Effects of foliar application of some macro- and micro-nutrients on tomato plants in aquaponic and hydroponic systems

Metadata

Cite key: roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: H.R. Roosta, M. Hamidpour
Affiliation: Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran (Roosta); Dept. of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran (Hamidpour)
Journal: Scientia Horticulturae 129 (3) (2011) 396-402
Date: 2011 (received 4 August 2010, revised 5 April 2011, accepted 6 April 2011)
Date added: 2026-08-10
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.006
Funding: Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan Research Council, project code Agr86HS308
URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.006
PDF: Roosta and Hamidpour - 2011 - Effects of foliar application of some macro- and m.pdf

Opinion

This is a genuine aquaponic experiment, not a hydroponic-only study — a real common/grass/silver carp polyculture RAS feeds a floating-raft tomato system, run head-to-head against a synthetic-nutrient-solution hydroponic control. (The task brief flagged the possibility of a pure-hydroponic paper by analogy with pastorarbuluEnhancingGrowthYield2025; that turned out not to apply here — full fish/RAS Methods sections, water-quality tables and carp harvest data are all present.) The design is unusual for this vault: the primary treatment factor is not stocking density or system type but foliar micronutrient spray (K, Mg, Fe, Mn, B, Zn, Cu vs. untreated control), crossed factorially with growing system (aquaponic vs. hydroponic), 3 replicate growth-bed rows per cell. This makes the paper simultaneously an AP-vs-HYD comparison AND a foliar-fertilization trial, and I split it into 8 trials.csv rows (one per foliar-nutrient level) rather than pooling. The main weakness for data extraction is that the paper’s own headline result — fruit yield, fruit number, and cluster number, all clearly measured and analyzed (Duncan’s letters on every bar) — is reported only as bar charts (Figs. 2-4), with zero numbers anywhere in text or a table. Per this vault’s never-read-a-figure rule, AP/HYD are NR in all 8 rows despite yield being the paper’s central finding; only the vegetative-growth table (Table 3: fresh/dry biomass, node/leaf number, height) and the pigment/SPAD/fluorescence table (Table 4) have actual numbers, and even Table 3’s per-organ weights don’t sum to a single reportable “plant fresh weight” without derivation. One internally-resolvable numeric conflict on fish stocking density (Methods vs. Results) is flagged WARN-MATERIAL below; a likely EC unit-label typo is WARN-MINOR. Worth citing for its foliar-correction angle (an under-explored remediation for aquaponics’ well-known low-K/Fe/Mn/B water) and because it resolves a #todo citation already pending in pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020.

Abstract

An aquaponic system was designed to investigate effects of foliar applications of some micro- and macronutrients on tomato growth and yield in comparison with a hydroponic system. Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked in the rearing tanks at 15, 20 and 15 fish m−3, respectively. The fish were fed three times daily with a pellet diet containing 46% protein. Fourteen days old tomatoes seedlings were transplanted on to growth bed units of aquaponic and hydroponic systems after stocking of carp fish for 2.5 months in the rearing tanks. Foliar nutrients application began 30 days after transplantation. Eight treatments were used, untreated control, foliar application at the rate of 250 mL plant−1 with 0.5 g L−1 K2SO4, MgSO4·7H2O, Fe-EDDHA, MnSO4·H2O, H3BO3, ZnCl2, and CuSO4·5H2O. Plants were sprayed twice a month. The results showed that biomass gains of tomatoes were higher in hydroponics as compared to aquaponics. Foliar application of K, Mg, Fe, Mn, and B increased vegetative growth of plants in the aquaponics. In the hydroponics, only Fe and B had positive effects on plant growth. Cluster number per plant in aquaponics was lower than in hydroponics treatments, but it increased with foliar application of elements. There was no difference in fruit number and yield between aquaponics and hydroponics grown plants in the control treatments. Except Cu, foliar spray of all elements significantly increased plant fruit number and yield in the aquaponics in order of: K > Fe > Mn > Zn > Mg > B. In the hydroponics, foliar application of K, Mg and Zn increased fruit number and yield of plants compared to control. These results indicated that foliar application of some elements can effectively alleviate nutrient deficiencies in tomatoes grown on aquaponics.

Summary

The authors built a 3-replicate Rakocy/UVI-style aquaponic system (carp rearing tank → clarifier → filter tank → degassing tank → floating-raft growth bed) at Vali-e-Asr University, Rafsanjan, Iran, stocked with a common carp / grass carp / silver carp polyculture, and ran it alongside a 3-replicate hydroponic control fed a standard modified-Hoagland-type nutrient solution. After the carp had conditioned the system for 2.5 months, 14-day-old tomato seedlings were transplanted into both systems and, from 30 days post-transplant, sprayed twice monthly for the rest of the 108-day trial with one of seven foliar micronutrient treatments (K2SO4, MgSO4, Fe-EDDHA, MnSO4, H3BO3, ZnCl2, CuSO4, each 0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant) or left as an untreated control — a full 2 (system) x 8 (foliar treatment) factorial, 3 replications. At harvest they measured vegetative biomass (fresh/dry mass of leaves, stems, roots), node number, leaf number, height, SPAD chlorophyll index, chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm), leaf pigments (chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids), and reproductive output (cluster number, fruit number, fruit yield, fruit fresh mass). Aquaponic plants had consistently lower vegetative biomass than hydroponic plants across every foliar treatment, attributed to the aquaponic system’s naturally low K, Fe, Mn and B (confirmed by the paper’s own water-chemistry table). Foliar K, Mg, Fe, Mn and B all significantly increased aquaponic vegetative growth relative to the aquaponic control, whereas only Fe and B did so in hydroponics — consistent with the aquaponic water being the more nutrient-limited environment. Reproductively, foliar spray of every element except Cu significantly increased aquaponic fruit number and yield (order K > Fe > Mn > Zn > Mg > B), while in hydroponics only K, Mg and Zn increased yield and B/Cu actually decreased it relative to control. Aquaponic leaves were paradoxically greener (higher chlorophyll a, higher young-leaf SPAD in the control treatment) than hydroponic leaves, which the authors attribute to more ammonium uptake in the fish-water system. The paper’s own water-quality table shows nitrite above the authors’ cited tolerance limit (1.57-1.69 vs. <0.2 mg/L) throughout, without any stated ill effect on carp survival (100%) or growth.

