed fish ration 100 g/day |
| Combination | Koi (Cyprinus carpio) RAS effluent mineralized in a separate barrel tank, then complemented with 25% (by mass of CON’s fertilizer load) of a targeted chemical-fertilizer blend before reaching a deep-water-culture basil (Ocimum basilicum) crop in a fully decoupled loop; this row = DAP+ vs CON comparison |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | USA |
| Average room Temperature | 23.3 +/- 0.7 C (mean for duration of experiment, Argus Titan climate control, Methods 2.2) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g (shoot fresh/dry biomass, bar-chart only, not extracted); cm (height, bar-chart only); SPAD units (bar-chart only); ratio (root:shoot dry biomass, bar-chart only); ppm (solution nutrients, Table 3) |
| Statistic Details | Linear mixed-effects models (fixed: treatment; random: trial, block nested in trial) for harvest-day parameters; separate mixed model (fixed: treatment x days-after-transplant; random: trial, plant ID) for height-over-time; lmerTest package, F-tests with Satterthwaite’s method; Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons; ANOVA + Tukey HSD for solution/leaf nutrient concentrations; R 3.4.4 / RStudio |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 36 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = complemented decoupled aquaponic (DAP+) treatment — DAP solution complemented with a targeted chemical-fertilizer blend (Table 1: Ca(NO3)2, MgSO4.7H2O, Sprint 330 chelated Fe, boric acid, MnSO4.H2O; total 18.75 g/50L) equal to 25% by mass of the fertilizer used in CON, then pH-adjusted to 5.8 (Methods 2.5) vs conventional hydroponic control (CON). Paired control = CON, recorded in the HYD-labelled cells (same CON values as T1’s HYD columns, repeated per one-row-per-treatment convention). Design identical to T1 (see T1 remarks for full Latin-square/replication detail); same shared RAS/koi population and mineralization tank as T1. This paper has NO coupled-aquaponics (CAP) arm — see T1 remarks. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: same fish-side fields as T1 (Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Fish size initial/final, Fish weight gain, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Total Feed (kg), % of body weight) — see T1 remarks for full explanation, identical shared RAS. Plant height/SPAD/Plant fresh weight/Plant dry matter/Leaf count/Plants/m2 — Results 3.1 states ‘Mean shoot fresh biomass for CON was 11% greater than for DAP+… shoot dry biomass for CON was 11% greater than for DAP+’ and (from the DAP-side comparison) ‘DAP+ was 36% [fresh] / 53% [dry] greater than for DAP’ — these percentages are preserved here as literal text but no absolute gram/cm/SPAD value exists anywhere in the paper for any treatment, so all left NR per the never-read-a-figure rule (Figures 1-2 bar-chart only). Height, SPAD chlorophyll index, and root:shoot biomass ratio did NOT differ significantly between DAP+ and CON (Results 3.2) — this is the paper’s headline near-parity finding, but remains unquantifiable as an absolute cell value under this vault’s figure-reading rule. | WARN [unclear, not a contradiction] Leaf-tissue vs solution Mg direction: Discussion 4.3 (p.11-12) explicitly notes leaf-tissue Mg was LOWER in DAP+ than DAP (Figure 4) despite DAP+ having HIGHER solution Mg than DAP (Table 3: DAP+ 20.2(0.9) b vs DAP 17.9(0.7) c ppm) — the authors themselves call this an unresolved contradiction (‘Contradictions between nutrients concentrations in leaf tissue and solution were apparent and inconsistent with visual observations,’ p.11) and speculate the magnesium sulfate form used may not be well absorbed. This is the paper’s own acknowledged puzzle, not an extraction disagreement between two sources reported by the paper for the same fact, so not severity-tagged per SCHEMA.md’s ‘not a contradiction: two different quantities’ guidance (solution concentration and leaf tissue concentration are different measured quantities) — but flagged here since it materially affects interpretation. No leaf-tissue cell is populated in plant.csv (Value NR, bar-chart only) so no cell is directly affected. | NO COLUMN: Table 3 full solution-nutrient panel for DAP+, ppm mean(SE) — P: DAP+ 26.8(2.9) b; K: 179.4(20.7), ns; Ca: 81.8(2.1) b; Mg: 20.2(0.9) b; S: 52.3(3.1) b; Fe: 3.37(0.25) b (HIGHEST of the three treatments, the one nutrient where DAP+ exceeds CON); Mn: 0.73(0.11) b; Zn: 0.03(0) b; B: 0.63(na, n=1) (also numerically highest, but n=1 so no dispersion available); Cu: 0.01(0) b; Mo: 0(0) b. Table 1 complementary-blend recipe: Ca(NO3)2 10 g, MgSO4.7H2O 7 g, Sprint 330 (10% DTPA Fe) 1.5 g, H3BO3 0.15 g, MnSO4.H2O 0.1 g, total 18.75 g per 50 L batch. Table 2 target(CON)/DAP/complementary/calculated-DAP+ concentration comparison (ppm): e.g. Fe target 2.3, DAP 0, complementary +3, calculated DAP+ 3 (matches measured 3.37 within SE); N target 150, DAP 81.3, complementary +31, calculated DAP+ 112.3 (measured 102.6 — within range of expected variability, not a contradiction: target/calculated vs measured are different quantities and the paper itself notes ‘variability in nutrient concentrations for DAP because of the dynamic nature of the aquaponics system’). Dispersion in Table 3 is SE, not SD (table caption explicit), recorded as stated.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Sulfur (S) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Sulfur (S) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Boron (B) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Boron (B) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Copper (Cu) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Copper (Cu) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | AP | mineral | Molybdenum (Mo) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T1 | HYD | mineral | Molybdenum (Mo) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrogen (N) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Sulfur (S) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Sulfur (S) | NR | % (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Iron (Fe) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Iron (Fe) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Manganese (Mn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Zinc (Zn) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Boron (B) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Boron (B) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | p<0.05 | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Copper (Cu) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Copper (Cu) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | AP | mineral | Molybdenum (Mo) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |
| rodgersComplementaryNutrientsDecoupled2022-T2 | HYD | mineral | Molybdenum (Mo) | NR | mg/kg (basis unclear — see Notes) | ns | Figure 4, Results 3.5, p.8-9 |