Experiment data

Location: Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran; greenhouse, 13h light (26±3°C) / 11h dark (22±3°C) phases, RH 52.4-63.2%

Design: 2 (growing system: aquaponic/hydroponic) x 8 (foliar treatment: untreated control + K, Mg, Fe, Mn, B, Zn, Cu) factorial, completely randomized design, 3 replications (independent growth-bed rows/units per system — 3 aquaponic units, 3 hydroponic units, Fig. 1); 8 plants/growth-bed unit, one per foliar treatment

Replicates / n: 3 (growth systems/rows) per system x foliar-treatment cell

Duration: Carp stocked and system conditioned 2.5 months before transplant; tomato seedlings (14 d old) transplanted, foliar spray began 30 days post-transplant (twice/month thereafter), trial concluded at 108 days post-transplant (fruit harvested weekly, 84-106 days post-transplant); total carp culture time to harvest “6 months”

Organisms: Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) / Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) / Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) (polyculture) / Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) (cultivar not stated)

Statistics: Two-factor factorial ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)

Vegetative growth (Table 3): Hydroponic > aquaponic across every foliar treatment for leaf/stem/root fresh mass, leaf/stem dry mass, leaf number, node number and height (P<0.05 for the system main effect). Within aquaponics, foliar K produced the largest biomass gains; within hydroponics, foliar B and Mg produced the largest gains.

Reproductive growth (Figs. 2-4, chart-only, no numeric values in text): No AP-vs-HYD difference in fruit number/yield at the untreated-control level. Except Cu, every foliar element significantly increased aquaponic fruit number and yield, order K>Fe>Mn>Zn>Mg>B. In hydroponics, K/Mg/Zn increased yield; B/Cu decreased it.

Chlorophyll content / SPAD (Table 4): Aquaponic control had higher young-leaf SPAD and chlorophyll a than hydroponic control; no system difference in Fv/Fm.

Vegetative growth (biomass, height, node/leaf number)

This paper: Table 3 gives full leaf/stem/root fresh and dry mass, node number, leaf number and height for all 16 system x nutrient cells. Hydroponic plants exceeded aquaponic plants for every biomass/growth variable at essentially every foliar-nutrient level (Results 3.3, p.397: “There was a significant difference (P<0.05) between two systems in terms of biomass gain”). Within the aquaponic system, foliar K gave the single largest response across almost every variable (LFM 515±40 vs. control’s 273±18 g/plant; RDM 61.2±1.3 vs. 42.9±1.9 g/plant), followed by B, Mn, Fe and Mg; foliar Cu did not improve aquaponic growth over control on most variables. Within hydroponics, only Fe and B exceeded the hydroponic control on most variables (Results 3.3: “In the hydroponics, only Fe and B had positive effects on plant growth”). The authors attribute the aquaponic system’s overall growth deficit to its water chemistry (Table 2: no P/K/Fe/Mn/S fertilization beyond fish excretion and a Fe-EDDHA root-zone top-up), and the foliar-K effect specifically to potassium not being added to fish feed and therefore chronically low in aquaponic water — a mechanism corroborated by Graber and Junge (2009)‘s report that fish water K was 45x lower than hydroponic solution in their own system (secondary citation, not this paper’s own measurement).

Compared with:

todo Pereira 2002 — lettuce irrigated with fish effluent had increased shoot fresh matter vs. well water, but no difference when both were chemically fertilized; framed as consistent with this paper’s foliar-supplementation-corrects-the-gap finding (Results 3.3, p.397-398)
todo Kaya et al. 2001 — foliar K increased tomato dry matter under salinity stress; cited as corroborating this paper’s foliar-K vegetative growth response (Results 3.3, p.398)
todo Tisdale et al. 1985 — similar foliar-K growth response observed, cited alongside Kaya et al. (Results 3.3, p.398)
todo Graber and Junge 2009 — fish water K reported 45x lower than hydroponic solution K, resulting in poorer tomato fruit quality (aquaponic fruit 22.0 g K/kg DM vs. hydroponic 40.8 g K/kg DM, secondary figures from that paper’s own system, not measured here); cited as the mechanistic basis for this paper’s foliar-K result (Discussion, p.399-400)

Reproductive growth: cluster number, fruit number, yield

This paper: Reported entirely as bar charts (Figs. 2-4) with Duncan significance letters and no numeric values anywhere in text or a table, so AP/HYD and no dedicated fruit-count/cluster-count columns hold any number for this paper (see Extraction notes). Qualitatively: cluster number per plant was lower in aquaponics than hydroponics at the control level, but increased with foliar application, most in aquaponic K and Fe treatments (Fig. 2); Cu decreased cluster number in hydroponics but had no significant effect in aquaponics. There was no significant AP-vs-HYD difference in fruit number or yield in the untreated-control treatments (Figs. 3-4) — a result the authors note agrees with Graber and Junge (2009)‘s finding of no yield difference between hydroponic and aquaponic tomato. Except Cu, every foliar element significantly increased aquaponic fruit number and yield, in the stated order K>Fe>Mn>Zn>Mg>B (Results 3.4, p.398). In hydroponics, K, Mg and Zn increased fruit number/yield vs. control, while B and Cu decreased them (Results 3.4). Fruit fresh mass (Fig. 5, per-fruit weight) showed smaller, less consistent differences than fruit number/yield.

Compared with:

todo Graber and Junge 2009 — no difference in fruit yield between hydroponically and aquaponically grown tomatoes, corroborating this paper’s control-treatment finding (Results 3.4, p.398)
todo Castro et al. 2006 — fish-effluent irrigation increased cherry tomato fruit number and productivity across the first three harvests, though with lower mean fruit weight — a fruit-number/fruit-weight trade-off the authors liken to their own foliar-treated aquaponic results (Results 3.4, p.398-399)
todo Prinsloo and Schoonbee 1987 — fish-effluent irrigation raised tomato yield from 64.5 to 95.8 t/ha vs. well water, cited as further precedent for fish-water-driven yield gains (Results 3.4, p.399)
todo Davis et al. 2003 — field-grown tomato: foliar B increased shoot/root dry weight and improved fruit set and total yield, cited as corroborating this paper’s foliar-B reproductive response (Discussion, p.399)

Water quality and system chemistry

This paper: Table 2 gives full growth-bed influent/effluent water chemistry. All fish-production-relevant parameters (pH, EC, DO) were within the paper’s own cited tolerance limits except nitrite, which averaged 1.57-1.69 mg/L against a stated <0.2 mg/L limit throughout the trial (Results 3.1, p.397) — noted by the authors as the one out-of-range parameter, without any stated consequence for carp survival (100% in all three species) or growth. The authors argue the aquaponic system’s alkaline pH (7.7) further suppresses Fe/Mn/Zn/B availability and uptake on top of the raw concentration deficit, strengthening the case for foliar correction (Discussion, p.399-400, citing Bertoni et al. 1992 and their own Roosta 2011).

Compared with:

todo Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998 — pond/aquaculture water-quality tolerance limits, source of Table 2’s reference column
todo Bertoni et al. 1992 — alkaline pH decreases Fe/Mn/Zn/B availability and uptake, cited as the mechanism compounding this paper’s aquaponic nutrient deficiency at pH 7.7 (Discussion, p.399)
todo Roosta 2011 — water alkalinity x nutrient solution pH interaction on lettuce Mg/Fe/Mn/Zn concentrations, this author’s own prior work, cited alongside Bertoni et al. for the same pH-availability mechanism

Chlorophyll, SPAD and fluorescence

This paper: In the untreated control, aquaponic plants had significantly higher young-leaf SPAD (40.08±0.65 vs. 34.47±2.51) and chlorophyll a (1502±37 vs. 1276±18 nmol/g FW) than hydroponic plants, despite lower vegetative biomass — the authors attribute this to greater (non-toxic) ammonium uptake by tomato roots in the fish-water system, citing their own prior cucumber work (Roosta and Schjoerring 2007; Roosta et al. 2009). Foliar Mg and Fe significantly increased chlorophyll b in both systems relative to control; foliar Mg also raised carotenoid content specifically in aquaponics. Maximal PSII quantum yield (Fv/Fm) did not differ significantly between systems or among foliar treatments for either young or old leaves (Table 4) — the one measured variable showing no system effect at all.

Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the SPAD/pigment/Fv/Fm results specifically beyond the ammonium-uptake mechanism citations above)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

This paper IS a genuine aquaponic experiment, not a hydroponic-only study. The task brief for this extraction speculated, by analogy with pastorarbuluEnhancingGrowthYield2025, that a “foliar application” title might signal a pure-hydroponic paper with no fish/RAS component. That is not the case here: Methods 2.1 describes a full 3-unit Rakocy/UVI-model RAS (fish rearing tank, clarifier, filter tank, degassing tank, floating-raft growth bed per unit), stocked with a common/grass/silver carp polyculture, with its own water-quality table (Table 2) and carp harvest data (Results 3.2). The fish/aquaponic block is fully populated (not NA) across all 8 trials. The paper’s “hydroponic” arm is a genuine parallel control system (separate nutrient-solution troughs, Fig. 1b), not the paper’s only growing condition.

Trial structure (8 rows, not 2 or 16): The paper is a full 2 (growing system: AP/HYD) x 8 (foliar nutrient: control + K/Mg/Fe/Mn/B/Zn/Cu) factorial, 3 replications, arranged as a single completely randomized design (Methods 2.4). Per SCHEMA.md, one row was created per aquaponic treatment — here, “aquaponic treatment” is naturally read as one row per foliar-nutrient level (the paper’s crossed factor), with AP/HYD-labelled cells holding that foliar-nutrient level’s aquaponic and hydroponic values respectively (i.e., paired by nutrient, not by presence/absence of foliar spray). This differs from the more common vault pattern where one hydroponic control is shared unchanged across several aquaponic rows (e.g. pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012): here, EVERY row’s HYD value is itself a distinct, independently-measured hydroponic-plus-foliar-treatment combination, because the paper’s own statistical design treats foliar nutrient as a factor applied identically to both growing systems. This is stated explicitly in each row’s TRIAL DEFINITION. An alternative design (2 rows: AP-vs-HYD pooled across nutrient, or 7 rows: only the treated nutrients, folding Control into both) was considered and rejected, because the paper reports and analyzes each system x nutrient cell as its own group (Table 3/4 give per-cell means with individual Duncan letters, not factor main effects only) — matching the interaction-preserving logic already used for pastorarbuluEnhancingGrowthYield2025’s 6-row 2x3 factorial.

⚠️WARN-MATERIAL — Initial Stock density, all three carp species (Methods 2.1, p.396 vs. Results 3.2, p.398). Methods: “Common carp…, grass carp…, and silver carp… were stocked in the rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, water depth 0.75 m, and water volume 848 L) at 15, 20 and 15 fish m−3, respectively.” Results: “Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m−3, respectively.” Both sentences describe the same stocking event in the same units (fish m⁻³), but give different numbers for all three species. Checked: 15 ÷ 0.848 m³ (Methods’ own stated tank water volume) = 17.69; 20 ÷ 0.848 = 23.58; 15 ÷ 0.848 = 17.69 — an exact match (to 2 decimal places) for all three species. This strongly indicates Methods’ “15, 20, 15” are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m³ unit, and Results independently reports the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states two paragraphs earlier. Recorded 17.69/23.58/17.69 fish m⁻³ (Results’ values) in the Initial Stock density cell for all 8 trials, as the more defensible reading; Methods’ “15, 20, 15” preserved in each row’s Experimental Remarks as the likely source of the mislabelling. Does not affect FCR (1.43, independently stated once), survival (100%, independently stated once), or harvest-mass cells (independently stated per species). Not added to REVIEW.md — this is MATERIAL (a defensible choice with a documented basis), not BLOCK/CHECK.

⚠️WARN-MINOR — EC unit label, Table 2 (p.398). Printed as “EC (Ms/cm)” — read literally (mega-Siemens/cm) this would be physically absurd for aquaculture water (many orders of magnitude too high; the paper’s own tolerance-limit column states EC should be <1.2). The measured values (0.51-0.54) are exactly the right order of magnitude for mS/cm (=dS/m), a standard water-EC unit, so this is treated as a capitalization typo (mS → Ms) rather than a value error. No cell affected — 0.51/0.54 recorded as printed, unit corrected to dS/m (equivalent unit, not a numeric conversion).

Judgment call — SPAD (aquaponics) cell uses young-leaf value. Table 4 splits SPAD (and Fv/Fm) into “old leaves” and “young leaves” columns, but the schema’s SPAD (aquaponics) column is a single cell. Young-leaf SPAD was chosen as the more standard “current leaf status” reading (consistent with how SPAD is typically reported as a single current value in most vault papers, and because the Results narrative discusses “SPAD value of young leaves” as its primary point of comparison, p.399). Old-leaf SPAD (both systems) and young-leaf SPAD (HYD side) are preserved in each row’s Experimental Remarks and in plant.csv (all four System x age combinations are present there as separate rows). This is a schema-column ambiguity, not a paper-internal contradiction, so it is not severity-tagged.

Judgment call — foliar Fe trial (T2) has two independent Fe inputs. All 8 aquaponic trials receive the same constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline (2 mg/L, biweekly, Methods 2.2) regardless of foliar treatment. T2 (foliar Fe) additionally receives foliar Fe-EDDHA spray on top of that baseline — the only trial where the Iron supplemented (baseline) and Nutrient supplemented (foliar) columns both describe the same element via two different delivery routes. Noted explicitly in T2’s Nutrient supplementedDetails to prevent this being misread as double-counting or as a value conflict.

plant_measurements.csv scope: Table 4’s SPAD (both leaf ages), chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoid values were extracted to plant.csv (Category=biochemistry), for both AP and HYD, across all 8 trials (80 rows total: 8 trials x 2 systems x 5 analytes). Fv/Fm (maximal PSII quantum yield, both leaf ages) was excluded from plant.csv — it is a dimensionless fluorescence-efficiency ratio, not a pigment/mineral/microbial/proximate analyte, and does not fit any of the four defined categories, matching the precedent set in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023 for excluding JIP-test fluorescence parameters. Both Fv/Fm values are preserved narratively in this note and in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN). Table 3’s growth biometrics (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM, node number) are vegetative biomass, not tissue analytes, so they were not routed to plant.csv either (same precedent) — they are described narratively above and preserved per-trial in Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN); Height and Leaf count, which ARE dedicated trials.csv columns, hold the AP-side value only (per the vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012), with the HYD-side value given in each row’s remarks.

No water panel excluded beyond what’s noted in each row’s remarks — Table 2’s full mineral/physical water panel (alkalinity, hardness, TDS, NaCl%, water K/P/Ca/Fe/Zn/Cu) has no trials.csv column home and does not fit plant_measurements.csv’s plant-analyte scope; both influent and effluent values are preserved in full under NO COLUMN in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks (identical across all 8 rows, since one shared water system feeds all three aquaponic replicate units regardless of which foliar nutrient a given plant received).

Figure-only data, never entered as a cell value (per the never-read-a-figure rule): cluster number/plant (Fig. 2), fruit number/plant (Fig. 3), yield g/plant (Fig. 4), fruit fresh mass g/fruit (Fig. 5) — all four are bar charts with Duncan significance letters and zero numeric values anywhere in the running text or a table, for any of the 16 system x nutrient cells. This means the paper’s own headline result (yield) has no AP/HYD cell value in any of the 8 rows, despite being clearly measured, replicated and statistically analyzed. This is worth flagging explicitly per CLAUDE.md’s instruction to say so when a repeated field is missing across a whole batch: this is the second paper in a row (pastorarbuluEnhancingGrowthYield2025, then this one) where the paper’s central yield result is chart-only and therefore unusable in trials.csv as written. If this keeps recurring, it may be worth reconsidering whether “significant per Duncan letter, magnitude inferable only qualitatively” deserves a distinct cell convention rather than blanket NR.

[not reported]/[unclear] fields, grouped, across all 8 trials:

Fish: Fish Category, SGR, feed N, feed K, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) (only “6 months” stated, not convertible to an exact day count without assuming a month length — unlike the fixed 7-day week-to-day conversion SCHEMA.md permits), Water recycle (pump runs continuously, no flow rate stated), Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal (pH explicitly not adjusted, so no optimal/target value exists to report), FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (never assessed — this paper measures fruit/leaf mineral status only qualitatively, “data not shown,” Results 3.3).
Plant: Plant Category (tomato never given a categorical label beyond species name), Plants/m2 (8 plants/growth-bed unit stated, bed area in m² never given), Plant fresh weight and Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given; summing to one total would be derivation), Artificial Lighting (not mentioned at all — only the 13h/11h light/dark phase is given, with no statement of whether this is natural daylight, shading, or supplemental lighting).
Site: Lat, Long — Rafsanjan, Iran is named as the institution’s location but no coordinates are given anywhere in the paper, and per the prime directive these are not looked up from outside knowledge.

Tags judgment call: Meta/Fish/Carp introduced as a new tag facet — no existing vault paper tags a general “Carp” facet, though lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019 already uses the more specific Meta/Fish/Grass-Carp. Since this paper is a mixed common/grass/silver carp polyculture (not grass carp alone), a general Meta/Fish/Carp tag was used rather than three separate species-level tags, to avoid over-fragmenting a three-species mixed-stocking trial across three new facets; the species breakdown is preserved in the Fish column and note text. Meta/Region/Middle-East reused (matches the convention already used for other Iran/Gulf-region papers, e.g. abusinSustainableFoodProduction2020, albloushiEffectStockingDensity2018, aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026). Meta/Plant/Tomato reused from pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020.

New wikilink targets introduced: H.R. Roosta, M. Hamidpour (no existing author notes found in the vault under these or other spellings). Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) (no existing species notes found). Reused Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) exactly as spelled in pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020.

Resolves a pending vault citation: pinedapinedaResponseTilapiaTomato2020’s Citations to chase already lists “Roosta, H.R.; Hamidpour, M. (2011)” as a #todo — this note is that paper. That citation entry can be checked off when the vault’s citation-tracking is next reconciled (not done automatically here, since this agent was scoped to only its own three output files).

PDF quality: Clean text layer, 7 pages including references, fully extractable. Two OCR/typesetting artifacts noted (not treated as data problems): “Tape water” for “Tap water” (Methods 2.2) and reflowed/hyphen-broken text in Table 3’s column values on p.400 (e.g. “Plan grown in hydroponic systems were nourished with a nutrient sol[ution]…” — reconstructed from context, no numeric values affected). Table 3 and Table 4 both use Duncan’s-test superscript letter groupings (a, b, ab, a-d, etc.) rather than numeric p-values or SD-only reporting; these were preserved in plant.csv Significance cells exactly as printed, using hyphens for letter ranges (e.g. “a-d” for the source’s “a–d”).

Source: Roosta and Hamidpour - 2011 - Effects of foliar application of some macro- and m.pdf

Data Tables

Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's trials.csv / plant_measurements.csv datasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).

Trial Parameters

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	40.08 +/- 0.65 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	194 +/- 15
Leaf count	20.3 +/- 2.3

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	N (Untreated control — no foliar nutrient spray applied; plants otherwise handled identically to the other 7 treatments (Methods 2.2).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar Control treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = untreated control (no foliar spray) — aquaponic (carp-water-fed floating raft) vs hydroponic (complete mineral nutrient solution) comparison, with foliar-nutrient application as the paper’s second crossed factor held at its control level. Paired control = HYD Control (same row, HYD-labelled cells). Design: 2 (system: AP/HYD) x 8 (foliar nutrient: control + 7 elements) factorial in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (independent growth-bed rows/units per system, Methods 2.4, Fig. 1); this trial = the AP-vs-HYD comparison at the ‘no foliar spray’ level of the second factor. | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 273 +/- 18 / HYD 485 +/- 26 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 193 +/- 23 / HYD 340 +/- 23 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 234 +/- 33 / HYD 286 +/- 8 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 55 +/- 3.1 / HYD 111 +/- 10.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 33.5 +/- 1.9 / HYD 56.9 +/- 2.5 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 42.9 +/- 1.9 / HYD 29.0 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 11.3 +/- 1.3 / HYD 10.7 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 20.3 +/- 2.3 / HYD 30.7 +/- 0.7 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 194 +/- 15 / HYD 258 +/- 7 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 29.45+/-1.34 / HYD 32.02+/-1.46; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.683+/-0.019 / HYD 0.690+/-0.015; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.710+/-0.006 / HYD 0.700+/-0.025 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (Control); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=none.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	44.33 +/- 1.57 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	230 +/- 6
Leaf count	27.3 +/- 0.9

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of Fe-EDDHA (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar Fe treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = foliar Fe (Fe-EDDHA) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD Fe (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). NOTE: distinct from the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline supplementation (2 mg/L biweekly) applied to ALL aquaponic growth beds regardless of foliar treatment (see Iron supplemented columns) — this trial’s aquaponic plants therefore received BOTH the baseline root-zone Fe AND the foliar Fe spray, unlike the other 6 nutrient trials which received baseline root-zone Fe only (no root-zone spray of K/Mn/B/Mg/Zn/Cu). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 317 +/- 10 / HYD 593 +/- 10 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 265 +/- 13 / HYD 423 +/- 29 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 222 +/- 5 / HYD 481 +/- 12 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 85 +/- 0.8 / HYD 98 +/- 10.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 55.4 +/- 1.9 / HYD 57.8 +/- 1.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 38.2 +/- 2.6 / HYD 46.5 +/- 2.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 12.3 +/- 0.3 / HYD 11.7 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 27.3 +/- 0.9 / HYD 27.7 +/- 1.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 230 +/- 6 / HYD 247 +/- 4 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 30.57+/-1.62 / HYD 35.38+/-0.85; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.713+/-0.015 / HYD 0.723+/-0.012; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.750+/-0.006 / HYD 0.750+/-0.006 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (Fe); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=Fe.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	42.67 +/- 1.76 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	240 +/- 12
Leaf count	28.0 +/- 1.5

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of K2SO4 (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar K treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = foliar K (K2SO4) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD K (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 515 +/- 40 / HYD 508 +/- 19 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 426 +/- 15 / HYD 330 +/- 21 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 435 +/- 11 / HYD 370 +/- 15 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 178 +/- 12.0 / HYD 114 +/- 8.5 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 69.2 +/- 3.6 / HYD 57.9 +/- 0.9 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 61.2 +/- 1.3 / HYD 35.9 +/- 3.2 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 9.7 +/- 0.3 / HYD 10.7 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 28.0 +/- 1.5 / HYD 28.7 +/- 2.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 240 +/- 12 / HYD 256 +/- 5 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 29.48+/-1.71 / HYD 35.96+/-0.63; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.713+/-0.007 / HYD 0.707+/-0.003; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.710+/-0.032 / HYD 0.713+/-0.003 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (K); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=K.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	43.85 +/- 1.64 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	236 +/- 24
Leaf count	24.0 +/- 1.2

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of MnSO4.H2O (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar Mn treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = foliar Mn (MnSO4.H2O) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD Mn (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 332 +/- 12 / HYD 405 +/- 12 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 313 +/- 16 / HYD 320 +/- 10 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 274 +/- 16 / HYD 272 +/- 18 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 61 +/- 4.7 / HYD 67 +/- 4.9 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 50.8 +/- 5.1 / HYD 53.5 +/- 3.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 41.2 +/- 3.1 / HYD 35.1 +/- 1.8 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 9.3 +/- 0.3 / HYD 12.7 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 24.0 +/- 1.2 / HYD 25.7 +/- 1.2 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 236 +/- 24 / HYD 261 +/- 1 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 31.47+/-0.77 / HYD 32.10+/-0.87; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.717+/-0.012 / HYD 0.693+/-0.018; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.710+/-0.017 / HYD 0.710+/-0.015 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (Mn); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=Mn.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	44.17 +/- 2.37 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	230 +/- 13
Leaf count	26.0 +/- 1.5

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of H3BO3 (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar B treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T5 = foliar B (H3BO3) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD B (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 385 +/- 40 / HYD 630 +/- 42 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 358 +/- 17 / HYD 447 +/- 22 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 303 +/- 8 / HYD 249 +/- 16 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 80 +/- 3.1 / HYD 81 +/- 5.8 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 58.6 +/- 5.4 / HYD 71.0 +/- 1.9 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 60.7 +/- 3.2 / HYD 30.2 +/- 2.4 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 12.7 +/- 0.3 / HYD 12.0 +/- 0.6 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 26.0 +/- 1.5 / HYD 28.0 +/- 3.1 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 230 +/- 13 / HYD 246 +/- 13 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 29.78+/-0.52 / HYD 34.07+/-1.28; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.713+/-0.009 / HYD 0.720+/-0.020; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.730+/-0.010 / HYD 0.720+/-0.021 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (B); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=B.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	43.90 +/- 2.23 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	216 +/- 22
Leaf count	23.7 +/- 2.9

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of MgSO4.7H2O (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar Mg treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T6 = foliar Mg (MgSO4.7H2O) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD Mg (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 252 +/- 28 / HYD 637 +/- 35 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 233 +/- 29 / HYD 421 +/- 22 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 314 +/- 20 / HYD 340 +/- 27 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 44 +/- 6.3 / HYD 171 +/- 19.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 42.5 +/- 2.5 / HYD 63.0 +/- 1.8 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 51.4 +/- 0.9 / HYD 30.0 +/- 2.4 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 11.0 +/- 0.6 / HYD 13.0 +/- 0.6 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 23.7 +/- 2.9 / HYD 29.7 +/- 2.2 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 216 +/- 22 / HYD 258 +/- 1 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 28.27+/-1.19 / HYD 33.77+/-0.39; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.713+/-0.009 / HYD 0.700+/-0.021; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.733+/-0.009 / HYD 0.727+/-0.023 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (Mg); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=Mg.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	39.92 +/- 2.50 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	230 +/- 20
Leaf count	24.0 +/- 2.1

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of ZnCl2 (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar Zn treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T7 = foliar Zn (ZnCl2) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD Zn (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 285 +/- 25 / HYD 458 +/- 24 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 246 +/- 17 / HYD 288 +/- 19 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 244 +/- 20 / HYD 407 +/- 17 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 46 +/- 2.1 / HYD 78 +/- 7.5 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 45.1 +/- 0.6 / HYD 44.1 +/- 2.6 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 45.4 +/- 0.8 / HYD 38.7 +/- 2.4 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 12.0 +/- 1.0 / HYD 10.0 +/- 0.6 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 24.0 +/- 2.1 / HYD 28.3 +/- 1.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 230 +/- 20 / HYD 262 +/- 2 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 32.43+/-0.36 / HYD 34.18+/-1.60; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.687+/-0.024 / HYD 0.693+/-0.018; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.713+/-0.015 / HYD 0.710+/-0.031 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (Zn); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=Zn.

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Common carp (Cyprinus carpio); grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella); silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) — polyculture
Initial Stock density	17.69 (common carp) / 23.58 (grass carp) / 17.69 (silver carp) fish m-3 — WARN-MATERIAL, see Experimental Remarks
FCR	1.43
Protein	46
P	1.5
% of body weight	3
Fish size initial	160-180 (range, no single mean stated, Methods 2.1)
Fish size final	473 (common carp) / 414 (grass carp) / 387 (silver carp) g — per-species means, Results 3.2, see Experimental Remarks
Feed routine	3 times daily
Feed regime	Pellet diet, 46% crude protein (Table 1: fat 13%, ash 13%, fibre 2.5%, phosphorous 1.5%, moisture 11%), fed at mean 3% body weight/day
Fish survival rate	100

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	848 (per fish rearing tank, x3 units; clarifier/filter tank/degassing tank/growth bed volumes not stated; system total not given as one figure, Methods 2.1)
Water type	Tap water (Methods 2.2; printed ‘Tape water’ in source PDF, treated as a typo)
Aq pH	7.68 +/- 0.18 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 7.70 +/- 0.06, see Experimental Remarks)
Dissolved Oxigen	6.03 +/- 0.06 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 6.10 +/- 0.06)
EC	0.51 +/- 0.01 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.54 +/- 0.02; printed unit ‘Ms/cm’, WARN-MINOR treated as mS/cm=dS/m, see remarks)
Water temperature	25.7 +/- 0.74 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 25.7 +/- 0.82)
TAN / NH4-N	0.32 +/- 0.02 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 0.33 +/- 0.02)
NO2-N	1.57 +/- 0.30 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 1.69 +/- 0.32; both exceed paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit, flagged by authors, Results 3.1)
NO3-N	34.9 +/- 2.1 (growth-bed effluent, Table 2; influent 34.6 +/- 3.1)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), cultivar not stated
Details	14-day-old seedlings (grown in perlite pots) transplanted to floating-raft growth beds after carp pre-stocked 2.5 months; trellised, pruned to single leader stem; foliar spray began 30 days after transplant, twice/month; fruit harvested weekly 84-106 days after transplant; final biomass/height/node/leaf measurements at end of 108-day trial (Methods 2.2)
Days Plant after transplant	108
SPAD (aquaponics)	39.17 +/- 1.31 (young leaves, AP; judgment call — see Extraction notes for old-leaf/HYD values)
Plant height	200 +/- 29
Leaf count	17.0 +/- 3.2

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft system (Introduction p.396; Fig. 1)
Media Details	Perlite-filled pots (used for 14-day seedling stage), transferred into floating-raft growth-bed units at transplant (Methods 2.2)
Biological system already in use	Y (Carp stocked and system run continuously for 2.5 months before tomato transplant, to establish and maintain stable nitrifying bacterial populations (Methods 2.1-2.2))
Air supplement	Y (10 air diffusers (2 L/min each) in each growth bed unit and each fish-rearing tank, cleaned monthly; 3 additional diffusers in the degassing tank (Methods 2.1))
Iron supplemented	Y (Root-zone baseline (applies to all 8 trials’ AP side, independent of the foliar-nutrient factor): Fe-EDDHA added to aquaponic growth-bed water at 2 mg/L once every two weeks — ‘the only nutrient supplementation in plant growth bed unit of aquaponic systems’ (Methods 2.2). HYD side uses standard complete nutrient solution with 20 uM Fe-EDDHA built into the recipe (not a ‘supplement’ in the added-extra sense).)
Remineralization	N (Methods 2.2 explicitly states Fe was ‘the only nutrient supplementation’ in the aquaponic growth bed — no broader remineralization performed.)
pH Buffers	N (‘The pH value of water was not adjusted during the experiment; it was in the range of 7.0-7.7’ (Methods 2.1).)
Climate control	Y (Greenhouse cooled with central cooler supplying cool air; 13h light phase 26+/-3C, 11h dark phase 22+/-3C; RH 52.4-63.2% (Methods 2.2))
Nutrient supplemented	Y (Foliar spray of CuSO4.5H2O (0.5 g/L, 250 mL/plant), applied twice/month beginning 30 days after transplant, continuing through the 108-day trial (Methods 2.2). Applied identically to both AP- and HYD-grown plants in this row (foliar spray is independent of growing-system water source).)
Equipment	SPAD-502 Chlorophyll Meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Japan); Plant Efficiency Analyzer Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK); standard methods for pH/alkalinity/TDS/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N/DO/water temperature (specific instrument models not stated, Methods 2.3)
Control Parameters	Greenhouse 13h light (26+/-3C)/11h dark (22+/-3C); RH 52.4-63.2%; aquaponic water pH unadjusted, ranged 7.0-7.7; DO tolerance >6 mg/L, EC<1.2 (dS/m), NO2-N<0.2 mg/L, NO3-N<150 mg/L, pH 7-8 (Table 2 tolerance limits, citing Graber and Junge 2009; Boyd 1992; Boyd and Tucker 1998)
Combination	Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture and tomato (floating raft) in a coupled aquaponic system vs. hydroponic control; this row = foliar Cu treatment, tested identically on AP- and HYD-grown plants within the paper’s 2x8 factorial design (Methods 2.4)

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle-East
Country	Iran
Average room Temperature	26 +/- 3 (13h light phase) / 22 +/- 3 (11h dark phase), C (Methods 2.2)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g plant-1 (LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/yield); cm (height); count (leaf/node number); SPAD units; dimensionless (Fv/Fm); nmol g leaf FM-1 (Chl a/b, carotenoids); mg L-1 (water quality); fish m-3 (stocking density); g (fish weight); % (survival, protein, body-weight ration)
Statistic Details	Two-factor factorial (growing system x foliar nutrient) in a completely randomized design, 3 replications (growth systems); ANOVA (SAS program); Duncan’s multiple range test post-hoc when F-test p<0.05 (Methods 2.4)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T8 = foliar Cu (CuSO4.5H2O) spray treatment — aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison at this foliar-nutrient level. Paired control = HYD Cu (same row, HYD-labelled cells) — i.e. the SAME foliar nutrient applied to hydroponic-grown plants, per the paper’s own 2x8 factorial design (system x foliar nutrient), NOT the AP Control (no-spray) row. Design: 2 (system) x 8 (foliar nutrient) factorial, completely randomized, 3 replications (Methods 2.4). | SHARED FISH/WATER DATA (identical across all 8 trials, one shared RAS/aquaponic water source feeds all three replicate aquaponic units regardless of foliar-nutrient sub-treatment; see roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1 Experimental Remarks for full detail and WARN flags): Common carp/grass carp/silver carp polyculture stocked in 3 identical 848 L rearing tanks (diameter 1.2 m, depth 0.75 m), initial mass range 160-180 g, cultured 6 months total (2.5 months pre-transplant + through the 108-day plant trial). FCR 1.43 (pooled across all three species, Results 3.2, p.398). Survival 100% all species. Mean harvest mass: common carp 473 g, grass carp 414 g, silver carp 387 g (Results 3.2). Production at harvest: common carp 8367, grass carp 9764, silver carp 6846 g/m3 (Results 3.2; NO COLUMN, areal/volumetric production distinct from Fish biomass created). Water quality (Table 2, growth-bed effluent used for Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N cells per SCHEMA’s plant-bed-value rule; growth-bed influent given here for reference): DO 6.03+/-0.06 (effluent) vs 6.10+/-0.06 (influent) mg/L; pH 7.68+/-0.18 (effluent) vs 7.70+/-0.06 (influent); EC 0.51+/-0.01 (effluent) vs 0.54+/-0.02 (influent) [printed unit ‘Ms/cm’ in Table 2, treated as WARN-MINOR typo for mS/cm=dS/m, physically implausible as printed since MS/cm would be many orders of magnitude too high for aquaculture water; values consistent with the paper’s own <1.2 dS/m tolerance-limit column]; Water temp 25.7+/-0.74 (effluent) vs 25.7+/-0.82 (influent) C; NO3-N 34.9+/-2.1 (effluent) vs 34.6+/-3.1 (influent) mg/L; NO2-N 1.57+/-0.30 (effluent) vs 1.69+/-0.32 (influent) mg/L, both exceeding the paper’s own <0.2 mg/L tolerance limit — flagged by the authors themselves (Results 3.1, p.397) as the one out-of-range parameter; NH4-N 0.32+/-0.02 (effluent) vs 0.33+/-0.02 (influent) mg/L. NO COLUMN water panel (Table 2, effluent/influent): Total alkalinity 249+/-62 / 250+/-67 mg/L CaCO3; Total hardness 161.6+/-5.7 / 162+/-12 mg/L; TDS 338+/-24 / 327+/-12 mg/L; NaCl 0.63+/-0.15% / 1.02+/-0.14%; water K 25.9+/-3.2 / 26.7+/-5.2 mg/L; water P 7.50+/-0.43 / 7.98+/-0.59 mg/L; Ca hardness 34.2+/-0.36 / 34.2+/-0.23 mg/L; water Fe 0.21+/-0.03 / 0.21+/-0.02 mg/L; water Zn 0.36+/-0.02 / 0.37+/-0.01 mg/L; water Cu 0.042+/-0.02 / 0.042+/-0.01 mg/L. WARN-MATERIAL Initial Stock density, all three species (Methods 2.1 p.396 vs Results 3.2 p.398): Methods states carp ‘stocked in the rearing tanks…at 15, 20 and 15 fish m-3, respectively’ for common/grass/silver carp. Results 3.2 states ‘Common carp, grass carp and silver carp were stocked at 17.69, 23.58 and 17.69 fish m-3, respectively’ — a different density for all three species, same units, same population. Checked: 15/0.848 m3 (the stated per-tank water volume, Methods 2.1) = 17.69; 20/0.848 = 23.58; 15/0.848 = 17.69 — exact match (2 dp) for all three species, strongly suggesting Methods’ ‘15, 20, 15’ are raw per-tank fish COUNTS mislabelled with a fish/m3 unit, and Results’ values are the correctly computed densities using the tank volume Methods itself states. Recorded Results’ values (17.69, 23.58, 17.69 fish/m3) in the Initial Stock density cell as the defensible reading; Methods’ figures preserved here as the origin of the apparent count-vs-density mislabelling. Does not affect FCR, survival, or harvest-mass cells (independently stated). Not entered in REVIEW.md (MATERIAL, not BLOCK/CHECK). | NO COLUMN Table 3 growth biometrics (this treatment, both systems; no dedicated trials.csv columns for LFM/SFM/RFM/LDM/SDM/RDM/Node number — Height and Leaf number ARE dedicated columns and hold the AP-side value only, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; HYD-side Height/Leaf given here for reference): LFM AP 213 +/- 8 / HYD 340 +/- 14 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SFM AP 230 +/- 26 / HYD 328 +/- 32 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RFM AP 161 +/- 15 / HYD 262 +/- 23 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); LDM AP 53 +/- 1.5 / HYD 109 +/- 7.6 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); SDM AP 36.6 +/- 3.2 / HYD 50.0 +/- 1.4 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); RDM AP 29.5 +/- 1.1 / HYD 29.5 +/- 1.0 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Node no. AP 13.7 +/- 0.7 / HYD 12.3 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Leaf no. (HYD side, AP side used in Leaf count cell) AP 17.0 +/- 3.2 / HYD 23.7 +/- 0.3 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm); Height (HYD side, AP side used in Plant height cell) AP 200 +/- 29 / HYD 252 +/- 6 g plant-1 (Node no.: count plant-1; Height: cm). Fig. 2 (cluster number), Fig. 3 (fruit number) and Fig. 4 (yield, g plant-1) for this treatment are bar-chart-only with Duncan letters and no numbers anywhere in text or a table — per the never-read-a-figure rule these are NR in the AP/HYD/Plant fresh weight cells; qualitative pattern only is given in the note body. | NO COLUMN Table 4 old-leaf SPAD and Fv/Fm (young-leaf SPAD used in SPAD (aquaponics) cell per judgment call, see note Extraction notes): SPAD old leaves AP 33.92+/-1.41 / HYD 34.55+/-1.80; Fv/Fm old leaves AP 0.657+/-0.037 / HYD 0.697+/-0.019; Fv/Fm young leaves AP 0.710+/-0.010 / HYD 0.727+/-0.009 (dimensionless quantum yield, no plant.csv category fits fluorescence parameters, excluded per precedent in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). HYD-side SPAD (young leaves, used in plant.csv), Chl a, Chl b, Carotenoid values are in plant.csv (System=HYD) for this trial. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: none required beyond the mS/cm=dS/m equivalence noted above (not a numeric conversion, unit-label typo only). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Total Feed (kg) (FCR 1.43 and per-species harvest masses given, but total feed consumed in kg never stated; computing it would be derivation); Fish biomass created (kg) (only per-m3 production and per-fish mean masses given, no total population biomass gain stated); Fish weight gain (only initial-mass RANGE (160-180 g) and final per-species MEANS given, no single stated per-fish gain); Fish trial duration (days) (paper states ‘cultured for 6 months’ but never restates this as an exact day count; 6-month-to-days conversion would require assuming a month length, unlike the SCHEMA-permitted week-to-day conversion which has a fixed 7-day factor — left NR, ‘6 months’ preserved here); Plants/m2 (8 plants per growth bed unit stated, but growth bed area/m2 never given); Water recycle L/min (pump runs continuously but no flow rate stated); Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter as single per-plant totals (only per-organ LFM/SFM/RFM and LDM/SDM/RDM given, see NO COLUMN above; summing would be derivation). | [not reported] fields, this trial: Fish Category, Plant Category, N (feed), K (feed), SGR, Fish size final (per-fish single value; only per-species means given, see SHARED remarks), Fish survival rate is reported (100%) so not NR, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Lat, Long, Artificial Lighting. | Nutrient supplemented cell for this trial documents the FOLIAR treatment that defines this row (Cu); Iron supplemented cell documents the separate, constant root-zone Fe-EDDHA baseline applied to all 8 aquaponic trials alike — the two are independent and both apply when nutrient=Cu.

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	40.08 ± 0.65	SPAD units	a-d	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	29.45 ± 1.34	SPAD units	e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1502 ± 37	nmol/g leaf FW	a-c	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	668 ± 8	nmol/g leaf FW	c-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	168 ± 2	nmol/g leaf FW	b-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	34.47 ± 2.51	SPAD units	e	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	32.02 ± 1.46	SPAD units	a-e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1276 ± 18	nmol/g leaf FW	cd	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	596 ± 48	nmol/g leaf FW	ef	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	153 ± 2	nmol/g leaf FW	d-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	44.33 ± 1.57	SPAD units	ab	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	30.57 ± 1.62	SPAD units	c-e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1490 ± 34	nmol/g leaf FW	a-c	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	693 ± 48	nmol/g leaf FW	c-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	173 ± 8	nmol/g leaf FW	b-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	44.90 ± 1.42	SPAD units	a	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	35.38 ± 0.85	SPAD units	ab	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1731 ± 128	nmol/g leaf FW	a	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	1352 ± 73	nmol/g leaf FW	a	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	169 ± 1	nmol/g leaf FW	b-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	42.67 ± 1.76	SPAD units	a-c	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	29.48 ± 1.71	SPAD units	e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1477 ± 5	nmol/g leaf FW	a-d	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	655 ± 23	nmol/g leaf FW	d-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	168 ± 3	nmol/g leaf FW	b-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	32.97 ± 1.57	SPAD units	f	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	35.96 ± 0.63	SPAD units	a	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1378 ± 65	nmol/g leaf FW	b-d	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	639 ± 38	nmol/g leaf FW	d-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	134 ± 1	nmol/g leaf FW	fg	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	43.85 ± 1.64	SPAD units	ab	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	31.47 ± 0.77	SPAD units	b-e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1726 ± 15	nmol/g leaf FW	a	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	794 ± 17	nmol/g leaf FW	c	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	189 ± 4	nmol/g leaf FW	b	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	35.67 ± 0.67	SPAD units	d-f	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	32.10 ± 0.87	SPAD units	a-e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1244 ± 73	nmol/g leaf FW	cd	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	583 ± 15	nmol/g leaf FW	f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	150 ± 4	nmol/g leaf FW	ef	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	44.17 ± 2.37	SPAD units	ab	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	29.78 ± 0.52	SPAD units	d-e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1427 ± 62	nmol/g leaf FW	b-d	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	662 ± 30	nmol/g leaf FW	d-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	162 ± 8	nmol/g leaf FW	c-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	37.58 ± 1.49	SPAD units	c-f	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	34.07 ± 1.28	SPAD units	a-c	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1595 ± 31	nmol/g leaf FW	ab	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	757 ± 28	nmol/g leaf FW	cd	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	175 ± 5	nmol/g leaf FW	b-d	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	43.90 ± 2.23	SPAD units	ab	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	28.27 ± 1.19	SPAD units	e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1449 ± 202	nmol/g leaf FW	b-d	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	683 ± 41	nmol/g leaf FW	c-f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	227 ± 5	nmol/g leaf FW	a	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	45.25 ± 0.91	SPAD units	a	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	33.77 ± 0.39	SPAD units	a-d	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1607 ± 46	nmol/g leaf FW	ab	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	918 ± 75	nmol/g leaf FW	b	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	127 ± 6	nmol/g leaf FW	g	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	39.92 ± 2.50	SPAD units	a-d	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	32.43 ± 0.36	SPAD units	a-e	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1224 ± 110	nmol/g leaf FW	d	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	621 ± 40	nmol/g leaf FW	ef	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	158 ± 9	nmol/g leaf FW	c-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	35.67 ± 0.33	SPAD units	d-f	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	34.18 ± 1.60	SPAD units	a-c	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1559 ± 36	nmol/g leaf FW	ab	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	579 ± 9	nmol/g leaf FW	f	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	232 ± 19	nmol/g leaf FW	a	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	39.17 ± 1.31	SPAD units	b-e	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	AP	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	33.92 ± 1.41	SPAD units	a-d	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1642 ± 59	nmol/g leaf FW	ab	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	597 ± 27	nmol/g leaf FW	ef	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	AP	biochemistry	Carotenoids	149 ± 3	nmol/g leaf FW	e-g	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (young leaves)	37.65 ± 1.60	SPAD units	c-f	Table 4, young leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	HYD	biochemistry	SPAD (old leaves)	34.55 ± 1.80	SPAD units	a-c	Table 4, old leaves
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	1563 ± 13	nmol/g leaf FW	ab	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	724 ± 22	nmol/g leaf FW	c-e	Table 4
roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8	HYD	biochemistry	Carotenoids	180 ± 9	nmol/g leaf FW	bc	Table 4

Quartz 5

Explorer

Effects of foliar application of some macro- and micro-nutrients on tomato plants in aquaponic and hydroponic systems

Effects of foliar application of some macro- and micro-nutrients on tomato plants in aquaponic and hydroponic systems

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Vegetative growth (biomass, height, node/leaf number)

Reproductive growth: cluster number, fruit number, yield

Water quality and system chemistry

Chlorophyll, SPAD and fluorescence

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T1

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T2

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T3

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T4

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T5

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T6

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T7

roostaEffectsFoliarApplication2011-T8

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks